Picture the first minute, hour, day, week, month, year after Hillary gets the nomination...

[RiverStone]

There was an interesting show a couple of weeks ago on the National Geographic Channel which ran a fictional simulation of what would happen on our planet if suddenly all the people disappeared. With some good research, and cool computer graphics, we watch all that transpired starting with the first minute - up to 25,000 years later. Lets just say in the end, mother nature restored balance.

If the Hillary strategy were to prevail on the convention floor this summer in Denver, what do you think will happen? Can you imagine the first minute after Hillary is announced the nominee via an over-ride of the pledged delegates and popular vote? The first hour? The first day? Week, month, year, 10 years?

The first minute would by dominated by rage, shouts, boos, and chaos - all on national television. The order needed for Hillary to make an acceptance speech would be impossible to achieve. The next hour would be dominated by massive walk outs on the convention floor and protests in the streets. The next day would be constant news coverage of disillusioned democratic party statesmen and stateswomen either sharing their disgust, or pleading with the party faithful to hang in there. The next week the blogosphere will be filled with mass defections, rants, and shouts of being ripped off. There would be staged and planned protests all over the country. It will be reminiscent of the SCOTUS stealing the 2000 election, but far worse for our party. The next month would mark huge polling drops in Democratic support from young voters, African Americans, progressives, and many more. The few months leading up to the GE would not only mark a loss in the presidential election, but very possibly a loss of the Democratic majorities on The Hill. And in the next decade, the party would be reeling still from the toxic fallout of a scorched earth convention battle that tore the party apart.

Barack Obama very well may attempt another run in 2012 - but the cynicism and defections from the party would leave his chances marginalized to such a degree that it may not be worth it.

John McCain would be president and continue Shrub's arrogant, illegal, and destructive policies for another 8 years.

**********

There you have have it. Just one voter's best guess of the minutes, days, weeks, months, and years after Hillary Clinton is awarded the nomination against the will of the pledged delegates and the popular vote. I really do not think I am exaggerating, though I'm sure others will have entirely different future simulations.

Of course, my sincere hope and expectation is this will never happen. Barack Obama will win outright on the first roll call. He will go on to handily beat John McCain in the GE. Our party will unite and gain deeper majorities on The Hill. Our country and the world will be better for it -and so will we. That is my hope! :)

[DJ13]

1. uh

[pbca]

2. Obama could try in 2012

but maybe not as a Dem. - you're forgetting that all of those ex-Dems would be looking for a new party, whether it's one that exists as a 3rd party now, or a brand new one. My guess is that by 2012 that party, whatever it is, would be outpolling the Dems (especially in urban areas).

[roguevalley]

18. ha, this is too funny. third parties?

[enid602]

20. spoiled

Of course; if I can't have it now, nobody can!!! On the other hand, however I'm not sure we're ready for yet another 'boy king.'

[pbca]

25. It doesn't happen often

But it does happen. One of the major parties becomes obsolete and is replaced - like the emergence of the Republicans before the Civil War.

If the Dems nominate Hillary I think it will cause a huge rift in the Democratic party. Millions will abandon the Dems and they will be looking for a new place to put their votes.

[knight_of_the_star]

3. You are assuming she wins by the Supers

That's a big assumption to make, the primaries aren't over yet.

[RiverStone]

4. Your are correct, I am making that assumption...

And think it is the only way she could win the nomination.

[Benhurst]

14. And it's the only way Obama can win. Whichever one of them wins the

nomination will do so by being pushed over the finish line by Super Delegates.

[RiverStone]

17. But only one will win...

With the tide of the pledged delegates in his favor. The other would win against the tide.

That is a big difference.

[knight_of_the_star]

22. I wouldn't call approximately 100 delegates up

Winning with the tide on your side

[joshcryer]

31. Especially if your pledged delegates are "cheaper" than your opponents.

See my sigline.

[Benhurst]

27. Historically, many candidates have come into Democratic conventions with pluralities

and lost. The rules could have easily been written to allow the candidate with a plurality to win automatically, but obviously it was thought a candidate who could not win a majority (which is true of both Clinton and Obama in this contest) wasn't strong enough to be given the nomination without further consideration.

While many may not like the fact that a plurality of elected delegates is not sufficient to win, those are the rules.

