Electable?

Can't recall what they were citing, but NPR reported last night that

- 25% of Clinton supporters would not vote for him and a significantly large number of them would actually switch to McCain.
- only 10% of Obama supporters would not support Clinton with very few actually switching over to McCain.

Realize that it's one thing to not support the other Democrat. That loses the Democratic nominee one vote. But to go actually switch to vote for McCain makes it a double whammy, a 2 vote swing.

IMHO, it is another example of far too many in the Clinton crowd being sore losers with a vast sense of entitlement. If she doesn't get the nomination, well, then, let's bring the party down in flames.

Sean,
It's because Obama is racist and sexist and his supporters are not true Democrats, donchaknow?

IMHO, it is another example of far too many in the Clinton crowd being sore losers with a vast sense of entitlement. If she doesn't get the nomination, well, then, let's bring the party down in flames.

To be fair, Obama supporters are saying pretty much the same thing.

Way to distort. I said if she gets the nomination while not the pledged delegate leader the party has fucked itself. If she wins the pledged delegate lead - then she is the nominee. It's mathematically nigh impossible at this point, but them's the breaks.

SaveFarris: "To be fair,..."

Wha-huh???

OK, first, distorting what was actually said (as OW notes) is hardly "fair".

Second,

Save Farris: " ...Obama supporters are saying pretty much the same thing."

you're saying Obama supporters are also saying the Clinton crowd is a bunch of little children ("if I can't win, nobody gets to!")

Sheehs, even with the distortion you can't make the point you're aiming for.

"If she wins the pledged delegate lead - then she is the nominee."

Unless the superD's break for Obama. Keep Hope Alive!!!

If the super delegates broke for Obama and he wasnt leading with pledged delegates that would be just as wrong. I've said that already, quit bullshitting.

If the super delegates broke for Obama and he wasnt leading with pledged delegates that would be just as wrong.

I gotta disagree.

The superdelegates (excuse me...automatic delegates...sorry, Mr. Penn) can vote for any candidate for any reason. They're not bound to vote for the candidate with the lead in pledged delegates.

Should a superdelegate from Colorado vote for Ms. Clinton after Mr. Obama took the state caucuses by a huge margin? Should a delegate from a Congressional district that went solidly for Clinton switch over to Mr. Obama?

Yesterday you were saying, "play by the rules." Today, you want to add new rules.

It's not adding rules. Where did anyone say "super delegates HAVE to vote as their constituents did" or anything like that?

But if they don't, they've violated a certain level of public trust in that they are going against the clearly expressed wishes of those constituents. And they should be taken to task for doing that.

That survey is a cold hard slap in the face.

All these months I was assuming that 2008 was in the bag and we'd have no trouble breaking 300 Electoral College votes with either candidate.

How could it be so close, with an evil raging dwarf like McCain as the GOP's man? It defies belief.

But we better be forewarned: This survey is a valid data point, and we have to get to work.

AS to OW's claim that the total pledged delegate count means something, let me put that to rest.

It means little if it's so close. a 2% difference is 82 delegates. If Obama ends up with 2048 and Hillary with 2001 or vice-versa, I would have to guess the super-delegates would never consider that a mandate and would feel free to make their decision without taking the pledged delegate winner into account.

Super-Delegates are supposed to focus on electability, party values, and select the most viable candidate. And if that candidate is 20 or 30 or 40 pledged delegates, a Guam or a Puerto Rico, short of parity, I would think they would not feel bound to follow their district or delegates' lead.

"If the super delegates broke for Obama and he wasnt leading with pledged delegates that would be just as wrong. I've said that already, quit bullshitting."

This is further evidence that SaveFarris is a lying asshole who should be ignored.

The superdelegates shouldn't ignore the will of the people - no matter how narrow. They're free to do so, by the rules, but I'm making a moral argument here. The superdelegates should follow the people. You belittle 2%, but that would have been more than enough to officially elect Al Gore president.

