 n2sooners says: The Obama supporters have been up in arms about the Clinton plan to try and win the primary by picking up more of the super delegates at the convention. They say doing so is thwarting the will of the people by trying to use back room politics to win the nomination. Yet this is exactly what the Obama camp is celebrating right now. Their candidate will likely win more delegates in Texas even though Clinton won the popular vote. This clearly shows that caucuses don't always reflect the will of the people. So without counting Michigan and Florida, and with Obama wining many if not all of the caucuses, who is to say what the will of the people is? Is Hillary right or wrong for taking this primary all the way to the convention? I don't know (and don't care for that matter), but I do know that she would have no more stolen the nomination if she does pull of the win than Obama will have stolen it if he wins. By the same token republicans aren't very democratic either. How can you claim to own all the delegates of a state simply for winning a majority. It's very possible to win the nomination of the republican party without winning the majority of the public vote. Obama has more of the public vote than does Hillary by the way. The nominating process for Democrats is not very democratic. I don't think its possible to determine who won the "popular vote" for all states because of the caucus states. And then there's situations like Texas. And excluding the Michigan and Florida votes. The Democrats absolutely must live up to their name and get their house in order for Christ's sake. Having said that, the Republicans are egregious too when it comes to hypocrisy regarding the popular vote: A few days before the 2000 election, the Bush team started assembling people to deal with a possible problem: what if Bush won the popular vote but Gore carried the Electoral College. They decided on, and were prepare... Hey yance, reality check. No one said Hillary doesn't have the right. In fact she has the right to join the right. And you have the right to vote for John McCain as a Hillary supporter this November.  Having said that I would not have a problem with the Democratic party getting rid of caucuses. But we are able to determine who has received the majority of votes cast so far in the Democratic nominating process even if you were to include Michigan and Florida and that is Barack Obama. Stealing the election? A loaded characterization. This is the process the Democrat Party has chosen. I do not see how Clinton's intent to persuade superdelegates is equal to Obama winning Texas by a mixed a process. I also do not see how caucuses are not considered the will of the people. IMO caucuses are the will of the people that most care about the process. The parties should get together and both use the same process whatever that may be. This is an area where The Democrat Party can learn something from Republicans who seem to have a better grasp on this process. republican style winner-take-all primaries are BS. By the same token republicans aren't very democratic either. How can you claim to own all the delegates of a state simply for winning a majority.You mean the same way the governor of a state takes 100% of the power even if he only wins by one vote? The republicans have a very republic way to vote. Each state votes on who they choose to represent them, and that person gets that state's vote. Having said that, the Republicans are egregious too when it comes to hypocrisy regarding the popular voteAnd the Gore team had a plan in place to tell everyone how constitutional the electoral college is in case he won the election without winning the popular vote. Of co... The national candidate nominating process is just that. A national process. The same can not be said of a gubernatorial election. Awarding all delegates to a 50.1% vote getter is not democratic. And I guess semantically, your republic process allows for situations where the majority doesn't rule which is undemocratic. Surely your not saying you are an Oklahoman before you are an American? @yance Try the corkscrew landing under sniper fire ride at New York, New York. It's a gas. And the Gore team had a plan in place to tell everyone how constitutional the electoral college is in case he won the election without winning the popular vote.That does not make sense, because Gore challenged the results of the 2000 election based on procedural issues in Florida. As far as I can remember, there was no sustained Democratic mobilization to get the results overturned because Gore won the popular vote. (yes, Democrats bitched about Bush losing the popular vote, but no one was seriously arguing to ignore the constitution) @yance Yes, I am aware of the super delegates and if you remember any of the foot tracks you have left over various clips in recent weeks you would realize that. I have already commented many times that the leadership of the Democratic party has not forgotten the lessons of the 1968 convention where they overturned the will of the voters to disastrous results resulting in the election of Richard Nixon. They aren't going to allow that to happen again. I like how Clinton contributors are trying to strong arm Nancy Pelosi into shutting up about making statements that whoever is leading in the delegate count going into the convention should be the nominee. If you have been following recent ... How did we get on the subject of Republicans? Yanceducat, I am only suggesting some compromise and consistency on the part of both parties. I'm sure they could agree on something. Forgive me if I got us off subject. Maybe it was the Kinsley piece? I'm confused. Interesting comments by yance. I remember the day he showed up on my clips spewing vitriol, "you're so buzzflash, you're so buzzflash, Obama supporters are backbitters.....". Garbage something like that. And yance, I do know why super delegates exist. They exist to negate a situation where someone like George McGovern, who only captured 25% of the popular vote of Democrats, ended up being the nominee, unlike the situation of today where you have Obama with over 50% of the Democratic vote compared to Hillary. Yance, are you aware of the incredibly damaging effects that happened the last time the Democratic party leaders overturned the nominee selected by the individuals who actually voted in the primaries and caucuses? Yance, are you aware of the incredibly damaging effects that happened the last time the Democratic party leaders overturned the nominee selected by the individuals who actually voted in the primaries and caucuses? n2, primaries were never meant to be general elections; you're getting the two confused. Every state is given the responsibility of choosing its delegates. Some choose delegates by voting in primary elections, some choose delegates by voting in caucuses, some (like Texas) choose by both. But make no mistake, the process - be it primary or caucus - is tasked with the selection of delegates. The popular vote, in fact, is not reflective of "what the people want," because it leaves out all of the people who voted in caucuses. The only way to estimate anything approaching an accurate number of how many people actually voted for a candidate, is to work backward from the delegates selected, add u... |
View the Top Clips from March 30, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
