Can a Clinton Supporter help me understand why we have primaries?

[Boz]

I am an Obama supporter.

I believe Hillary Clinton was/is a good democratic candidate.

We have primary election in our democrat party and then the person that wins that voting process goes on to be our
candidate in a general election.

Today she is talking about Electoral votes and how she has WON more of the electoral votes that will be needed in the fall.

But doesnt she need to to win the primary votes to win the right to be the candidate?

If she doesnt win the primary she doesnt get the candidacy so how can she count the Elctoral votes?

If she does count the electoral votes why do we have primaries?

[Texas Hill Country]

1. it is an argument to the super delegates.

[Boz]

2. Yes but what is the argument?

What is the point?

[Texas Hill Country]

5. that she is more electable in the GE.

[Boz]

9. Why? I dont understand how that equates.

[Terran]

14. It doesn't.

It's an illogical 'argument'. It's comparing aples and oranges. And doing so might have the opposite of the intended effect on some super delegates...kinda makes one look silly/desperate.

[EmilyAnne]

35. The SDs know better. It won't work.

[BuyingThyme]

3. It's called the Primarial Electoral College.

Don't you know nothin'?

[rug]

4. Her argument is that she has shown more strength than him in states that have more weight in the GE.

[Texas Hill Country]

6. exactly

[TheDonkey]

8. so why have a national primary? Should be eliminate it and just have a poll in "important" states

would be cheaper and faster.......

[rug]

13. Fine by me.

[TheDonkey]

29. yes that sounds very democratic

:sarcasm:

[rug]

33. But I was only agreeing with you.

[Boz]

11. OK but recent history shows that has no truth, so why does it makes sense.

[rug]

15. Care to tell me what recent history?

Mind, I said it shows more strength. Not necessarily a win in the fall, but greater strength nonetheless.

[Boz]

21. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale

Bill Clinton in 1992 captured primaries in Florida and Texas, but lost those states in the general election. He also lost Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in the primary but won them in the GE.

John Kerry in 2004 won Iowa, Arizona, and Missouri, lost them in the GE

And most notably Walter Mondale who was the first person where the super delegates overrode the primary voting and made him the cadidate, won big states like Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, teh supers took the nom from Gary Hart and Walter Mondale lost 49 of 50 states.

[rug]

32. The 92 primary was much different. Look at the map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1992_Democratic_Primary_Results.svg

Kerry likely lost because of the irregularities in Ohio, which is always a critical state.

84 was a blowout regardless of the primaries.

[Boz]

37. But thast why I dont understand the argument, it is much differnt, But her point is based on it

being the same BIG STATE profile in the General

[roseBudd]

40. Gary Hart has more in common with Obama than Mondale, Hart was the charismatic

candidate, Mondale was the bore.

Kerry = bore

Gore = bore

Bill Clinton = charismatic but he had a lot of help from Perot

Hillary = bore

[MonkeyFunk]

7. It's an argument to the superdelegates.

Neither candidate is going to get the nomination without the help of superdelegates, who are free to use any criteria they want when choosing their pick.

But you knew that.

[Boz]

12. My question is why does it make sense to the supers? What is the underlying logic?

[MonkeyFunk]

19. It's an argument

that's she's better suited to winning in November. I still don't see what you're not understanding. This isn't that complicated.

[Boz]

23. Becasue I dont understand an argument for arguments sake, I dont get what she is basing it on.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. She's arguing that she has a better chance to win

important swing states than Obama, and our candidate will need those states to win in November.

[Boz]

34. But history has shown there isnt a direct correlation between primary and GE wins

and dont the primaries only reflect about a third of the voting democrats?

[MonkeyFunk]

36. It's only part of her argument

The real problem is that you don't like that she's making the argument at all, so you're taking every piece of it and examining it by itself and saying it's not convincing.

There are many parts to the argument, and it's backed up by a number of polls that show Clinton doing better against McCain than Obama does.

[Texas Hill Country]

39. exactly.

[Boz]

42. I am asking for insight, not making an argument and again polls are often wrong

Im trying to find the logic it is based on from someone who supports and understands her.

Rather than through my own perspectives.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Shouldn't we select a candidate based on primary results instead or arguments?

This whole superdelegate thing is stupid. Don't you think we should get rid of super delegates because it's possible they may not reflect the will of the primary voters?

[MonkeyFunk]

25. If you want to do that in the future, go ahead

and lobby for it. But that's the situation we have now.

