Hillary's California win is important because of superdelegates

[Herman Munster]

The elected officials in California who are superdelegates will face increasing pressure to support the people's choice. I expect this to play out nationwide. In every state either Obama or Hillary win, the campaigns will put pressure on the superdelegates to back the state's winner. This has the effect of making the big states more important in the selection of the nominee since they have the most superdelegates.

[lligrd]

1. Boxer Supported Obama Long Ago

Am pretty certain hers will go for Obama.

[Clintonista2]

2. Boxer endorsed Clinton today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4425567

[Maddy McCall]

3. She endorsed Hillary tonight.

If I recall correctly, I read that she endorsed Hillary tonight.

[bullimiami]

4. i heard her before the votes were cast, pledge to support the state winner, i guess she did.

[elixir]

26. Oopsie

[Nailzberg]

51. No, she clearly stated she would support the winner in CA

[joshcryer]

5. I agree with this assessment, though if it's close going into the DNC, expect an upset.

[krkaufman]

6. I pray that we don't override the popular candidate with superdelegates. n/t

[harun]

8. Me too, people would be so pissed (n/t)

[krkaufman]

11. Agreed. I don't want my candidate to win that way...

... and I hope the "opposition" feels the same.

[joshcryer]

12. We don't, if it comes to that we'll have a brokered convention.

Even the most diehard superdelegates would jump to a brokered convention.

Al Gore, anyone?

[krkaufman]

14. That won't work. The only solution will be for the pledged delegate leader ...

... to be given the nomination. I just don't see any other solution that wouldn't cause MASSIVE outrage and divisiveness.

[pampango]

21. Whoever has the most elected delegates will have the "moral high ground".

I suppose there may be ways to mollify supporters of that candidate if the superdelegates backed someone else, but it's hard to see how it wouldn't leave a lot of hard feelings.

Supporters of Hillary (women, Hispanics, older voters, etc.) would feel betrayed if they put her in the lead in elected delegates, but she didn't get the nomination. Similarly, Obama's supporters (African Americans, younger voters, anti-war types, etc.) would be likewise very disappointed.

If, on the other hand, the superdelegates confirmed as the winner who ever had the most elected delegates, supporters of the other would be less likely to feel that the nomination had just been "handed" to the other, in spite of everything.

[BootinUp]

23. And what about FL and MI?

[pampango]

25. Ideally they would run contested primaries in late spring or early summer.

South Carolina (and I think a few other states) run two primaries - usually on for us and one for the Republicans.

If they can't or won't (Florida is run by Repubs, so they may not want to pay for another primary), the state parties should conduct caucuses.

These aren't great solutions, but neither is going with the results of uncontested primaries in which everyone agreed there would be no delegates at stake and no campaigning allowed.

[krkaufman]

37. You echo my thoughts.

The superdelegates had better back-up the elected delegates leader -- not counting FL & MI. Otherwise, there are going to be a LOT of very mad and disenfranchised voters who will very likely sit-out the GE. (And I'm not saying "all", just a "lot.")

[joshcryer]

29. It doesn't work that way, some super delegates will be as ardent as pledged.

Others would change their vote at their whim and not be so stuck to their candidate. If the spread is really close (say, 100 or so), then I can't expect a majority to come out of it.

[krkaufman]

42. Hopefully the superdelegates will even-up and...

... and one candidate will pull away, making it all moot.

[indimuse]

13. it is what it is...

...:)

[krkaufman]

17. ... and it isn't what it is not.

... and may be what it could be.

:shrug:

[indimuse]

24. and so on and so on...

time will tell..she IS ahead in delegates and supers..

[skooooo]

33. as it was, so shall it ever be....

..Just trying to keep the metaphors going.

[krkaufman]

36. Not sure about that. Supers, maybe. But not sure about pledged dels. n/t

[AGirl]

16. Let;'s also count the popular will of the people living in Florida and Michigan than.

[krkaufman]

19. I agree. And to do so, we'll need each of those states to conduct elections ...

... in which the competing candidates have the freedom to advertise and campaign throughout each state. Otherwise, you don't have a "free and fair" election conducted by an informed populace, and the "popular will" would be little more than a name recognition poll.

[AGirl]

22. Obama did advertise in Florida.

[riskpeace]

28. True

I saw three commercials for Senator Obama before the primary, compared to none for Senator Clinton.

[krkaufman]

31. Wow. I stand corrected. That sure does sound like a comprehensive campaign.

And don't tell me that Clinton didn't "campaign" or "advertise" in the state. I know better. How much free airtime and positive press did this unethical little ploy get in relation to the 180 seconds you saw? Yeah, I thought so.

Sell the fertilizer to somebody who's buying.

[krkaufman]

34. response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4430191&mesg_id=4432404

[jeffrey_X]

7. any system that uses superdelegates is NOT democratic.

Superdelegates are "party big wigs and elected officials" which means their vote will go to Clinton.

Fuck superdelegates.

[harun]

9. I'll second that F to having superdelegates. They are establishment

and will try to swing it for Hillary any chance they get.

[leftynyc]

10. Thems the rules

If the rules matter when not seating delegates from FL and MI - these rules matter also.

[pampango]

45. I love it. "Thems the rules" indeed. Both camps complain about the rules.

One doesn't like the increasing likelihood that superdelegates will decide the nomination, not just primaries and caucuses, but likes the idea of sticking to the rules regarding no delegates coming from the primaries in Michigan and Florida. They like what benefits their candidate and complain about what hurts him.

The other side professes that superdelegates are just part of the rules that we all agreed to before the process started, but don't like agreed to rules prohibiting assigning delegates from the Michigan and Florida primaries. They like what benefits their candidate and complain about what hurts her.

