Dem's meeting about avoiding brokered covention
- Thread starter Sii
- Start date
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
I know who I support and I will vote for either, but I'm reassured to hear that those in party leadership roles like Gore, Edwards, and Pelosi understand that it isn't about them. It's about the will of the people.
However, I think it's important to at least have the ability to have a brokered convention and potentially have a switch away from the delegate leader by the super delegates. Without any historical reference, I can imagine a scenario where if by the summer some unforeseen condition existed where there is a clear national sentiment that has radically shifted away from the leader after a lead was definitively staked, the super delegates could exert an effect to shift the selected nominee back in line with the national party sentiment. This would have to be a dramatic set of circumstances though.
It is very clear to me that absent any major changes in the overall positive presentation and perception of Clinton and Obama today, super delegates should by no means interfere and overturn the winner of the pledged delegates derived from the primaries and caucuses.
.
However, I think it's important to at least have the ability to have a brokered convention and potentially have a switch away from the delegate leader by the super delegates. Without any historical reference, I can imagine a scenario where if by the summer some unforeseen condition existed where there is a clear national sentiment that has radically shifted away from the leader after a lead was definitively staked, the super delegates could exert an effect to shift the selected nominee back in line with the national party sentiment. This would have to be a dramatic set of circumstances though.
It is very clear to me that absent any major changes in the overall positive presentation and perception of Clinton and Obama today, super delegates should by no means interfere and overturn the winner of the pledged delegates derived from the primaries and caucuses.
.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Triple- that will of the people that you are talking about is nonsense in the case of a brokered convention. That will happen b/c there is no clear will of the people. There is no problem with Super delegates shifting the nomination away from someone who managed to beat their competitor by a handfull of pledged delegates.
The system your party set up to apportioni delegates, to my way of thinking, is absurd and ridiculous. No sense crying about it now. Why you can split evenly delegates in a congresional district with one person winning 59% to 41% is beyond me. Why you are chosing to disenfranchise Michigan and Flordia is similarly crazy, but whatever, it is how it is and everyone has got to deal. But to say super delegates shouldn't do anything other than rubberstamp a narrow and down to the wire pledged delegate count is a head scratcher.
Half support clinton and half support Obama, more or less.
One or the other of them being a few delegates ahead in the pledged voting is no more relevant or important than W beating Gore by 500 votes in the state of Florida. There is no will of the voters in either situation, and no reasonable argument one way or another.
The system your party set up to apportioni delegates, to my way of thinking, is absurd and ridiculous. No sense crying about it now. Why you can split evenly delegates in a congresional district with one person winning 59% to 41% is beyond me. Why you are chosing to disenfranchise Michigan and Flordia is similarly crazy, but whatever, it is how it is and everyone has got to deal. But to say super delegates shouldn't do anything other than rubberstamp a narrow and down to the wire pledged delegate count is a head scratcher.
Half support clinton and half support Obama, more or less.
One or the other of them being a few delegates ahead in the pledged voting is no more relevant or important than W beating Gore by 500 votes in the state of Florida. There is no will of the voters in either situation, and no reasonable argument one way or another.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
Wulaw, maybe my feeling in the matter was influenced by what I read in the link.
And regarding MI and FL, those states understood the consequences of the choices they made. I'm not hearing them complain so much as it's Hillary complaining.
And regarding MI and FL, those states understood the consequences of the choices they made. I'm not hearing them complain so much as it's Hillary complaining.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Sii- Here's what your not understanding about what I'm saying:
There is no leader if the delegate count differntial is small enough. You can't call someone a leader in that sense if they have a half dozen extra pledged delegates.
It'd be like saying, after a 162 game baseball season- oh the Yankees are clearly a better team than the red sox b/c they won 100 games while the red sox won 99 games.
If you have to make a decision then sure, make a decision based upon who won more games, but don't tell me that this is in any way a meaningful real world difference. The point I'm making is that there's quite possibly the chance that there is no real world difference, and the process is set up so that super delegates can vote however they think best to de3al with their own conscience, or whatever they think best for the party. To say they have some obligation to "get in line" behind the clear "leader" is intellectually dishonest to my way of thinking. There is no will of the people, it's just too close to call.
You guys set up the process giving them that power, they now should get to use it however they want without hectoring, bitching and whining from Obama cultists about "the will of the people"
JMO. And Sii, you are really passionate about stuff you like. Be it UT, or Obama or whatever. I'm not knocking you, but you don't always have detached judgement (see the recruitment of Perilloux, Ryan amongst many other things). Point. being, this ain't black and white, there are a million shades of grey in this deal. And it is set up in large part b/c your party has a stupid, arbitrary and ****** way of picking a nominee.