But we'd need a lot more changes before we could reasonably be assured that the pledged delegate total accurately reflects the will of the primary voters.

[Boz]

31. Flat out national primary, no cacus delgates, must have been registered dem in previous voting cycle

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

If The Will Of The Voters Is Your Concern, How Bout We Get Rid Of Caucuses Too.

[Terran]

10. Winning Primary votes and Electoral College votes

are two completely different things. You only win EC votes in the GE, based on the percentage of people in each state who vote for you. It makes no sense, whatsoever, to predict EC votes based on a showing in a primary, and making such an argument is meaningless, or possibly worse than meaningless, to a super delegate.

[jobycom]

16. We don't have just primaries.

We also have caucuses, which do not represent the popular vote, we have superdelegates, and we have a variety of different rules even for the primaries.

Primaries can be open to all parties, or limited to registered Democrats, or even combined ballot, where a voter can vote for a Democrat for some offices and a Republican for others. Caucuses have been criticized for decades as being discriminatory against certain groups, notably women, the elderly, and labor--all Clinton's strongest backers. Caucuses also are not secret ballot, so pressures can be applied. As an example of the skew effect of caucuses, look at Washington and Texas, which have both systems. In Texas, Clinton won the popular vote by 4%, but lost the caucus vote by 20%, giving Obama more delegates even though he won fewer votes. In Washington, Obama won the popular vote by 4%, but won the caucus by 37%--all delegates in Washington were awarded by caucus, even though the state legislature voted in the late 80s to hold a primary specifically because of the discriminatory nature of caucuses.

In short, the rules for choosing a candidate are screwy. If caucus states had held primaries instead, Obama would likely have a smaller lead, or even trail. If we held all caucuses, Clinton would be gone already. Add to that mess the superdelegates, which are supposed to be a balancing factor because of the goofiness of the whole nominating process, and the fiction that we choose a nominee based on the will of the voters is completely destroyed.

Clinton is trying to game the system, and win the nomination by pitching to the supers. If you ask for justification, I suppose she might confide that it's a balance to Obama gaming the caucus system and gaining a lead at odds with the polls and the popular vote. But we all know what it's about. Both candidates want to be the leaders of the free world, and of the known universe. Nobody plays nice when that's what's at stake. Those who think Obama has run a clean, polite campaign haven't paid attention. He's just done his eye gouging where people don't see it.

That's it. I wouldn't worry, none of it's going to work. But that's what's happening.

[PaulaFarrell]

17. To lull the populace into thinking their opinions matter

that's what i would say if i were a cynic

[jobycom]

18. hehe. Or a realist. nt

[PaulaFarrell]

26. That too n/t

[Enrique]

22. primaries are part of the selection process

the people have a say.

[Boz]

24. But isn't the argument we ar seeing is people may be wrong so supers should decide?

[Enrique]

27. yes, it's telling them to weigh the primary results less

and weigh other factors more.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Sometimes That Argument Has A Right To Be Made.

It's a very valuable asset to the process that the SD's can make a decision like that if and when it's necessary, in order to ensure the strongest candidate is on the ticket in November.

[Boz]

44. They did that with Mondale, Supers decided and he lost 49 of 50 states

[jobycom]

58. No. It's that the choice of the people isn't being represented, so supers have to correct it.

The undemocratic nature of the supers is a balance to the undemocratic nature of the caucuses. Without the caucuses, Obama wouldn't have such a strong lead, and might even be behind in the votes. The choice of the people isn't really known, and all the arguments about who is leading in the popular vote are just hypotheticals.

Until we get a decent system, candidates are free to use the rules to their advantage. Obama does so by gaming the caucuses, Clinton is trying to do so by gaming the supers. She won't succeed, because Obama has sold his lie of popular supremacy better than Clinton has sold her lie of popular supremacy, and the average voter doesn't understand the system enough to judge it objectively. But she's only following the rules, just as he is.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. The Only Thing That Matters Is Picking The Best Nominee Who Can Win In November. That's The Only

point of them at all.

That's why EVERYTHING should be taken into consideration. It's about winning in November. Nothing more.

[roseBudd]

43. That means not picking the one who screwed the pooch with her own big mouth in Snipergate

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. It Means Picking The Best Nominee That Can Win In November.

Your attempted caveat was simply dumb.

[Boz]

46. And again I ask what is her argument, that she is the best versus the one the people are choosing

Other than the assertion, what is the logic based on? What are the choices based on?