Neither Obama nor Clinton will have won under the rules without the votes of unelected Delegates. A plurality is not "the will of the people." But any combination of elected and unelected delegates which pushes a candidate over the finish line will represent the "will of the convention."

Will the other candidate's people feel cheated? You bet. Will the party be divided? You bet. Will it come back together? Who knows? It almost did in 1968, but failed to do so in time for the election.

Rather than the partisans of Clinton and Obama being angry with each other, they ought to direct their ire at our party's leadership (including Obama and Clinton) which created this terribly flawed process. And while they are are at it, they ought to wonder why the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been shredded without protest --to say noting of being given support-- from the same people, why the war in Iraq continues to be funded, and why no major effort hasn't been made since the 2006 elections for national health. Do you think if Newt Gingrich had been in Nancy Pelosi's position these past two years all the issues he (wrongly) stands for would have been "off the table"?

[joshcryer]

30. If the pledged delegate split is no more than 10% then it won't fucking matter.

People don't understand. 100 pledged delegates means *shit*. It's a tie at that point.

[Benhurst]

38. True, but both sides are trying to put a moral spin on what is a

highly flawed and undemocratic process. The will of the people be damned. Neither, at this rate, would be able to win a People's Choice Award.

[gcomeau]

6. It's an assumption...

...to roughly the same degree as "someone will die today" is an assumption. Yeah, we could go 24 hours without a single wold-wide fatality... but it isn't going to happen.

Yeah, Hillary could win every single remaining state with 30 point margins... but it isn't going to happen. Not unless Obama spontaneously combusts.

The only way she wins is through the supers going against the pledged delegates, and if that happens the convention will be a near-riot and the fall-out will sink her in the GE anyway. She cannot win.

[lojasmo]

11. She cannot possibly win more pledged delegates.

Sorry. If you don't understand that, you have no need to be in the intertubes.

[Benhurst]

16. Neither can win the necessary 2025 delegates without using Super Delegates.

According to the rules, pluralities don't count. Both Clinton and Obama will have failed to reach to goal with elected delegates by the end of the primaries. It will take unelected Super Delegates to push the victor over the finish line.

[gcomeau]

28. Rather missing the point.

Just because neither hits 2025 with pledged delegates that doesn't mean the relative pledged delegate totals don't matter. The pledged delegates are based on the voters choice. If one candidate clearly wins that race, and Obama is going to win it, then that is significant. And if after going through months of primaries and millions of votes to reach that point that result is reversed by a couple hundred "party leaders" who give the nomination to the other candidate there will be a massive backlash. Especially in this campaign considering the demographics involved in Obama's supporters.

There is a profound difference between one candidate winning the pledged delegate race then having that result rubberstamped by the supers to put them over the top, and one candidate losing that race and having the supers reverse that outcome and give them the nomination anyway. Anyone who pretends there is no difference just because "neither gets 2024 without super delegates" is being completely disingenuous.

[Benhurst]

29. Maybe you should volunteer to help with the rules for the 2012 election.

Under the present rules pluralities mean nothing. The only number that counts is 2025. Anything less has no more validity than a lottery ticket which is just one number off.

Maybe pluralities should be sufficient. But they aren't according to the rules both Clinton and Obama agreed to.

If pluralities were sufficient, Super Delegates wouldn't be needed. And maybe candidates such as Clinton and Obama who go to the convention having had more Democrats vote against them than for them, should be allowed to cruise over the finish line, awarding it to the one who got more votes and is quite literally, under the rules, the biggest loser.

I personally think in such situations there should have been a provision for a national run-off between the two leading candidates. But obviously the party leadership, including Clinton and Obama, thought the present rules were better. And the rules they chose are the ones we have to use this year.

[gcomeau]

33. Now I suspect you're deliberately missing the point.

...but just in case this is somehow still actually going over your head, let me see if i can simplify this even further:

Yes, they do need 2024.

Yes, I know that's the only number that makes them the nominee.

If you think that just saying "them's the rules, the super's are allowed to do that!" will make millions of voters just go "oh, O.K. then" if the supers overrule the outcome of their voting and give that number to Hillary in a back room deal after she loses the pledged delegate race by over a hundred delegates you're insane.

The super delegates are NOT insane, so they won't do that. The fact that they're allowed to do that doesn't alter that equation.

