Sincere question to Hillary supporters: If Clinton wins with the aid of Super Delegates....

[RiverStone]

Just about every political pundit in the corporate media agree now, her only viable avenue to the nomination is to win with Super Delegates going against the will of pledged delegates (and probably the popular national vote total as well).

Now she and Bill are attempting to influence the SD's to do just that.

Per this story:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD8VFC8581

I ask this to Hillary supporters with all due respect and without any sacrcasm...

Lets say Hillary gets her win; what do you think the reaction would be of all the people who would see the nomination being decided by a cabal of party leaders rather then by the collective will of the people? What do you think that reaction will be?

It seems the amount of folks who would walk away from the party and/or convention in disgust and disillusionment would far over ride gains made by her declaration (by SD appointment) as the nominee.

As an analogy, if two NBA teams play to double over-time in game 7 of the playoffs - the losing team's fans would be devastated, but if they lost fair and square, they would eventually get over it. But imagine the losing team *** after the game ended *** was declared the winner on a little used technicality. The score (of the primaries/caucuses) turns out to be meaningless.

Do you see folks flocking to the voting booth in support of Hillary if she wins in this way? :shrug:



On edit: see post #1

[Drachasor]

1. You should add in the assumption that Hillary also loses the popular vote (a near certainty)

IMHO.

[RiverStone]

10. Ok, added as an assumption...n/t

[elixir]

2. Keep in mind that Obama is courting the delegates also. This isn't a one way street.

And yes, I'd vote for her. But I think she's the best candidate.

[RiverStone]

6. True, but he already has a lock on the pledged delegates...

If the SD's go with Obama, they are going with the tide.

If they go with Hillary, they are going against it.

How do you see folks reacting to that?

[Hatchling]

28. Rules say the SDs can vote the way they want.

It's the Obama campaign that is trying to change the rules here by forcing them to vote for him or else. And technically he doesn't really have a lock on the pledged delegates he has. They can also vote however they want. Normally it's considered appropriate to vote as you pledged on the first ballot, but on the second ballot the votes are up for grabs. That's when buyer's remorse kicks in. So at that point, if Clinton is as bad as some of you think, her delegates have the same option as his: to vote their conscience.

As for how they'll react: I assume they will be very disappointed; as will l if they don't go for Clinton. But no one gets their way by threats of walk outs, or not voting in the GE or by proposing civil unrest or threatening the SD's with challenges in their district or any of the other rumors I have read. I would react pretty badly myself if that is how it fell out.

Fair and square is letting the convention play out it role.

[RiverStone]

33. The SCOTUS made the rules for the 2000 election as well...

They may have had the "technical right" to call it that way, but how many of us felt they stole the election?

Perception is 90% of reality.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Hatchling. :hi:

[AlGore-08.com]

63. Bush v Gore was so unconstitutional that SCOTUS wrote into it that it could not be a legal precedent

There is absolutely nothing in the party bylaws that lays out the criteria Super Delegates must use to decide who to vote for. They are supposed to use their intelligence and judgment and vote for the best possible nominee. That's why the process has humans deciding who wins these "tie" situations, rather than just writing a rule that says "if no candidate can reach the magic number of delegates, the candidate with the largest number of pledged delegates will receive the nomination" (or "the largest popular vote total" or "the most Hummel figurines" or any other automatic criteria).

The "perception" that the super delegates MUST vote one way or the other is based on spin from the candidates and their surrogates. A more honest press should have made this clear from the moment that a brokered convention was mentioned as a remote possibility (at least six months ago.) Instead, the Clinton supporters "perceive" that Obama is trying to rig the process, the Obama supporters "perceive" that Clinton is trying to rig the process. But folks without a dog in the fight "perceive" our boundless hypocrisy as we scream that the candidate we support is being a paragon of virtue when they court delegates and scream bloody murder when the candidate we oppose does the exact same freakin' thing.

