Open question to the Hillary supporters

[ButterflyBlood]

Right now, it is virtually mathematically impossible for Hillary to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. She would need over 58% of all future delegates, and that would mean well over 60% in Ohio and Texas, where she's currently below that and falling like a rock.

Therefore it appears the only way Hillary wins the nomination and overtakes Obama in delegates is if she can sway over his pledged delegates or the superdelegates turn to her in droves. Neither one is at all likely (especially the former), but assuming it does, are you happy? Do you want her to take the nomination so badly she has to do it through such underhanded non-democratic means?

I know a former Hillary supporter. He supported her for most of the campaign and voted for her. He still believes she'd make the best president of those running, but also believes she should drop out now since there's no way she can overtake Obama through democratic means, and doesn't want her to usurp the nomination in such a manner, which he also believes (probably correctly) would result in tons of Obama supporters staying home and a McCain landslide. He also doesn't want her dragging this out and that it's time to unite around Obama.

So do you seriously want the party to buck the will of the people and effectively just nullify the results and go ahead and anoint Hillary? That strikes me as no better than what the Supreme Court did in 2000.

[anamandujano]

1. Are you happy with the Repuke cross-over voters who have

meddled in every single one of our open primaries and caucuses.

My answer is the same of yours.

[ButterflyBlood]

2. See Maryland

Closed primary, Obama with 60%. Obama won all groups in Wisconsin, including Democrats. The effect is quite overstated.

[anamandujano]

8. What about the other states? The effect is not overstated and I

see you are quite please about it.

You have my answer to your original question.

[Blue State Bandit]

23. We as a party were just as guilty In the MI Repub Primaries

when we promoted cross-over voting for Mittens over Mc Cain.

The difference here is, I heard no calls by the Republicans to organize such a conspiracy.

[LeftCoast]

3. I don't believe she'll do that.

I think she's hoping to regain momentum in the next primary or two and is hoping for an Obama fumble. At this point the two are numerically fairly even, but Obama clearly has the mo.

[rodeodance]

19. There is thread telling Hillary Supp. to stop the fear mongling--this is just another

post doing the same.


I agree, she will not do that.

[MADem]

4. Gee, we could always count the votes, and check those raw numbers...

That might provide clarity.

Or maybe not. Those caucus states are awfully muddy.

It's a lousy system for picking a candidate, and it's the state parties' faults, IMO.

We should close our primaries, and prevent mischief making on the part of the GOP.

Why not get rid of the delegates ENTIRELY, then, and see how it shakes out?

And why not let the system takes its course...instead of trying to push a candidate off the stage before the process has played out?

What are the Obama supporters AFRAID of?

[ButterflyBlood]

5. The system was in place long before Obama

Nor is it something he can change. If it's flawed, campaign for reform, but don't blame Obama.

And this is worth reading: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/02/hillarys-challe.html

[texas_indy]

7. And it will have to be changed "state by state" since each state decides

for itself how elections will be held in their own state.

Something tells me the ones who want to change it better get started 'cause it's going to take an awful long time.



Texas is Obama country!

[MADem]

13. Where do you come up with the idea that Obama is to blame?

Or that anyone is BLAMING him?


I made an observation about the primary system.

It's a valid one. But I didn't "blame" him and the insinuation that I did is unacceptable.

And that's an interesting cite. With MI and FL, it's close, isn't it?

Let's let the process play out though, and not shove one candidate out the door just so you can start your party early, before everyone has an opportunity to vote. It makes the supporters of the presumptive Anointed One seem a bit over-eager and fearful of something. It also reeks of thuggish, bullying behavior. IMO.

[paperbag_ princess]

30. the superdelegate system was also in place long before these 2 candidates

I would support her and be happy for a win as long as she works within the rules of the system as it is designed. I have no doubt she will play within the rules...the Obama supports are trying to change the rules....

The supers get to vote their conscience and Hillary has every right and obligation to make her case with them if the pledged delegate count is close. People have given their hard earned dollars to her and expect her to fight for what we all think is good for the nation. She should not concede until it is obvious (which most agree would be after losses in TX and OH)

[Johnny__Motown]

6. Representative Democracy, go look it up, that is why we don't get rid of delegates

Also having open primaries helps keep the party closer to the middle (aka main stream)



We are afraid of the scorched earth policy of Hillary Clinton. If she was honest and trustworthy we would not have a problem with it. she isn't.