There is no leader if the delegate count differntial is small enough. You can't call someone a leader in that sense if they have a half dozen extra pledged delegates.
It'd be like saying, after a 162 game baseball season- oh the Yankees are clearly a better team than the red sox b/c they won 100 games while the red sox won 99 games.
If you have to make a decision then sure, make a decision based upon who won more games, but don't tell me that this is in any way a meaningful real world difference. The point I'm making is that there's quite possibly the chance that there is no real world difference, and the process is set up so that super delegates can vote however they think best to de3al with their own conscience, or whatever they think best for the party. To say they have some obligation to "get in line" behind the clear "leader" is intellectually dishonest to my way of thinking. There is no will of the people, it's just too close to call.
You guys set up the process giving them that power, they now should get to use it however they want without hectoring, bitching and whining from Obama cultists about "the will of the people"
JMO. And Sii, you are really passionate about stuff you like. Be it UT, or Obama or whatever. I'm not knocking you, but you don't always have detached judgement (see the recruitment of Perilloux, Ryan amongst many other things). Point. being, this ain't black and white, there are a million shades of grey in this deal. And it is set up in large part b/c your party has a stupid, arbitrary and ****** way of picking a nominee.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Triple- I read the whole article and I get what you are saying (or pelosi or gore or the like). That doesn't change my opinion- there is no will of the people in this nomination process, just like there was no will of the people of florida to vote Bush over Gore in 2000.
You are talking about being within (it looks now) of a dozen or two delegates either way. You aren't thwarting the will of the people or stealng the nomination from anyone.
Look, I'm voting for Obama in the primary as I think Hillary is really bad for the country and I want her stopped now. And I'm not voting Republican until they nominate an actual conservative, so I have no dog in the fight. Other than I like to point out hypocritical, bull ****, nonsense where I see it.
And that's what I see here, to try to claim any clear and present leadership status or will of the people at the end of this process (as it stands right now), is non-sense.
Hillary is up big in Ohio and Texas from what I can tell. She won California, she won plenty of places in the south, won florida going away, won Michigan big etc. I understand why Floriday and Michigan aren't getting seated- b/c that's the way the rules were set up. But the rules were also set up giving the super delegates a say (and really a tie breaking vote if the people were undecided or virtually so as it looks here). It's no worse then caucuses or the apportionment system or not seating delegates.
It's the framework of the race, not a thwarting of the will of the people.
Again, keep in mind this is coming from a Clinton hater.
You are talking about being within (it looks now) of a dozen or two delegates either way. You aren't thwarting the will of the people or stealng the nomination from anyone.
Look, I'm voting for Obama in the primary as I think Hillary is really bad for the country and I want her stopped now. And I'm not voting Republican until they nominate an actual conservative, so I have no dog in the fight. Other than I like to point out hypocritical, bull ****, nonsense where I see it.
And that's what I see here, to try to claim any clear and present leadership status or will of the people at the end of this process (as it stands right now), is non-sense.
Hillary is up big in Ohio and Texas from what I can tell. She won California, she won plenty of places in the south, won florida going away, won Michigan big etc. I understand why Floriday and Michigan aren't getting seated- b/c that's the way the rules were set up. But the rules were also set up giving the super delegates a say (and really a tie breaking vote if the people were undecided or virtually so as it looks here). It's no worse then caucuses or the apportionment system or not seating delegates.
It's the framework of the race, not a thwarting of the will of the people.
Again, keep in mind this is coming from a Clinton hater.
it doesnt matter if someone was up by 100 delegates and up in the popular vote...or up by 50 delegates and up in the Popular vote...that person is still in front from participation in the process by the American people before the super delegates get involved
call my opinion whatever you want....but Clearly I'm not alone in my opinion as people in the Dem party are starting to come out and basically saying the same thing as evidenced by reports like the one linked above
call my opinion whatever you want....but Clearly I'm not alone in my opinion as people in the Dem party are starting to come out and basically saying the same thing as evidenced by reports like the one linked above
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Sii-
it does matter- b/c before the race started your party decided that being minimally in front in pledged delegates was, wait for it, NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GUARANTY THE NOMINATION. they decided it was so insignificant so as to not be the reason a nomination should be given away, so they empowered super delegates to in essence be a tie breaker if the people were more or less undecided. They are now, more or less undecided (it looks like) so super delegates are going to break that virtual tie.
That's the process your party signed off on. To try to say now, no, superdelegates don't get a voice or that they have to shut up and get in line just b/c one person narrowly eeked out a lead over the other is nonsense.
