|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: Superdelegate: Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants |
 |
|
Influential Superdelegate proclaims:
| Quote: |
I think that, you know, [Clinton] should be able to compete and her supporters should be able to support her, for as long as they are willing or able. We will have had contests in all 50 states plus several territories. We will have tallied up the pledged delegate vote, we will have tallied up the popular vote, we will have tallied up how many states were won by who, and then at that point I think people should have more than enough information to make a decision.
I think that the notion that the party's been divided by this contest is somewhat overstated. There's no doubt that, among some of [Obama's] supporters or some of her supporters, there's probably been some irritation created. But I also think, every contest you've seen, in every state -- huge jumps in Democratic registration, including independents and Republicans who are changing registration to vote in the Democratic primaries. You know, those are people who are now invested in what happens. And I think that bodes very well for us in November. |
This guy knows what he's talking about. Its what I've been saying for the past two weeks now. I wonder if Obama's supporters agree with this guy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Exactly. This is not the same as Ron Paul: she has massive, even if not decisive, support in the Democratic Party and this campaign. No matter how she finishes, her position at the convention will be a strong one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the end, it's a judgement call. In my opinion, this constant shooting at each other damages both, and in the end weakens the party against the Republicans in the fall.
The best advice I've heard is that Clinton and Obama should sign a truce with each other and open a new front against McCain, with each candidate making the best case possible why he or she should be the party nominee. By giving McCain a two-front war to fight, it would help nullify his present advantage. By focusing on making their best cases on each of the issues, it would give them both the chance to say to the superdelegates, "Who's made the best case for the nomination?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama just came out and said the same thing: Clinton can and should run as long as she wants. It's the right thing for him to say and will help heal the breach in the party. I'm also pretty sure that he's only saying it because he is absolutely confident he's going to wrap things up, fairly soon.
Meanwhile, Clinton vowed to stay in the race all the way to the convention -- which, judging by the precedents of Romney, Huckabee, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc., means she'll be dropping out any day now. Right about the time the super delegates move to Obama. We'll see how PA goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Right about the time the super delegates move to Obama. |
And again, the super-delegates shouldn't be moving anywhere. They should zip it until it's their turn to vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
Well, it's a little late for that since most of them have already endorsed.
What I'd like to see, and bear in mind that I am an admitted foe of the entire concept of super delegates, is all of them pledging to support whichever candidate has the lead in elected delegates at the convention. But I'm one of those wacko radicals (along with Nancy Pelosi) who thinks that the democratic process is the best way to pick a nominee.
Curiously, Clinton supporters probably would have agreed with this principle back in December. The goalposts seem to have been moved somewhat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Then what would happen if no one gets a clear majority? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Then what would happen if no one gets a clear majority? |
How is that possible? The state parties all certify the election results and say "Candidate A gets X delegates, Candidate B gets Y delegates..." etc.
Or maybe I'm just not hip to the lingo. A "clear" majority? You don't need a clear majority to win an election, you just need a majority. Whoever has the majority of elected delegates should be the nominee.
Basically, the entire super delegate system was a reaction to McGovern. McGovern's disastrous candidacy was seen (incorrectly, in my view) as the result of a demagogue's ability to sway the base to his side and garner the nomination even though he'd have no chance in the general election; the super delegates were intended as a check on this process, effectively a way to tell the Democratic rank-and-file "oh no you don't". What's wacky about this is that McGovern was no firebreathing liberal; he was actually quite conservative on most issues, but he was successfully tarred as the "acid, amnesty, and abortion" candidate by the GOP, acting in concert with establishment Democrats. So the Dem establishment, the Daley/Johnson/Humphrey insiders, actually wanted McGovern to lose and used his loss as a justification for putting the super delegate system in place.
What's so stupid about the whole idea is that it assumes the party will just fall in line behind a candidate that most of them voted against. It's typical of insider politics to think this way; the Humphreys and their ideological descendants (like most of today's DLC) have fundamental contempt for the rank and file of the party. If the super delegates ever actually did pick the nominee against the preference of the pledged delegates, that nominee would be virtually guaranteed to lose the general election and inflict deep wounds on the party at the same time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Superdelegates can pledge however they want whenever they want.
They can flip a friggin' coin, although often undecided Superdelegates will look at which way their district voted.
Superdelegates can flip their vote once announced, but practically its hard to do. They have to pledge by signing documents, and there are some other entanglements as well. The current political climate looks disfavorably on second guessing one's own political positions.
| stillnotking wrote: |
Nowhere Man wrote:
Then what would happen if no one gets a clear majority?