As informed voters, we are responsible for making sure our "perception" that one candidate is "stealing an election" is verifiably correct. If we do not, then we are the boy who cried wolf. Actual vote suppression and corruption will never be addressed, because the media and the elected pols and all "reasonable people" will know "they stole the election!" is just the knee-jerk response of the left-wing whack-a-doos.

[AZ Criminal JD]

72. You are wrong on Bush v. Gore

The Supreme Court did not say it could not be used as precedent. They said the decision was based on the specific facts of that case and should be applied that way. In fact, Bush v. Gore has been cited many times in legal briefs for election law cases at the federal district court and appellate court level.

[Hatchling]

82. The SCOTUS ruled after the election.

These delegate rules have been made before the convention.

Let's face it, neither side is going to be happy. both sides are going to feel cheated. How do we deal with that?

I personally at one time was hoping for the "Dream" ticket, but that's not gonna happen, now.

[high density]

8. Well if Clinton is going after them, he would be negligent if he just sat back

and watched her do so.

[ieoeja]

23. While I would NOT vote for Obama were the situation reversed.

If Hillary won more states, more delegates and received more total votes in the primaries, but the convention nominated Obama instead, my support for Obama in the general election would evaporate.

I think a substantial percentage of Obama supporters would do the same. And I would expect Hillary, Edwards, etc supporters under those circumstances to abandon Obama in massive numbers.

[RiverStone]

27. ...those circumstances

YES! If it happened in reverse I'd expect Obama supporters to abandon in massive numbers.

Why?

Because that is NOT democracy!

The SCOTUS stole the 2000 election - would not a few party leaders doing the same be equally tragic for the Dem party?

I don't get how anybody can see an ending like this as any different?

[BigDDem]

3. Just so I'll know...

it's OK for BO to work the superdelates but not Hillary, right?

[slick8790]

7. Hm. Way to miss the entire point of the post.

The fact is it is extremely unlikely that Hillary will be able overcome Obama's popular vote and delegate lead in the remaining contests. Therefore, her only path to nomination is through superdelegates overturning the will of the voters.

No, that is NOT ok.

[BigDDem]

11. Team "God Damn America" works the superdelegates

Okie Dokie!

Hillary, not so much.
That sounds about right.

[slick8790]

12. Are you seriously just that thick?

I never said that.

How can you honestly support overturning the will of the voters via superdelegates? The people have picked Obama thusfar, and with every passing contest it becomes increasingly unlikely that Hillary can catch up. She needs over 60% of the delegates in every remaining contest in order to overtake Obama. Not going to happen, not by a long shot.

Do you believe a bunch of party elites should overturn the will of the vast democratic electorate?

I'd really like to hear a yes or no, not more RW wright talking points.

[BigDDem]

15. My personal opinion is whoever has the most popular vote

should get the nomination but I didn't make up the rules.
The superdelagates are independent, are you familiar with that?

[slick8790]

20. Indeed I am.

But Obama has a clear ~800,000 vote lead in that as well. Regardless, that doesn't matter. Popular votes do not and can not take in to account caucus attendance. Obama has run a far better campaign, and as a result, is winning by every metric.

[Kittycat]

18. How would you feel if I said, "Team Only In It Because He's Black" in reference ot HRC's campaign?

[BigDDem]

31. Go for it

I've seen more BO folks defend "Reverend" Wright than
those who havent. I can provide many expamples if you're interested.
It seems they are in the majority.
His words.

[Kittycat]

68. Well let me ask you...

Couldn't one deduce that God did Damn America for electing, then re-electing *?
Makes perfect sense to me. The crux of our financial meltdown is in part due to the housing crisis (also * & Clinton related), but also do in great part to no oversight, off shoring of $$ & jobs - and of course... Iraq.

[BigDDem]

85. I hope that team BO

will stick with the "God Damn America" mantra, please, by all means.
Justify it and run with it.

[RiverStone]

14. I'm still looking for an answer...

Yes, both candidates need SD's to win.

One big difference: Obama already has a lock on the pledged delegates, Hillary does not.

How do you think people will react to her winning in this way?

