Saturday, May 31st, 2008...8:37 am
Wow, So Would I…
Jump to Comments
This from Mr. Super, live at the Rules and Bylaws committee:
I would love to see a counter testimony from a state that wanted to move up its primary but chose not to
15 Comments
May 31st, 2008 at 11:10 am
Face a few facts Dems–You’re screwed either way you look at this. Half the party isn’t going to be happy and you have already lost 60% of the Hillary supporters if you give Obama the nomination.
Seat the delegates and fine them–use the money to help out the congressional races and have a nice day.
How is it possible for the Dems to screw up a sure thing like taking back the white house after the worse Republican president of all time?
May 31st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“Give Obama the nomination”? He won the nomination by winning delegates…
May 31st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Was that Alan Stephens sitting next to Don Fowler?
Oh ya and Bridget, easy with the negative vibes. I bet you’re a real buzz kill at cocktail parties.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:35 am
I would like to understand why “60% of the Hillary supporters” would not vote for Obama. Why do you think they are so angry with Obama that they would hand the Presidency over to McCain [and say hello to many more years in Iraq, the appointment of several more conservative Supreme Court Justices, unfair trade deals that hurt American workers, continued fraying of the safety net for those who desperately need it, etc.]? What has Obama done against Clinton? My question is not rhetorical–I would like to understand because this enmity will eat up the party.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:01 am
I doubt that anyone who posts on this blog can really clain to be speaking for 60% of Hillary Clinton supporters.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:35 am
I noticed that there was a large group of John Denver fans at the hearing yesterday. They were loud, too. Never a big fan, myself. Guess it must be a generational thing.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I thought there would be a least half of both delegations seated.
Since they all have half votes, does this make me half correct?
June 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
There is unquestionably some number of very rabid Hillary supporters who will vote for McCain because vindicating their hatred for Obama is more important than what would happen to the country and to the Mideast if McCain is elected. They also think that they can elect Hillary in 2012.
Someone posted an interesting diary on Dailykos a few weeks ago where he analyzed the sources of 100,000 recent comments on Kos and 100,000 recent comments on Hillaryis44.com, an extremely vitriolic pro-Hillary website. It turns out that all that vitriol is being spewed by a surprisingly few people, at least on that website.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/24/163437/416
Another issue to consider is that while some of Hillary’s supporters might be rabid and unbending, Hillary herself may not be. Hillary might be getting very close to cutting a deal with the Obama campaign. If she does it by the end of the week, she will do very well for herself, but it won’t be VP. There will also be plenty of time to mend fences, but I do not doubt that some number of Hillary supporters will never support Obama. There is nothing that can be done about that.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 am
Count Michigan and Hillary wins the popular vote Tedski–Don’t count it and the super delegates are “giving” the nomination to Obama–even super delegates from states that voted for Hillary–how are the voters being properly represented in these cases?
Why should a candidate that willingly took his name off of a ballot receive any delegates from that state?
Why should more points be given to Obama for winning small states like Idaho than to Hillary for winning a large state like Ohio?
Why do voters in Texas go to the polls to vote and delegates are then awarded based on the caucuses results rather then how the state voted?
It’s not Obama that upsets me, it is the system and don’t tell me that Obama supporters would not feel shafted had the scenario been reversed. Going along with the rules because they suit you even though they are questionable isn’t right. I have lost faith in the party more than anything not to mention Obama’s resume is weak to say the least.
So what if McCain gets the prize–having a super majority in the congress is just as good with the democrats already winning three of three house races in Republican districts in special elections.
So go ahead and keep calling Hillary supporters names–tell us again how stupid we are–apparently the only thing that matters is how YOU feel and what you think is best. I guess you didn’t want our support anyway.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 am
Bridget,
The very system you speak of and question is one that was designed for a candidate like Hillary to win. She didn’t. Political scientists are going to be studying this question for years. You may not believe this, but she had EVERY advantage in every one of those small states and caucus states.
Caucuses generally benefit the established candidate with established support. Why did she not win the caucus states? He formed a better organization with broader support that turned out in caucuses where only party loyals traditional fear to tread.
She had the best money raising machine in history. He defeated it with average people…millions of them. It was only when Hillary started losing and taking the role of the underdog that she started raising lots of money from good average people too. Those who desperately did not want to see her lose. Admirable, but way too late.
She also had the greatest advantage with the Superdelegates…the most ties, political favors to return, etc. etc. This is true.
I predicted back in January, based on everything political science teaches us, that she would win. She didn’t. That is the story. The question is why?
So all the things you list above that are frustrating…all…were set up to benefit a candidate like Hillary. She was beaten fairly…and by a large large movement. This election was not stolen…two great candidates emerged, one won.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Well said, Kral.
If people want to get upset about something, the thing to be upset about is the whole notion of superdelegates.
Oh, but those are the rules. The Democrats have superdelegates.
Well, the DNC ruled on Michigan and Florida for violating rules. So, what is all this about rules and how they should be applied?
I may not like DNC rules about superdelegates and I also think that taking away all of the Michigan and Florida delegates before their primaries was too severe. But, once the rules have been settled, and they were, it is hugely unfair to the candidates to change them at the end of the election.
With Hillary telling the people of Florida and Michigan that they had been disenfranchised and that this was somehow comparable to the Civil Rights movement and the recent Zimbabwe elections and so forth, the DNC was forced to compromise. From this point forward, DNC rules have very little credibility.
Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, I would like to point out that these primary elections are for a political party to NOMINATE a candidate. It is true that no one except a Democrat or a Republican can get elected to the presidency, at least for the time being, but the political party has the right to make rules that govern the process.
If you really want to get upset about “disenfranchisment,” just give some thought to what the superdelegates could do.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“So what if McCain gets the prize”
Saying stuff like this tends to get me to ignore the rest of the argument.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Exactly Ted.
Remember what this past 8 years has done the most. Not Iraq, not K Street, but massively increase the power of the Executive Branch for years to come…at all levels…that set policy that digs to the very level of peoples lives…at every level.
The very idea that former Bushies would re-populate the Executive branch, that they would choose judges, chose to prosecute or not, sign “signing statements” and executive order that affect how toys from China are tested and regulated, should make every person on here thinking twice about “so what if McCain get the prize”.
So what??? So What???!!!??? It means EVERYTHING.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Come on–The country is a mess and trust me, the Democrats are going to be held responsible for it even though they did not make the mess.
People remember the president but they don’t remember the congress. A strong congress with a super majority of Democrats is a better choice than a rookie facing huge challenges. We all remember Jimmy Carter–great man but weak leader.
Yeah, ignore what you don’t like Tedski that always works. The truth is you can’t successfully argue this point and make Obama the better choice.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
If you hate the Supers (and wish they would be gone) you do have to realise that there would be a floor fight and that probably would have been won by the Clinton Campaign.