How is that possible? The state parties all certify the election results and say "Candidate A gets X delegates, Candidate B gets Y delegates..." etc. |
Its easily possible in a three or four person race. Indeed, I believe the field was packed in '92 beyond the point at which John Edwards dropped out (I doubt he would have dropped out if he had not lost South Carolina to interlopers).
What is interesting is that Nowhere Man is Big "D" when it comes to the national elections, he has expressed disfavor for the current winner-take-all system of the general elections, but he appears to be comfortable with the party Little "d" system. And this is not necessarily inconsistant, after all, a party nomination is very different from direct voting for a national leader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Senator Clinton's run may have just hit a big speed bump.
http://bluejersey.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=9813449AE0DED021B8BD56515A85568C?diaryId=7104
| Quote: |
Hillary Clinton Campaign Police Report Update by Kathy Callahan on March 26
An untold number of people have asked me for a LINK to the POLICE REPORT. I cannot provide a link to the entire document which includes personal contact information but I can now provide the following official information:
Police Report Complaint Number: 2007-014875 417/ID THEFT Date: Dec 11, 2007 Time: 18:04 Taken by Detective A O'Brien in Ridgefield, NJ.
That I was forced to file a police complaint against Hillary Clinton Campaign for unauthorized credit card charges and overdraft charges that were not being resolved at all by the finance directors who I emailed and called many times but to no avail...Yes it took filing an official police report on December 11, 07 and then promptly reporting that fact to Ms. Allison Wright Hillary's Compliance Officer at headquarters in Virgina via email and I also cc'ed the finance directors who were formally unresponsive to my pleas to make credit card corrections as I DID NOT WANT to file a formal complaint with VISA against HRC campaign to resolve this now very embarrasing problem! $3, 400 was charged on my Visa by HRC and the charges were NOT Authorized by me. I have also been asked for a LINK to substantiate that I was in fact a member of Hillary Clinton's Finance Committee. |
Basically, the campaign overbilled a staffer's visa, she complained, they were obstinate, so she filed a police report. They paid out, she left and joined the Obama Campaign. You can also check the Daily Kos for this story,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/10400/98322/981/488198
If there are more reports of these kinds of shenanigans from the campaign, the superdelegates won't be pleased. They don't want voters suspicious of making donations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Theoretically, McCain could win, but he needs Clinton to win. I think she has the right to continue. She is not very behind. Obama, if he wins, must be able to face McCain no matter what. Frankly, I wish McCain ran against Al Gore instead of Bush. I liked McCain and was disappointed when he wasn't chosen at that time. I thought it was a mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What is interesting is that Nowhere Man is Big "D" when it comes to the national elections, he has expressed disfavor for the current winner-take-all system of the general elections, but he appears to be comfortable with the party Little "d" system. And this is not necessarily inconsistant, after all, a party nomination is very different from direct voting for a national leader. |
I, in concurrence with the NYT article I posted, think that superdelegates shouldn't declare their votes until the convention. I'm not saying it's illegal or something, but, like the article states, I don't think superdelegates should be influencing the outcome before everyone has voted. SNK suggests that it's too late for that, but it's not too late for the superdelegates who haven't declared to not declare and instead wait until the primaries are finished.
My opinion about primaries is based on years of thought about the topic, but the superdelegate aspect is one that I haven't spent much time considering. As such, I was asking SNK a question, not defending/opposing the role that they play.
Isn't there supposed to be a 60%/two-thirds majority? I thought that's why this topic is so hot: because the 60% /two-thirds majority is close to being out of reach by either of them?
These are just questions. Really.
One thing is for sure. If, as suggested, super-delegates pledge enough votes to close the race after Pennsylvania, the states who haven't had their primaries yet can be very very very certain that they play jack didley for a role in the primary process, period. If they don't get to cast a meaningful vote this year, it's nigh impossible to imagine a scenario in which they will ever get to play a meaningful role in the primaries. Ever ever ever.
This means that the primary system is broken. Of course, you are right that party primaries are a bit different from the general election. One is in the Constitution. The other could be decided by a coin toss/pulling names out of a hat if a political party so desired. However, if these two parties want to regale us with the beauty of the democratic process, both need to face the music and start rotating primary orders instead of kowtowing to Iowa and New Hampshire (foremost among others). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