[leftofcool]

4. Of course they will flock to the voting booth

unless the Dems want 8 more years of Bushco part 3

[bunnies]

13. No. Democrats want Democracy.

As in... votes actually count. Tell millions of people that their votes dont mean shit and I guarantee they will NOT show up in November. Let those mighty super-delegates take care of it. Oh, they cant? heh. Ironic.

[RiverStone]

16. Do you think anybody will think twice regarding "how" she got to the nomination?

Do you think that is a relevant concern leftofcool?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. Queue the crickets: chirp . . . chirp . . . chirp . . .

[RiverStone]

9. I'd be happy if a cricket answered the question....

Seriously, don't you see a difference in the way each candidate would receive the nomination?

[Hippo_Tron]

17. She could also win by having the convention go to the second ballot if the SD's don't commit

[RiverStone]

19. And all the while the many Dems who voted in the primaries and...

...caucuses are doing what?

Watching the entire, long, hard fought primary season results and popular vote basically ignored?

How will this play on TV and how will people react if she wins in this fashion???

I'd be grateful for any response from a Hillary supporter which answers that - thanks. :hi:

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Well I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm just saying that could happen

And it wouldn't make the primary process completely meaningless either. Delegates will likely be inclined to support the same candidate on the second ballot that they did on the first ballot.

The McGovern commission was designed to prevent what you describe above from happening but in every election since the McGovern commission, all of the opposition has basically dropped out before the end of the primary season to make sure that one candidate gets a lock on the required number of delegates.

I don't know exactly what we do. IMO if Obama wins the popular vote and the delegate vote, I think the SD's would be foolish to choose Clinton against the will of the people. But it may turn out that there isn't much of a backlash.

[RiverStone]

30. Backlash!

IMO, the blowback would not only be huge, but we may disaffect an entire generation of young and new and powerful voters who would see the Dem party as (business as usual).

I'd wager it would DEpower so many Dems, that we could even lose the House and Senate in the GE.

I think the backlash would be felt for years and years....

Of course, just an opinion of a life-long Dem voter and activist.

[rinsd]

21. It would have to be close in pledged delegates for Hillary to make a viable case.

There are many arguments she could make whether its from bonus delegates (awardded for hitting specific thresholds) or districts that had a small & even number of delegates (needing super majorities in those districts to win more delegates) that Obama & her count in pledged delegates is not an accurate reflection of the people's will.

But that only works if she's close (like 20 delegates).

[RiverStone]

24. Thank you and taking it one step further...

Appreciate the thoughtful reply rinsd.

May I ask a follow up question:

She wins with any of the above "arguments" - obviously some credential committee folks decide what a threshold is- the nuances of which would be lost on some.

QUESTION: How do you see the losing side reacting (emotionally, legally, whatever) if she wins in this way?

[rinsd]

88. Not sure.

For her to win those arguments it would have to be so close that Obama's side would have to concede some legitimacy.

I do not see Obama engaging in a legal battle for the nomination unless there was some kind of gross distortion (ie: He's blowing Hillary out by over 150 delegates at the end and supers override) and even then I doubt it.

In terms on emotion, it would be extremely difficult and I doubt many would be very enthusiastic about helping the campaign in the general. Sure they will still volunteer, donate and vote. But it won't be the same.

[styersc]

22. Neither candidate is likely to win the "magic number" so I

believe that we should look to popular vote and let it stand. Second place should gtake the VP slot. ANd lets get on with winning the Whitehouse.

[MethuenProgressive]

26. I'd say it was Karma striking back at Obama for Swiftboating the Clintons on Race.

Karma's always ready to bite you in the ass, Barack.

[cali]

29. I'd say that never happened and karma did bite hilly and bill

in their asses. They lost because they played the race card. karma. And Pelosi has made it clear that the SDs won't be backing hill unless she has more of the popular vote and more pledged delegates. We know that won't be happening. karma. it's a bitch for hilly.