AND, if the situation were reversed with Obama losing 11 contests in a row, being behind in delegates and popular vote. If Obama had run a terrible campaign and wasted millions of dollars. If Obama was trying to seat delegates that everyone agreed would not count. If Obama's financing was less than half of his opponents. If Obama was spreading lies and distortions and attacking every chance he had then..... well then what would you want to happen?

[texas_indy]

9. Well stated and spot on with the analysis!! (nt)

[Skip Intro]

12. good lord - And Hillary's spreading lies and distortions????

what scorched earth policy of Hillary's?

she's not trustworthy according to who?

why are you afraid of our own system, in place long before Obama?

it's never been about the number of states you win, it's about the number of delegates you have, and who reaches the required number to win.

Dems came out in record numbers in FL - a demand that their votes count for something - we tell them they mean nothing now, they'll repay the favor in November, and we can kiss FL goodbye.

[MADem]

15. I am quite aware of how the system works, but I don't have to like it.

Al Gore got more votes than George Bush.

I like my way better.

And having Open Primaries ensures that we get the candidate the GOP wants us to have--don't kid yourself on that score.

What I want to happen is for all voters to have a chance to weigh in. Not for a bunch of overeager acolytes to make the decision that they don't need to cast a vote because the supporters of the Anointed One know best.

The lack of patience is interesting. What do you have against the process playing out? Why must you try to snatch up the prize now, to grab it before it is earned?

It's an interesting quality and not very attractive.

[cali]

28. Can you provide any evidence for that?

Seriously, what evidence is there to support your claim that having open or semi-open primaries allows the the GOP to ensure that they pick the dem candidate. Because the only people that seem to be claiming anything like that are posters on the internet who support Clinton. Howard Dean doesn't seem worried about it, and somehow I think he knows a bit more about it than you.

[MADem]

31. Look at Nevada as just one example

I can't believe, seriously, that you have NEVER heard of "strategic voting." If you haven't, you're rare.

And it doesn't matter how much "Howard Dean" knows about it.

:eyes:

These decisions, with regard to how primaries are conducted, are taken at the STATE party level, not the national level.

Here's that prominent Nevada example, misspellings and grammatical errors abounding, courtesy of HuffPo:

A campaign flier created by a precinct captain for Sen. Barack Obama urges Nevada Republicans and independents to switch party affiliations "for a day" and caucus in the Democratic primary in order to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton.

[Skip Intro]

10. Great. Post.

Really - great post.

[anamandujano]

11. Losing is something one can come to grips with overtime, losing unfairly,

like this, like 2000, like 2004, is not.

[Der Blaue Engel]

14. Open question to (some) Obama supporters

What makes you think one can only support a candidate that has a certain chance of winning? I supported John Edwards despite the overshadowing of both corporate candidates, even as it was becoming clear that he had very little hope of catching up to them. I voted for him, in fact, after he had suspended his campaign.

I chose Hillary after he bowed out because I felt she represented the better option and I found her to be more inspiring than Obama.

What kind of fairweather cynical opportunist would one have to be to a) switch to the winning candidate simply because they're winning, or b) demand everyone else do the same or ridicule them for standing fast with their candidate and suggesting that they're really hoping for an underhanded election theft?

I find your suggestions repugnant.

edited for repetitious word choice

[MADem]

16. Best post on this entire thread. Thank you for articulating that thought.

I find the bullying annoying, the carping childish, and the whining grating. It's almost enough to drive one to write in Al Gore for the General, if one were actually influenced by the behavior of a few childish thugs on the internet!

[ErnestoG]

17. By all means, don't vote for the Democrat with the best chance.

You will sleep well, as McCain is sworn in. Well done!

[NastyRiffraff]

18. Excellent! Bravo!

And besides...

Obama has nowhere near the required number of delegates to win. Here's the "math": In reality, delegates aren't officially assigned yet. People have Obama anywhere from 5(!) to 140 delegates ahead. Five is too low, 140 probably too high. Either way, it's far from an overwhelming lead.

What makes some of you so anxious for Hillary to drop out, in what is still a close race? I've got to wonder about that.

[rodeodance]

20. "I find your suggestions repugnant."---thanky and this is my message to OP

[Blue State Bandit]

21. If you could indulge me,

I made my decision over Christmas to support Obama, but I do admit that I had to wait till I was convinced that he could carry the party in the GE. So if I am to be tagged as "fair-weather cynical opportunist" so be it. I will proudly where that badge in the best interests of my party. This despite the fact that I take offense to that characterization.

