The Superdelegates should take into account ONLY DEMOCRATIC VOTER totals

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Not delegates and not "Democrat for a day" bullshit cross over primary and caucus voters.

Their vote should depend on DEMOCRATIC VOTER totals

[joshcryer]

1. But... but... caucuses wouldn't be counted.

[Bitwit1234]

2. Illegal caucus counts all over the country. We don't know if

THOSE TOTALS were correct...Now if he loses and manages to get more super delegates votes then his supporters will change the rules the other way...they are so desperate they will join bush in shredding the constitution, bill or rights and anything that stands in his way.

[joshcryer]

6. If his supporters change their mind about superdelegates, I will call them on it... since Obama...

...said that he felt superdelegates should vote for the one with the most pledged delegates.

[AX10]

15. kick

[ShadowLiberal]

3. They should vote for the candidate who stands the best shot at winning

I'm sorry if I sound undemocratic here, but remember when Gary Hart was grabbing up the delegates but lost from the super delegates voting for the establishment candidate? We got totally wiped out that election, winning only like one states. We need an a candidate who can appeal to the independents who decide elections, not someone who appeals just to democrats, unless your happy nominating someone like a Ted Kennedy in Texas knowing that they're going to lose anyway because only democrats like him.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

5. Why not just poll Republicans too and take that into account

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Walter Mondale

won the vote, AND the pledged delegates in that election.

For some reason, a number of people here keep claiming that the superdelegates shifted the nomination to Mondale. If there had been no superdelegates at all, Mondale would still have won.

[Hart2008]

16. Walter Mondale lost 49 states and Hart and Jackson combined for more delegates.

Considering that Hart won 26 states in '84, your claim that Mondale had more pledged delegates and "won the vote" remains unsourced and unsubstantiated.

I don't want to continue this ongoing argument, but you continue to spout nonsense.

Mondale needed almost every superdelegate there was to win that nomination, aprox. 560 superdelegates, plus some of John Glenn's delegates.

Hart and Jackson combined for more delegates, so for you to say that Mondale would have won without the superdelegates is a load of buffalo chips.

The superdelegates where created to prevent another 49 state loss like in '72.

Mondale's loss in '84 was even more lopsided in the Electoral College than McGovern's, and the Dem's failed to take the Senate in '84.

The superdelegates failed badly in '84, but you, for some strange reason, think that the '84 convention was a success.

:hurts:

[MonkeyFunk]

17. sigh

you keep pushing this shit.

The superdelegates went with the candidate who got the most votes, AND the most pledged delegates. NOBODY was going to beat Reagan in '84, and you have no way of knowing that Hart would've done any better than mondale.

[Hart2008]

19. Sí! Mondale lost 30 primaries and then 49 states in November!

Here's the map from the primaries again:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/8088/Dem1984.html

Chuck Todd was on Meet the Press today talking about how Mondale was stealing delegates at state conventions after he lost the earlier caucuses.

Mondale may have been a nobody in your opinion, but Hart was the clear leader in the polls up to the convention. In some Hart was, in fact, beating Reagan. Polls are what we use when we handicap political races, and Mondale was dying in them.

Nominating Mondale was utter stupidity in '84, and this year Hillary Clinton is the new Mondale.

Can she lose all 50?

Why do you want to try to find out?

[CaptJasHook]

13. Yes that does sound undemocratic

It is time for the people to speak in this country, not the establishment. We have been establishmented (I know that is not a word) for way too long. And it continues to get worse.

[Renew Deal]

4. There's no way to quantify it.

There's no way to measure the numbers of people that showed up at caucuses. Word is that Obama got 50% of the caucusers in Iowa, but it only equated to 38% of the state delegates.

Also, there is no way to quantify the Democrat for a day crowd. Many of them will stay Democrats.

The only way to do it is by pledged delegates.

[joshcryer]

7. Caucuses don't represent whole populations by any means.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. They can do it where it can be quantified. Democratic voters should be the controlling authority

[democrattotheend]

22. It can't be quantified anywhere

Secretaries of state don't release how many of the votes candidates got came from registered Democrats as opposed to independents or Republicans. Doing so would be a violation of the secret ballot.

And how do you count a state like Virginia, where there is no such thing as party registration?

I guess we could go by exit polls, if we want only the votes of 1 out of 20 voters in select polling locations to be our basis for deciding.

Except that still would not solve the problem of the caucus states, for which there are no exit polls (except Iowa and Nevada).

[jenmito]

9. NO THEY SHOULDN'T! They should take into account the person who has the most support!

It's too bad your girl wouldn't get any Independent nor Republican votes, but Obama would. It's GOOD to bring more people to our side!

[jefferson_dem]

10. Stupid OP. This is the DEMOCRATIC nomination process.

Only votes cast in primaries or caucuses organized by the respective state DEMOCRATIC Parties will be considered at the convention, by rank-in-file DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATIC super-delegates, and DEMOCRATIC Party organizations.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I know some registered independents who are more loyal Democrats than some registered Democrats

In a country where party affiliation means checking a box it, closed primaries are incredibly stupid. If party membership involved paying dues or working a certain amount of hours for the party it would be a different story.

[hedgehog]

14. My husband is a registered Republican who always votes for the

Democratic candidate in state and national elections. We live in a rural area where the Republican primary is the de facto election for town offices. To show you how screwed up things can get in New York State, last time around the head of the County Democrats endorsed the Republican candidate for county legislator. It was only after the endorsement that someone stepped ofrward with enough signitures to run on the Democratic line.

[Nailzberg]

18. I'm what you would call a "Democrat for a day"

I checked Decline to State on my registration because its the only way to avoid the phone calls and mailers.

Living in IL and now CA, I've never had to register party affiliation to vote, so I never have. I've been a strong Dem my entire life, and have only voted for a Repub once in a local election, and she is more liberal than several Dems I've seen.

I don't know why you are arguing to reduce interest in the party. We can't keep playing 50% + 1 and hoping to change things. The left is poised to win back all the swing voters who were torn away by Reagan. We can bring them back and we can build on progressive ideals, or we can shit on them and pray they'll vote Dem in November anyway, but that's not likely.

[democrattotheend]

21. My mom is the same way, mostly

She changed her registration from Democrat to independent in the mid-90's because she was disappointed with Clinton, but she has voted Democratic in just about every election she's ever voted in. Fortunately, due to a change in New Jersey's rules, she was able to reaffiliate as a Dem at the polls and vote in the primary, after originally thinking she'd be shut out.

[democrattotheend]

20. That may be impossible

A lot of the caucus states don't release vote totals, and I don't think the primary states break down the actual vote totals by party registration. Doing so might be a violation of the secret ballot. They know how many people registered in each party voted, but they don't know how that vote broke down. So are we going to base the decision on exit polls, giving only 1 out of 20 voters in select precincts the sole discretion over the nominee? And how do you factor in caucus states, many of which don't release vote totals, and for which there are no exit polls (except Iowa and Nevada)?