[MethuenProgressive]

32. Link to HuffPo expose of the Obama Camp's plot to Swiftboat the Clintons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

[backwoodsbob]

39. put her at under 50 and...

less than 100,000 behind in popular vote and it's wide open.Beyond that and I don't see her geting the nod.

Florida and Michigan are going to be SO crucial now.What an irony.The two states SO DETERMINED to make a difference by voting too early are going to be big by possibly being the last primaries.

[cali]

47. Sorry, I don't buy his spin.

and I can post stories that point to the opposite being true. Opinion is not fact.

[Hatchling]

36. Pelosi can only influence their votes.

She can't make them vote the way you and she want. She's not the boss of them. I think it unfair that people are trying to disenfranchise the Super-Delegates by imposing a decision on their votes. Let them vote as they wish. If it's Obama, so be it. If it's not--Whoo Hoo!

[cali]

50. Sorry, but Pelosi does bring other House SD votes with her

That's what happens when you're Speaker: You wield a lot of influence. And no is trying to disenfranchise the SDs. That's just silly, but anyone who thinks they'll vote for the candidate who lost the pledged delegate vote and the popular vote, is just not thinking straight.

[RiverStone]

35. Forget karma for a second....

I'm not being sarcastic here MethuenProgressive or attacking Hil supporters.

In fact, we need each other to win!

So, how do you think folks would really react?

[MethuenProgressive]

38. Define "folks"

Democrats in general? If the rules are followed, Democrats will support our nominee.
Pretend Obama supporters who are really just Hillary Haters? They're voting for McCain anyway.
If by folks you mean the average voter? Half will stay home, like happens every four years.

[metalluk]

34. Regardless of who wins,

their victory could be either tainted or not tainted. It's up to the Party leaders to ensure that the process is fair to both candidates and as much above reproach as possible.

Suppose Obama wins, but only because either Michigan or Florida was unable to pull off a re-do. How do you suppose Clinton supporters will feel about that? Suppose Obama wins, but only because of shady dealings in the Texas caucuses.

The superdelegates and how they split their vote is only one of several issues that could be experienced as resulting in a tainted outcome by one side or the other. There is no reason, however, that the superdelegates should not vote for the person they believe will make the best candidate.

The best bet for the Democrats is a negotiated solution during the weeks after the last primary and before the beginning of the convention. If the decision is not made before the convention, it is unlikely that the losing side will have accepted their loss or the process issues before the convention ends, and the rancor will be televised for all to see.

For me personally, the whole thing is a bit simpler. If Clinton emerges as the nominee I will not only support her but will actively work on her campaign. If Obama emerges as the nominee, I will not be voting for the Democrat come November.

[Bake]

37. I think a lot of people are gonig to walk away regardless of who wins.

Hello, Pres. McLame.

Bake

[RiverStone]

41. Unless...

We can find unity in short order after the last primary.

This is my best hope:

We have redo's in FLA/MI.

Hillary wins in FLA, Obama wins in MI. Call it a wash, but at least ALL states have now participated.

After the primary dust settles, Obama still comes out on top with delegates and the popular vote. Most of the SD's folk to Obama's camp early summer. Nominee known.

We go to the convention at least knowing that...and begin to heal, recover, and resolve to kick rethug ass in the fall.

[Arkansas Granny]

40. The superdelegates are not and never were required to reflect the popular vote.

Superdelegates are those party leaders and elected officials who are automatically delegates to the national convention. They include every Democratic member of the House and Senate, Democratic governors, members of the DNC, former Democratic presidents and vice presidents, former Democratic House and Senate leaders, and ex-DNC chairs. One person who ordinarily would be included on this list, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, has been disqualified because of his endorsement of Republican John McCain.

Democrats first introduced these delegates in 1984 as a way of giving "adults" some supervision to make sure the party did not go off on some wacky path — as many thought it did when it nominated Sen. George McGovern (SD) in 1972. Similarly, former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter won the nomination in 1976 against the wishes of many in the party establishment. The original role of these superdelegates was to make sure the party resisted the urge to once again nominate an outsider.