I don't pretend to have some superior "rovian math"; conclusive of an Obama victory. But I have my convictions. And my convictions compel me, just as any supporter of any campaign would be, to attempt to convince others of my particular point of view. If he had lost 11 contests in a row, I would have to search my heart, bite my tongue and ware that badge again, cause I will ultimately side with my party best interests in mind.

If we don't seat, FL and MI, yes they will be disenfranchised (again), but if you do, in the fashion promoted by Hillary Clinton and her official surrogates, the entire country will be disenfranchised (again). Do you see my point? There is more at stake than just the feelings of voters. As a matter of fact I'd be willing to bet that FL and MI Democrats will come out just as strong, if not stronger in the GE no matter how this all plays out. Because they know the stakes.

I will not, in this post, try to convince you to change candidates. I believe that when the time comes, the writing on the wall will be heeded by Senator Clinton, because she to, knows the stakes.

It is my hope that you too, will realize the stakes, and make your choice out of in the interest of the party, and our country. Not because some lowly Obama supporter may have insulted your pride.

We are not all assholes, not all enemies, just patriot who differ.

[Der Blaue Engel]

22. I'm not sure exactly what you're taking offense at

since I wasn't speaking to people who happened to make up their minds late in the game based on their own reasoning. I addressed my post specifically to "some" Obama supporters, not all, and my objection was to those who would advocate switching one's support from one candidate to another based on nothing more than who appeared to be the winning team at a given point in time.

No one has insulted my "pride," they've insulted my intelligence and integrity. I don't see any reason you should feel I've insulted yours by objecting to the condescending and accusative tone of the OP. I'm merely tired of being told that my refusal to support Obama makes me some kind of freeper. It's really getting that silly around here.

At any rate, I think some may have missed the part where I already voted for Edwards, so there's no "choice" for me to make.

[Blue State Bandit]

24. If Hill gets the nod, I will do just that...

support Hillary because she was winning.

[Blue State Bandit]

27. It is my understanding that the question in the post is

would you support overturning a lead in pledge count/raw vote count by certifying FL and MI and/or super "d"'s in Denver. Would you feel comfortable with such action?

I see no "why don't you just give up" references in this OP. How is this not a fair question?

I would pose one for you, would you understand why Obama supporters would be inclined to not vote or vote Inde in the GE if he were to hold such a lead and be overturned in such a manor? Would you feel betrayed, and if so, by whom?

I ask because such an action may cut a full 1/3 of the Democratic electorate out, leave them on the couch on election day.

On edit: I don't particularly ccare for the tone of many cock-sure Obama supporters, as well as the reactionary defensive tone of many Clinton supporters. Clean hands are not any one sides hi-ground.

I have attempted to give honest answers to a question that I find, reactionary.

[NastyRiffraff]

25. No, you're not all assholes or enemies...

You're not, at least, and that's true of many of Obama's supporters.

But, if I see one more thread about how Hillary should drop out, right now!! for the good of the party!! I'm gonna start bolding instead of italicizing.

It's getting old, as well as lame. I doubt those who are doing it have changed one mind. In fact, just the opposite...it makes people dig in their heals because of the arrogance.

[Der Blaue Engel]

26. OT: I adore that picture of Elizabeth and John

The obvious love between Democratic candidates and their spouses vs. Republic candidates and their icy trophy wives is just amazing. It should say something to the undecided voters, if nothing else does.

[Yossariant]

29. The DNC RULE is that they need 2025 delegates to win. Yawn.

Maybe Obama should have dropped out when Clinton was ahead by more than he is ahead now.

The desperation of his supporters is boundless.

The cherry-picking by demanding that some RULES are enforced while other RULES are ignored is hilarious.

Keep up the good work. I love to laugh.

:rofl:

[MADem]

32. It's not just desperation, it is a sense of vicious "fuck you" entitlement.

It's rather off-putting, too. You've got to figure that they're getting these marching orders from some asshole or another up the food chain.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. the superdelegates know how to vote to counter the Obama Repulican primary 1 time crossover voters

that's what the super delegates were created for

[MethuenProgressive]

34. Therefore Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick should switch from Obama and vote for Clinton?

"So do you seriously want the party to buck the will of the people and effectively just nullify the results and go ahead and anoint Hillary?"

"anoint"? That language is best saved for Pastor Obama.

[paulk]

35. buck the will of what people?

The independents and crossover Republicans that have given Obama the lead in this race?

I don't understand this call for HRC to drop out now - anything can happen - let this race run it's course.