Is that a little clearer? No rule change is necessary to grasp anything I'm talking about here, the supers are allowed to vote however they want, but in this situation they would have to be brain dead to reverse a clear win in the pledged delegate race with their votes considering the backlash it would generate.

[Benhurst]

37. And you can make that into a rule after the fact, but the Clinton supporters are

not going to accept it. We're headed for a divided party going into the general election, and McCain is headed for the White House.

[gcomeau]

40. Are you even reading my posts before you respond?

What is it with you and the "rules" thing? I'm not talking about the rules and never have been, and I even pointed that out explicitly in my last post.

[Benhurst]

47. "The 'rules' thing." You must be kidding.

I guess you aren't concerned about the "Constitution and Bill of Rights thing" either.

As for the threat of Obama's people staying home, their doing so would prove no worse for our chances than Clinton's people doing so. Either way, John McCain moves into the White House.

All for the egos and ambitions of two flawed candidates and their hyped-up followers. We can only "Hope" such will not be the case, and our "Experience" of the past is not proven true once again.

[gcomeau]

48. That answers that question.

Clearly not reading my posts. Let me try that again:

"I'm not talking about the rules and never have been, and I even pointed that out explicitly in my last post."

[Benhurst]

49. Your musings exist in a Never Never Land of your own making.

In the real world, rules and laws do matter.

Speculation which ignores them is little more than an exercise in the theater of the absurd.

[gcomeau]

52. For god's sake...

"In the real world, rules and laws do matter."

Let me say this one last time.

I. Am. Not.


"not"... you understand "not"? We good?


Not. Talking. About. The. Rules.

So why the hell are you telling me the rules matter over and over and over every time I point that out to you? I'm not saying they don't. I'm not talking about them at all. Clue in. Yes, it is within the rules for the supers to vote however they want. Not denying it, not caring. I was talking about the reasoning they would employ to make their decision and why they would have to be insane to choose to overturn the pledged delegate vote on behalf of Hillary in this particular situation.

Your responses are pathetic. It's like I'm explaining to you that if you make this move with your knight you're going to be check-mated in 2 moves and the only thing you can come back with it "But I'm allowed to move my knight there! I'm allowed I'm allowed I'm allowed! The rules SAY SO!!!"

Get the damn point already. NOT talking about the rules. Yes, you can move there. If you do you're dead. Get it?

[ieoeja]

35. Actually, he is talking about a majority.

The Supers were put in place for the reason you state, nobody winning a majority. Had Edwards continued, we could have seen something like:

45% - Obama
43% - Clinton
11% - Edwards
1% - Other

In that scenario, nobody has a majority. Obama would argue that he won more than any single other candidate and should be the nominee. Clinton would point out that Obama did not win a clear majority, so the people have not, in fact, decided. Add to that the argument that Obama ran a 50-state campaign to her limited campaign (and that it's "her turn"), and the Supers would probably go for Clinton.

But we do not have that scenario, do we? Instead we are going to see Obama entering the convention, not just with more delegates than anyone else, but an actual majority of the delegates chosen by the people.

Psychologically, that is a significant difference. When one candidate wins an actual majority of the states, majority of the delegates and majority of the popular vote, the party bosses coming in and overruling it will absolutely be seen by many if not most people as stealing the election.

I don't know why some people can not see that. Were Clinton winning I would be terribly unhappy with the results of the election. And at the moment I'd want Obama to continue all the way through the primaries hoping for a miracle (I don't have a problem with Clinton doing so either). But no way in hell would I argue that the Supers should change the outcome if Clinton actually won.

In fact, I would be making the same argument I am now. That overturning the results of the election would be devastating for the Democratic Party.

[joshcryer]

32. No, people mistakingly put too much weight on "pledged delegates."

When the process is as close as it is pledged delegates are one of many considerations that super delegates will decide upon. The rules are clear. If there's no super majority then the super delegates decide. Being up by one vote does not count in this instance.

[lojasmo]

46. The question was regarding PLEDGED DELEGATES

The poster suggested she could possibly take the lead in PLEDGED DELEGATES. She Cannot.

[bunnies]

5. I choose not to suffer future pain.

Theres enough of it in the present.