These superdelegates, then and now, may vote for whomever they want, irrespective of the choices made by voters in their own states. In 1984, well before the first primary or caucus, nearly 100 superdelegates had already endorsed the party front-runner and establishment favorite, former Vice President Walter Mondale. When the primary season had ended in early June, Mondale had claimed the nomination: not because of an impressive string of victories (he actually lost three of the five primaries on that final day, including California, to challenger Gary Hart), but because of the support of the superdelegates.

Fast-forward to 2008, and again we are in a position where the superdelegates could decide who wins the Democratic nomination. But here's the rub: If they declare a preference now, while the primaries are still going on and the two candidates effectively even, they have the potential for ending a nominating contest while the voters are still weighing the pros and cons of Obama and Clinton. That could have the effect of not only leaving a lot of voters furious, but it also could come at a time when many Democrats are looking at the November general election with excited anticipation. . . .


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18914920

[RiverStone]

43. Ok, so they do not follow the vote. They may be legal - but how will the people feel about it?

Yea, I'm talking heart and head reactions here.

Even if it is technically within their right to do it, is it worth the cost?

I think not - but I'm trying to get perspective here.

[Arkansas Granny]

73. Regardless how the superdelegates decide to cast their votes, one group

or the other will feel disenfranchised. Whether the eventual nominee is Clinton or Obama, they will have a challenge on their hands to bring the party together to insure a Democratic win in November. Whichever candidate eventually wins the nomination, they will need the supporters of the other to be elected. In any event, I will support and vote for the Democratic nominee.

[Tom Rinaldo]

75. The benefit of the doubt goes to Obama

Being ahead in pledged Delegates wins him that even though there is nothing in the rules that tell Super Delegates how to vote. But Obama has not won the nomination in the primaries, he hasn't been able to reach the threshold needed to do that and so there is no automatic obligation to nominate him.

If the best Hillary can do between now and the convention is win a dozen or two more pledged delegates than Obama in the remaining races, without establishing very significant momentum in the closing months of the race, that won't be a good enough reason for Super Delegates to give her the nomination. However if Hillary opens up an 8-10 point gap in almost all of the national polls over Obama by the time this is ending, if she wins all of the races she is favored to win while losing none of those and winning some of the one's that Obama was thought to be favored in, that changes things.

If Clinton is surging and Obama is fading, if the public is starting to rally toward her and away from Obama, that changes things in a scenario where they are only several percentage points apart in pledged delegates they each won. If Clinton is very close without Florida being counted, that is a factor it is legitimate for SD's to consider. Is she shows strenths in the populations of States we need to win, that is a factor also. There are others also but I just got my dinner call, lol.

[backwoodsbob]

45. well florida's out

it comes down to Michigan as far as those two.

The rest of the primaries minus Michigan look like a wash.Hillary WILL win Penn and Obama will likely wash that win with everything else,which leaves us with Michigan and the supers.What a mess

[Nia Zuri]

42. I'm not crazy about Hillary, but would vote for her if she won fair and square

However, is she has superdelegates and strongarms the SDs to overrule the will of the people (pleged delegates), I would sit back and let McCain win. I would not hold my nose and vote for her. This is about Democracy and the rule of law.

[Texas Hill Country]

44. i am so tired of this crap. the SD's are there to make an independent judgement on who is electable

Especially in a close race... they only have 800 delegate votes out of a possible 4k+, so it not like they have an overwhelming majority.

It is for instances just like Wright... or say it was someone like Spitzer running for office and he got busted with a hooker... or some other scandal that severely diminished their ability to win in the GE...

we have had the SD's in place for 25 years... stop bitching.

[backwoodsbob]

46. I dont think too many are bitching

I'm an obama supporter and am trying to look at this as objectively as possible.

[Texas Hill Country]

51. thank you. it is very much appreciated. the whole tear the party apart thing gets old.

[RiverStone]

52. And where I do see a SD over-ride as potentially...

...a royal clusterfuck, I also asked if you imagine it ending this way and it NOT causing a major problem --- why or how not?