Not just that she says she is the best, WHY is she the best, thats what Im looking for.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Based On Polling, State Data, Demographics, And Other GE Factors.

Geez, are you really this oblivious to all that's going on, and why she's trying to make that case?

And enough with 'the people' crap, cause when it comes right down to it, 'the people' have basically chosen both of them, even if one is slightly ahead.

[Boz]

52. But why didnt those things help her in the Primary, he shouldnt even be on the radar if she

is somehow better.

Sampled Opinion isnt an answer.

What is? What makes her better than the guy who is winning, no matter how much is debatable, but winning none the less, how is she better being the one behind at the end of the primary?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. If You're Equating The GE To The Primary, Then Your Question Isn't Even Worthy Of Being Answered.

If all you're going to do is ask why why why while acting like you live in a cave or something and are oblivious to more than beaten to death already answers to those why's, then I really feel no need to waste time with you.

You asked and I answered. Her arguments are based on very real factors surrounding the general election. Now granted, those arguments she's making may not hold up come the GE, or maybe they will. That's for each individual to decide. And if you disagree with the argument she's making that's your right and is perfectly fine. But to keep playing so dumb like you are in this thread is just annoying and a monumental waste of time.

[Boz]

55. This was my point from the begining and why I asked for help. She is making the point that the GE

effects the Primary.

If you say my question isn't even worth answering because I am equating the GE to the Primary, then why do you support her equating the rest of hr campaign on the same equation?

I am not stupid, I am asking to see it through different eyes, yours a Hillary supporter, that has resulted in me having to set aside what I know to listen openly, you call that stupid.

I was simply trying to educate myself.

You know what I learned?

[roseBudd]

47. My opinion is that HRC is unelectable, your opinion that Obama is unelectable is just that

an opinion.

HRC's unfavorables have been perilously high since Day One. Her dishonesty quotient is a real concern at a time when voters are sick of being lied to.

Snipergate has video

of the candidate

telling a lie

and then there is video proving she lied

That is huge.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. What Malarkey.

Snipergate is childs play compared to pastorgate, and if you're gonna base your electability concerns on such things then forgive me for finding that incredibly naive. The 'video' they can put together of Obama would be 10 times more devastating than a stupid snipergate video, which is more for laughs than anything else.

And where'd you get this amazingly stupid assertion that I said anywhere that I'm of the opinion that Obama's unelectable? Shit, do you just enjoy making up stupid crap?

[roseBudd]

50. You and the other Hillbots constantly type Obama will lose, that is your opinion not your facts

Snipergate is no laughing matter, it shows a candidate in their own words lieing. On four occassions.

Reverend Wright is not the candidate.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. Your Using The Term Hillbot Makes You Look Like An Idiot.

Your declaration that I've constantly typed that Obama will lose, when I'm in fact an Obama supporter and haven't typed it at all, makes you really look like an idiot.

The fact that you think snipergate carries more risk to it in the GE than Pastorgate, makes you look naive as hell.

And the fact that you think because Reverend Wright isn't the candidate that the issue carries with it no merit as it relates to ability to damage our candidate come the GE, makes you appear to be completely delusional.

All in all, your post and your points were monumental failures.

[roseBudd]

56. googling OPERATIONMINDCRIME on DU reveals you have a very deep bias

that you think Snipergate does not speak to credibility and integrity reveals you are biased.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. I Have No Such Bias. Laughin My Ass Off That You Googled Me Though.

Yes, that makes you look like even MORE of an idiot now. I mean, maybe ya wanna grow up a little? :rofl:

And I never said that snipergate doesn't speak to credibility or integrity. That part you just made up, because you're desperately searching for ways to knock me down though you're failing miserably. What we were talking about, was the level in which snipergate could be used in the GE, and its comparison to Pastorgate. We were also talking about how monumentally stupid and ignorant someone would have to be to think that pastorgate bears no significance in the GE, merely because Rev Wright is not the candidate. I believe we also were discussing how deluded someone would have to be to think snipergate carries with it more damage in the GE to our candidate than pastorgate would. I do not believe, however, that there was any mention on my part of snipergate not speaking to her credibility or integrity. That part you just made up.

[CreekDog]

38. that's easy, it's so that if a candidate gets 40%

that they can beat the candidate who gets 60%.

it's really, really simple like that. :hi:

[Tennessee Gal]

51. Obama hasn't won the primary either.

Neither has one the primary. Both are short of the delegates needed to clinch the nomination.