[RiverStone]

7. We may approach a crossroads and people will need to make a choice...

I prefer to see it as providing a clue as to what is down one road vs the other. Make a choice (or not). Eyes wide open or eyes wide shut?


peace~:hi:

[elixir]

8. I am so ready for 1/20/09 and Hillary's inauguration.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. ... so vote for Obama, or else!

Quite a Hopeful alternative, right?

Now, suppose she gets the popular vote? By a lot. By a million or more. Unlike the 65% she needs for the delegates to keep up with Obama's current level of 2023 pledged delegates (well, that's what Obama supporters here appear to think), she'd only need about 55% of the remaining popular vote to take the overall popular vote by a comfortable margin. And then people will start to wonder why Team Obama put so much effort into blocking the FL and MI primaries.

Remember 2000? The press was a-twitter with the prospect that have-a-beer-with-Bush would win the popular vote, but mean old Gore would steal the election by winning the electoral vote. The opposite happened, enhanced by a little voter suppression, the press, the SCOTUS, and several thousand lawyers who threw it to Bush.

Face it -- no matter what happens, the mob that has turned on Hillary will not stop for any reason. She could win everything between now and the convention, and the Official Meme will be that she stole it thorough some super-secret method of deceit. ALL damage from whatever source will be blamed on Team Hillary. So in this sense, Hillary can't win, even if she wins big.

And Obama could, indeed, win it on the first call. He probably will win it on the first call. The threat is just too great to risk the Obama faction NOT getting what they want. But if Hillary has more popular votes, we may be looking at the same scenario, only with the sides reversed.

That's exactly what Obama supporters fear the most -- that they can't shut her down, and that she actually can win the primary. You SAY it's an inevitable win for Obama, yet you still are moving heaven and earth to destroy the very person you say can't win at all.

Pretty messed up, isn't it? Well, the "it's all Hillary's fault" excuse may fly here, but not in reality. You'd better make sure you can destroy her completely.

For the good of the country, of course.

--p!

[RiverStone]

10. Per the OP, I am hopeful...

And sorry, I see little wiggle room when we have a candidate who has already won 2X's the states, a virtual lock of the pledged delegate majority, and over 700K in legal popular votes.

All the while every day this destructive trench-war goes on, McBush is sitting on his war mongering ass resting up and getting no negative publicity.

Some may see my scenario silly, but if enough super delegates of sound mind and reason see it as a possibility - they may do the right thing for our party and end this before this potential explosion at the convention.

[Dogmudgeon]

24. If Hillary has no chance, why continue that same trench war?

If she has no power over the political process, the outcome, the election, or anything else, why not suspend the fury and the frenzy?

It only makes sense one way -- the "Hillary can't win" talking point is a form of political whistling past the graveyard. You can threaten (more) political violence, invoke the scenario of loss, and question people's sanity until the cows come home, but if Hillary has a chance, Team Obama has no moral right to try to intimidate her into capitulation.

Would YOU support a presidential candidate who would capitulate to a worried crowd with a low frustration tolerance?

The "right thing for the party" is not to hold a coronation for King Obama. (And how many times have I heard the term "Queen Hillary" around here, spat out like a plug of bad tobacco?) I'm not sure that Obama himself would consent to it.

Your scenario is only "silly" in that it is a reflection of your desires. We all do that, and my scenario is no different. Recent history seems to enjoy throwing a spanner into the works, and today's sure thing is tomorrow's jetpack-and-monorail combo.

--p!

[Benhurst]

39. Yeah, democracy in unruly and dangerous.

Maybe the Republican right-wingers have been right all along and we should be called the Democrat party. Small "d" democracy sure doesn't seem to have much of a following around here.

Save us, party leaders! Save us! The absurdly complicated and unfair primary process you gave us isn't working, so do whatever you need to do to shut the process down.

[Xithras]

12. My take...

One minute: The Obama supporters are crying into their hands, while Hillary's supporters cheer their heads off.

One Hour: The TV talking heads churn nonstop about the backroom deals she must have pulled to secure the nomination. The media paints her immediately as the corrupt candidate.

One Day: Protests break out across the country. Major party donors threaten defection, and serious talks begin about splitting the party. Obama himself goes on TV pledging unity, and urges his supporters to move past their disappointment and support the parties candidate.