Looks like Texas Hill Country - you don't think it would tear the party apart.

If your not too burnt out on the talk to answer, I'd be grateful hearing why you don't think it would hurt the party or our chances in the GE?

Also seeking objective answers - even with my OP, I value what sincere Hil supporters have to say.

Thanks :hi:

[2rth2pwr]

48. If you picture a candidate imploding on the final stretch

like Obama seems to be on the verge of, maybe losing Penn. by 20-30 pts and getting only 1 or 2 tiny wins,

the Superdelegates could be our only hope of winning the WH.

[Beacool]

49. I don't know, but I see plenty of folks NOT flocking to the voting booth

if Obama is the nominee.

[backwoodsbob]

53. lets be real

plenty on both sides have made claims of not voting for our not picked candidate...myself included.When all is said and done we will back the dem nominee whoever it is

[Beacool]

57. Nope we won't...............

Believe that if you will, but there are plenty of people who would rather vote for McCain or stay home if Obama is the nominee. So far, in NJ 25% of people would vote for McCain plus the others who will stay home or vote for Nader. Similar results in nationwide polls.

[RiverStone]

59. I can't fathom EVER voting for McCain...

But I can imagine being disillusioned with our party.

I prefer to imagine voting for Barack in the fall.


peace~:)

[Beacool]

64. I couldn't vote for McCain, but neither could I vote for Obama.

I honestly don't think that he's prepared to be president, nor deserving of the presidency. Sorry......

[MattBaggins]

70. It's fine to be honest

I will vote down ticket myself but will encourage my conservative leaning friends to vote McCain and the liberal leaning ones to vote Nader.

Probably put Nader and McCain signs side by side in my yard.

[RiverStone]

56. And we can agree to disagree on this forever...

Because I see a SD decision for Hillary as adding insult to an already polarized Dem electorate.

But Beacool, you say if Obama wins lots of folks won't vote (for him) - I say if Hillary wins not only will lots of indies and disaffected pukes not vote for her (who would have gone to Obama), but lots of Dems as well.

This is like arguing religion - who the fuck really knows???

In any case, I DO KNOW Obama can't win without the support of Hillary and her supporters. So I make a point to try and be polite. I'll diss Hillary et. al for her Rovarian tactics, but I won't diss her supporters.

We need each other to kick puke ass in the fall!

[Beacool]

62. It's beyond Hillary.

There are plenty of us who do not believe Obama is prepared and experienced enough to be president of the US in these difficult times. I personally also don't think that he deserves the presidency at this point in time. I would have more than considered him if he had stayed a few years in the senate and built his resume, as it is, I will probably stay home or write-in Hillary's name. BTW, I'm not the exception.

[AZ Criminal JD]

69. If you "diss Hillary, et. al" you "diss her supporters."

Whether you intend to do so or not. Since you say you are a "life-long activist", although not stating how long that is, you may remember Humphrey won the nomination in 1968 without winning a single primary. Yes, he lost, but just barely. He was hampered by the convention riots but was rising rapidly in the polls as the election neared. He ran out of time. The point is that no voters cared how he had won the nomination.

[RiverStone]

76. There is a differerence...

DU has a fair share of folks who dig posting obvious flame bait and then ***poof*** they don't hang around for the return fire. I do think there is a difference between focusing on the candidate, and insulting a supporter for voting for him/her.

We are on the same team after all. And as an Obama supporter, I'll say most Hillary supporters are like me - loyal Dems - and I greatly appreciate that.

And BTW, I have only been a Dem activist since Shrub stole the election in 2000, but I have been voting Dem for 30 eligible voting years.

[Ravy]

54. It is a mathematical fact that if Hillary wins with Superdelegates,

Obama would have to win with them, too.

So, if Superdelegate votes make the difference, *ONE* of them will have to win with them. If you get more pledged delegates than 2024 or whatever the number is, Superdelegate votes can't help the other person.