You are an Obama fan boy and willing to go to whatever twisted logic is necessary to see your guy win. That's fine, but don't try to couch it in some noble language about the people having spoken. It is not that black and white when the process is as close as it is right now.
it does matter- b/c before the race started your party decided that being minimally in front in pledged delegates was, wait for it, NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GUARANTY THE NOMINATION. they decided it was so insignificant so as to not be the reason a nomination should be given away, so they empowered super delegates to in essence be a tie breaker if the people were more or less undecided. They are now, more or less undecided (it looks like) so super delegates are going to break that virtual tie.
That's the process your party signed off on. To try to say now, no, superdelegates don't get a voice or that they have to shut up and get in line just b/c one person narrowly eeked out a lead over the other is nonsense.
You are an Obama fan boy and willing to go to whatever twisted logic is necessary to see your guy win. That's fine, but don't try to couch it in some noble language about the people having spoken. It is not that black and white when the process is as close as it is right now.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
A difference of half a dozen pledged delegates?
If that's the situation you are narrowing your point down to, then fine. get back to us when that happens.
In the absence of a candidate reaching the automatic threshold, I think the relevant frame of reference here is having a final difference in number of pledged delegates between two candidates that is significant but that could be reversed by a hundred or so super delegates.
This is the situation that will most likely exist and is what the party leaders are already addressing today.
.
If that's the situation you are narrowing your point down to, then fine. get back to us when that happens.
In the absence of a candidate reaching the automatic threshold, I think the relevant frame of reference here is having a final difference in number of pledged delegates between two candidates that is significant but that could be reversed by a hundred or so super delegates.
This is the situation that will most likely exist and is what the party leaders are already addressing today.
.
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Triple-
ok- I'm on more or less the same page as you- if the number is signifcant and the super's reverse that then that probably isn't good.
What I'm saying is this- I don't think that scenario is ever going to happen. If it's a significant lead for Obama (over 100) hillary isn't going to be able to dominate the super delegates to such an extent to overturn a really big lead.
Put another way- you can make the argument that due to the electoral college one candidate could win 55% of the vote and lose in the EC. This is theoretically true. But everytime we see someone get to 55% of the popular vote it is an EC rout. I think you are going to see the same thing here.
If Obama (or hill for that matter) comes up just a hair short on the delegates I would almost guaranty that you won't see Super Delegates make it swing the other direction. But if the lead going in isn't statistically significant this might happen and there would be nothing wrong with it happening
ok- I'm on more or less the same page as you- if the number is signifcant and the super's reverse that then that probably isn't good.
What I'm saying is this- I don't think that scenario is ever going to happen. If it's a significant lead for Obama (over 100) hillary isn't going to be able to dominate the super delegates to such an extent to overturn a really big lead.
Put another way- you can make the argument that due to the electoral college one candidate could win 55% of the vote and lose in the EC. This is theoretically true. But everytime we see someone get to 55% of the popular vote it is an EC rout. I think you are going to see the same thing here.
If Obama (or hill for that matter) comes up just a hair short on the delegates I would almost guaranty that you won't see Super Delegates make it swing the other direction. But if the lead going in isn't statistically significant this might happen and there would be nothing wrong with it happening
lol...you can continue to call my opinion whatever you what but its certainly valid rather you agree or not. and who says the difference would only be something like 6 delegates?
.more and more people are saying that they should not ignore who is in front of the race...be it Obama or Hilllary...and overturn that result...rather either technically had enough delegates to guarantee them the nomination before the convention automatically on their own...one is still leading the race and you can bet your *** that if things still ended up with Obama in front with the delegates and Popular vote going into the convention....and Hillary ended up getting the nomination from back room deal...the outcry would be massive and wide spread. It would prob doom the parties chances in the national election and be a massive set back to the entire party in general
Thats WHY people party leaders are staring to meet and discuss options for how to avoid this mess.
as mentioned in the article
.more and more people are saying that they should not ignore who is in front of the race...be it Obama or Hilllary...and overturn that result...rather either technically had enough delegates to guarantee them the nomination before the convention automatically on their own...one is still leading the race and you can bet your *** that if things still ended up with Obama in front with the delegates and Popular vote going into the convention....and Hillary ended up getting the nomination from back room deal...the outcry would be massive and wide spread. It would prob doom the parties chances in the national election and be a massive set back to the entire party in general
Thats WHY people party leaders are staring to meet and discuss options for how to avoid this mess.
as mentioned in the article
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Sii
answer honestly: Bush won florida (even with the recount of every vote according to the liberal NYT) by like 250 votes. Was he the clear learder florida voters wanted?
You are speaking in absolutes (phrases like thwarting the will of millions of voters) about issues that need not be dealt with in absolutes.