One Week: The first real poll numbers come out indicating a huge plunge in support for the Democratic party. Hillary responds by attempting to pin blame on Obama and the "divisive politics" of the primary. She urges more unity and tells a story about once running to a campaign rally while dodging sniper fire.

One Month: 85% of Obama's supporters come to their senses and realize that if they don't vote for Hillary, they'll be dealing with old man McCain for the next two years, and President Rice for the two years after that. Hillary's poll numbers start recovering well.

One Year: It's 3AM, and the ringing red phone is going unanswered because President McCain took his hearing aid out before going to bed. 85% wasn't enough.

[lojasmo]

15. Sounds pretty close. EOM

[lapfog_1]

21. 85 % is WAAAY too high

try 40 %, maybe.

African Americans will never forgive the party, and the young voters will simply go back to their apathetic ways and not show up... and even this older white middle class voter will sit on my hands rather than vote for someone who isn't a Democrat, no matter what letter appears after her name.

[Benhurst]

23. Nice take. And since the Clinton people are going to feel cheated

if Obama is pushed over the finish line with Super Delegates (which he, as well as Clinton, will have to use in order to win) it can be reversed and played through with Clinton supporters holding back votes from Obama.

The primary process has proved to be a disaster. Such a close election between just two candidates obviously wasn't anticipated. First order of business on November 5, win or lose, should be reforming the primary process for 2012.

Our leaders, including Clinton and Obama who certainly could have raised objections about the process, have screwed up royally and created a time-bomb ticking away, which may very well divide the party for the general election.

As it stands, whichever candidate is nominated, the followers of the losing candidate are going to feel cheated.

[ashrob123]

13. You forgot

to mention that every Republican between the ages of 18 and 120 will walk, run, crawl, roll and crutch to the polls to make sure that McCain wins. Her as the Democratic nominee will surely raise Republicans dead in their grave for decades to make sure that she never sees the inside of the White House again.

[Usrename]

19. I see Tallahassee burning.

People have been pushed past their limits already in this descent into fascism. I don't think this would wear very well.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. Interesting argument. Don't nominate Hillary because her opponents are sore losers.

News flash: this nominating process has harmed the party. The damage is already done.

The best we can hope for is that we come together 'round the nominee as best we can. As your op points out, you and many of your fellow supporters have no intention of doing that if its anyone other than your guy.

I hold Obama in rather high regard. WWBOD?

[Vinca]

34. And Vinca would be shopping for Canadian real estate. nt

[adoraz]

36. thank you

this is exactly why even if Hillary wins the nomination, there is no way should would beat McCain. She is losing to McCain right now, but if she steals the nomination and destroys Obama, she would lose the GE by huge margins.

[pompano]

41. If Hillary won?... who me?

I guess I would go to all the neocon celebrations, try to blend in and drink the free beer. :shrug:

[pompano]

43. Or....

Wake up the next day and hear my S/O say " Honey, here is your raincoat, rush along to India, your a little late for work" :cry:

[DeadElephant_ORG]

42. THANK YOU! The whole f---ing MESS would be on TV from the convention to Election Day!

Hillary supporters are completely in denial about the consequences of their grasping panting dogged REFUSAL to support the interests of the PARTY.

[totodeinhere]

44. There would probably be violent rioting in African American neighborhoods...

all over the country. The rage among African Americans would be so great that the Democratic Party might well lose the AA vote for years to come. And without the AA vote going for the Dem nominee McCain wins in a cake walk.

[theredpen]

45. I've booked a hotel room in Denver

I'll cancel it when Obama is nominated, but if Clinton is nominated, I'll be there protesting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Alright.

First minute: Monkeys fly out my butt.

First hour: Flying pigs gain air superiority over flying monkeys.

First day: President Kerry calls Clinton to congratulate her.

First week: Dejected Obama returns to his African homeland of Indonesia, where he plots with other Islamic terrorists on his revenge.

First month: Bosnia snipers surrender to U.S. forces.

First year: Due to the complete nonexistance of global warming, Hell finally freezes over.

[TeamsterDem]

51. Wonderful post

It's important to take this thing to its logical conclusion. If HRC is able to sway the superdelegates her way then it's almost guaranteed that everything you said would happen. And while I support the right of every HRC supporter to do just that (support her), I think there eventually comes a time to face cold hard facts.