[Life Long Dem]

55. Your not taking about taking the will of the people away are you?

Now tell me why I would even bother to vote in Novemeber? :grr:

[RiverStone]

58. Oh yea, lots of good will would be taken away, IMO

But that is from an Obama supporter - that's why I asked Hillary supporters.

[Life Long Dem]

66. Great post by the way.

I believe Hillary is also doing this (even though she knows she has no chance) so she can come back in 4 years if McCain wins. You know what she has on her mind when she slapped Obama and praised McCain that time.

The thing is. Maybe I would have voted for her in the future, but after trying to take down a fellow democrat she will NEVER have my vote.

[IDemo]

60. Relax. There is no vast smoke-filled room conspiracy

While the rules state that Super D's certainly could overturn the candidate with a lead in pledged delegates, they will not do so unless there is an overriding reason to. It is not the intention of any of these people to inflict irreparable harm on the Democratic Party by staging a behind closed doors coup. Barring a total meltdown by Obama (sorry, Wright doesn't seem to be doing the trick there) or a sky-is-opening-and-light-comes-down moment for Clinton, this simply is not going to happen.

[RiverStone]

61. I hope your right on IDemo - appreciate the optimism!

:hi:

[AJH032]

65. Question

If the role of the superdelegates was only to vote exactly according to how the pledged delegates vote, then what would be the point of them?

ANSWER: That's NOT the purpose of superdelegates. The idea is, that in a close election that is not decided by pledged delegates, party leaders could be the (virtual) tie breakers.

If Obama was the clear front runner in this race, he would easily get the required delegate count through pledged delegates alone.

[RiverStone]

77. How did we survive before SD's were introduced?

Seems like an unneeded piece of bureaucracy. As I recall, we have only had SD's for the past 30 years or so.

[finalnews]

67. Obama supporters cheer when a superdelegate switches to their side

There is a contradiction in that cheering.

Either superdelegates are bad, or they are good. What is it?

[RiverStone]

78. Many people think they are not needed at all.

I prefer to simply Let The People Decide.

We did it w/o SD's for many, many years.

[jconner27]

71. Here's a real question

Due to amount of shit that's been thrown at Hillary Clinton via Obama supporters why would any Hillary Clinton supporter would back your guy? If McCain wasn't the Republican choice the option of staying home would be a good choice for me.

[RiverStone]

79. There is plenty of mud slinging on both sides...

I'm simply referring to the most fair process which represents - unequivocally - the will of the people.

Is it possible to step away from your (or my) candidate of choice for a sec, and simply ask what is the most honest way to nominate someone who BEST reflects the will of the people that voted in the long primary process.

[dansolo]

74. To further your analogy - look at the 1972 Olympic Gold Medal Basketball game

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/mm-1972bball.html

That is how a Hillary nomination would be viewed.

[mjg540]

80. 2025 TO WIN....NOTHING LESS

Obama does not win unless he has 2025 delegates, end of story. Super Delegates are free to choose who they want. They are about the democratic party. Remember the line we don't need a Mussarf policy, we need a Pakistan policy. The same applies here, we don't need an Obama or a Clinton policy, we need a democratic policy. So no matter if who is winning by the numbers, the game isn't over until the candidate reaches the 2025. Close only counts in horseshoes. You can't have it both ways with the Super Delegates, they are not in place to use when it benefits a candidate (those already pledged) and ask the unpledged to follow the masses. If the masses riot, it only serves the republicans.

[Swede]

81. It's a win.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

83. I don't see even ONE straight-up response to important question the OP posed. NOT ONE.

[RiverStone]

84. Must have been a hard question eh?

peace~:)

[JPZenger]

86. Bill Press Opening the Door for Superdelegates for Hillary

Bill Press on his radio show claims to be non-biased for Hillary or Obama. However, this morning he was laying the groundwork for the superdelegates to turn the nomination over to Hillary if Obama has "only won small states" and isn't in the best position to win the general elecdtion.

[BlueLizard]

87. Can you tell me a scenario in which Obama wins...

without any superdelegate votes????