You set up your nomination process in a screwball enough way that you decided to give superdelegates power to decide razor thin elections. You've got a razor thin (it looks like anyway) election. So the super delegates get the chance to do what they are supposed to do- decide the race.
I already acknowledge, to triple, that if it gets to be a statistically important differnece then super delegates shouldn't tip the race- I just don't think it gets there though. If the difference is statistically significant you aren't going to see the supers change the nominee- they are not some monolithic group that one candidate can dominate.
The are goingn to have their own feelings, preferences, loyalties and favors to repay. And that's going to more or less mirror the rest of the party. They are probably going to break something like 55-45. If either candidate has a significant lead that won't upset the applecart. If the lead isn't statistically significant than you cannot argue, in any meaningful way, that the will of the people is being thwarted.
answer honestly: Bush won florida (even with the recount of every vote according to the liberal NYT) by like 250 votes. Was he the clear learder florida voters wanted?
You are speaking in absolutes (phrases like thwarting the will of millions of voters) about issues that need not be dealt with in absolutes.
You set up your nomination process in a screwball enough way that you decided to give superdelegates power to decide razor thin elections. You've got a razor thin (it looks like anyway) election. So the super delegates get the chance to do what they are supposed to do- decide the race.
I already acknowledge, to triple, that if it gets to be a statistically important differnece then super delegates shouldn't tip the race- I just don't think it gets there though. If the difference is statistically significant you aren't going to see the supers change the nominee- they are not some monolithic group that one candidate can dominate.
The are goingn to have their own feelings, preferences, loyalties and favors to repay. And that's going to more or less mirror the rest of the party. They are probably going to break something like 55-45. If either candidate has a significant lead that won't upset the applecart. If the lead isn't statistically significant than you cannot argue, in any meaningful way, that the will of the people is being thwarted.
triplehorn
2,500+ Posts
I think another major factor influencing party leadership to get out in front of this matter now in support of not meddling with the winner of the popular vote of pledged delegates has to do with the staggering voter turnout in the Democratic nomination process. Participation for the Dems is basically doubling the R's and in many cases has doubled, tripled, or quadrupled turnout over recent Dem primaries in '00 and '04.
It would be a collosal mistake to create the impression that this historic level of enthusiasm was being disregarded in favor of a backroom deal. If people don't have their preferred candidate win, you want to move forward in a way that promotes even greater numbers of participants to help decide the next one, not do something to diminish the sense of determination in the process so many new people have.
.
It would be a collosal mistake to create the impression that this historic level of enthusiasm was being disregarded in favor of a backroom deal. If people don't have their preferred candidate win, you want to move forward in a way that promotes even greater numbers of participants to help decide the next one, not do something to diminish the sense of determination in the process so many new people have.
.
SenateHorn
250+ Posts
That is exactly why y'all never should have created super delegates or taken away Florida or Michigan's delegates. Seriously, y'all are taking away their delegates because they dared to have their own primary or caucus when they wanted and now you want to maintain an image that you care about every persons vote?
Wulaw Horn
1,000+ Posts
Sii-
I've already acknowledged that it's a different scenario if you are talking about a delegate difference closer to triple digits then signle digits.
What you aren't getting is if the delegate spread is that big you aren't going to have that problem, no need to worry about it, it just won't happen.
But Senate is right about the dichotomy you have in claiming to care about every person's vote mattering, but setting up the process where ar couple of states are completely disenfranchised, delegates are pledged equally in congressional districts with 18 point spread diferentials, super delegates exist and caucuses break records with 12 percent voter participation.
I've already acknowledged that it's a different scenario if you are talking about a delegate difference closer to triple digits then signle digits.
What you aren't getting is if the delegate spread is that big you aren't going to have that problem, no need to worry about it, it just won't happen.
But Senate is right about the dichotomy you have in claiming to care about every person's vote mattering, but setting up the process where ar couple of states are completely disenfranchised, delegates are pledged equally in congressional districts with 18 point spread diferentials, super delegates exist and caucuses break records with 12 percent voter participation.
El Cid Vicious
100+ Posts
It would be the greatest of ironies if Al Gore were called in to make the choice of whether Florida votes will count. I'm not breaking any new ground here, but these are my predictions - If Obama gets the nomination, he'll be in the White House in January. If Clinton gets the nomination, it will only be from shenanigans with the superdelegates, or changing the rules for Michigan and Florida. The disillusioned Obama voters stay home, and we can say hello to President McCain.
Recent Threads
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 619
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Lord Soros is not happy
- Started by BrothaHorn
- Replies: 29
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 814
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