(I would love to make a visit to the alternative universe in which the Michigan and Florida primaries had gone the other way and the superdelegates were leaning for Obama, and see who was offering which arguments at GDP.)

I don't see why we can't have new primaries or caucuses in Florida and Michigan. It wouldn't violate any of the rules, since the punishment was for moving their primaries ahead of what they agreed to. These citizens get a contested primary and get to have their voices heard. As far as the superdelegates, I don't know what you can do now other than hope that they just affirm the will of the voters in the primaries and caucuses.

[leftynyc]

47. I love the idea of new primaries

It would be very fair to everyone and everyone's vote would count. It really rubs me the wrong way that because the FL DNC messed up, voters got screwed.

The superdelegate stuff needs to be addressed pronto.

[ShortnFiery]

15. I claim "with confidence" that if the arrogant, bloated "Super Delegates" pick the Democratic ...

Nominee, ALL HELL'S GOING TO BREAK LOOSE! :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

I can't believe that Bill's Clintonian DLC has so damn many of "the political ruling class" in play with regard to selecting OUR Party's Democratic Nominee.

Be careful of what you wish for - because - IF it comes down to the *the royals* (Super Delegates) selecting OUR Party's Nominee, there will be HELL TO PAY. In other words, get damn used to saying "President McCain" because us "little people" don't care much for plutocracy EVEN UNDER the soft velvet facade of a democratic banner. :thumbsdown:

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

18. Plus with race/gender an issue this year~Could get abit unsavory.

[krkaufman]

20. A simple "ditto" of concurrence.

It will be most gruesome.

[catagory5]

30. Proof that FL and MI WILL count

Call it what you want, but Clinton was smart by telling FL that ther votes will count. Was it shady? Maybe. Was it Political? Sure. But most importantly, it was Brilliant. It is a nice feeling knowing that Clinton has Texas, Ohio and PENN as 'stop gaps' They are heavily in her favor. Then even if it is that close going in to the convention she can always pressure on the FL vote. Obama does have MOE, I'll give him that. But she has slowed it way down with Her showing last night and with the CA win. Plus the Mass vote. Everyone is against this women except her supporters, her Husband and some backers. She is fighting most politicians, the refugs, the media, Obama, Clinton backlash, etc.... and she is holding her own. I think she is getting stronger and stronger by the day.

[krkaufman]

40. I don't see how anything said is "proof" that the FL & MI delegates ...

... will have any effect on the decision as to who will be the nominee. These tainted delegates pose the same problem as the superdelegates, as they were also arrived at through an undemocratic process. (i.e. election processes that were not "free and fair")

I see no problem seating the delegates if the candidate is already determined and their count will not change the lead, but they'll be problematic otherwise.

[truebrit71]

53. HRC wouldn't give a shit about either of those states if she hadn't won. She's a hypocrite.

..and it's a typical bullshit Clinton move to try and get them seated, and then pull in favours via SuperDelegates...

TRUST me when I tell you that those delegates will not be counted.

Not a chance in hell.

If Obama gets the popular vote, but DOESN'T get the nomination I can guarantee you two things will happen.

1) John McCain wins in Nove

2) The Democratic Party will have seen their last dime from me.

[mondo joe]

27. All hell's going to break loose, huh?

And what form do you think that's going to take exactly?

[krkaufman]

32. A decline in latte purchases. n/t

[mondo joe]

39. But chicken little said the sky would fall.

[krkaufman]

41. I see no reason to speculate as to exactly what "hell breaking loose" might entail.

But I will sit back w/ popcorn and fondly recall the name mondo joe, should it come to pass.

[mondo joe]

43. Au revoir, then.

:hi:

[OnionPatch]

48. I'm thinking

lower turnout. Lots of bitterness among new and/or young voters who felt they could make a difference but found out they couldn't. Just my 2 cents.

[mondo joe]

49. IMO, that's not all hell breaking out. That's just life in politics.

:shrug:

[MadHound]

35. You are right on the money with that one

Any hesitation that the liberal wing of the party has about not voting for the nominee will vanish in the face of this sort of arrogance, especially if Obama is winning the non-super delegate count. I also imagine that a lot of Obama supporters won't vote for Hillary if that is the case.

It could be a split of such a large proportion that it destroys the party, not that that would be a bad thing necessarily.

[mondo joe]

38. I've read so many prediction of a destroyed or split party in my life.

It's hard to take a new one seriously.

[MadHound]

44. Well, in many ways the party has already split

After the debacle of '68 and '72, many people were so turned off by politics that they decided not to vote, and haven't been voting ever since. Ever notice how the number of people not voting has increased every election cycle? Most of that apathy is liberals and progressives peeling off from the Democratic party and staying home out of frustration.

Millions of votes down the drain. Sure, they haven't formed another party, but they have drained off votes that at one time went Democratic. What's sad is that the party could actually have most of them back if they would put something in their interest in the party platform, say something like real, true single payer, non-profit, UHC instead of this corporate crap that the candidates are pushing. People will vote in their own self interest, and come out to do so, if they see an opportunity. Sadly the party hasn't given them that chance in a long, long while.

[mondo joe]

46. I have many complaints of my own about the party, particulary on strategy,

but I think it's in the nature of the Dem party to not be able to pull itself together. It's the party of cats, and Repubs are the party of dogs, all lined up in hierarchical order.

[AGirl]

50. kick`

[AGirl]

52. kick

[Nailzberg]

54. If it goes as you suggest, congress critters will back the voice of their district.

Not the statewide winner. Because those are the voters that send them back to Washington. So if supers start declaring themselves for the people's choice, they'll be going with their districts. She'd get the Senators and any statewide office holders, but politics is local.