The superdelegates shouldn't ignore the will of the people - no matter how narrow.

OK, but which people?

My state, Colorado, went solidly for Obama. But you're saying that if Clinton has the lead in elected delegates, my representative should ignore my vote because the candidate who won California rolled up a bigger total?

I would think your representative should follow your (that is, Colorado's collective) vote and vote for Obama.

Who's arguing they should pay attention to what happened next door? California's representative should be doing what California wants. Not Colorado's.

It is important to note that Obama wins more states by bigger margins. A two or three point swing for McCain will hurt Clinton a lot more than it would hurt Obama. Both put a lot of states into play that were not in play last time, which bodes well given the massive, massive, absolutely FUCKING MASSIVE lead in money the Democrats have.

"I would think your representative should follow your (that is, Colorado's collective) vote and vote for Obama.

Who's arguing they should pay attention to what happened next door? California's representative should be doing what California wants. Not Colorado's."

Depending on the Super Delegate in question, they could vote how their congressional district voted, how the state voted, how the country voted, etc. and still say, I voted with the will of the people. It gets crazier when the popular vote doesn't match the delegate count for a state.

The fact that there's a Democrat who MIGHT win Texas (if you are losing by a point, that means that the weather can throw it to you) should have Republican operatives contemplating suicide. Moral: if you are in DC walking down K Street in Gucci Gulch, head's up for falling wingnut operatives.

Depending on the Super Delegate in question, they could vote how their congressional district voted, how the state voted, how the country voted, etc. and still say, I voted with the will of the people. It gets crazier when the popular vote doesn't match the delegate count for a state.

Good job, CS. My point exactly!

To top it all off, the superdelegate proportions are all weird. They're not proportional to the size of the state. Colorado, for example, has more superdelegates than Texas.

After all those superdelegates vote "according to the will of the people" there's no telling what the result will be.

From that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, teh "super delegates" are:

* 19 Distinguished Party Leaders
* 31 Democratic Governors (incl. the Mayor of DC and Governors of Territories)
* 48 members of the Senate (46 Senators and the 2 Shadow Senators from DC)
* 220 members of the House of Representatives (includes the 4 Congressional Delegates from DC and from the Territories)
* 400 Democratic National Committee Members
* 76 Add-On Delegates (many of them have not been nominated yet)

IHMO the Governors and Senators should vote for whoever won their state, the Representatives should vote for whoever won in their district. The remaining 495 (62%) may be more problematic. But depending on just who they are, if they have any connection to a particular area they should vote as that area went.

Of course, this would mean superdelegates are really just additional delegates that go as the voting has already gone (e.g.., Clinton now New Mexico, so she'd have picked up one more delegate (the governor) from that state). Each candidate getting more delegates, but more or less proportionally. And the question could be asked "So just what purpose do they serve?"

I suppose one could argue that the superdelegates would actually have to vote differently than the People to justify their role.

I have heard plenty of Obama supporters say they won't vote for Clinton for any reason.
I picture a little kid with his bottom lip sticking out.
I'll vote for Obama if I have to. I'd rather not take the chance.

Sean D. Martin said:

you're saying Obama supporters are also saying the Clinton crowd is a bunch of little children ("if I can't win, nobody gets to!")

No.

Some of us are not entirely happy with a large number of members of the Obama camp saying "If Clinton is the nominee, I will not vote for a Democrat for president."

Michelle Obama: I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee

I believe you were ragging on someone earlier for distorting OW's words? Perhaps you should look in a mirror when making such claims the next time...

Michelle Obama said she'd "have to think about it."

You know what that statement is? It's honesty. After the body blows that Clinton's campaign has landed on her husband, many of them unfair, if she does up winning the nomination you'd better believe it will take some thinking before Michelle would be willing to come out and support Clinton outright.

My guess is that she ultimately would. But it would take a bit of time and distance.

If she'd said "Oh, sure, if Barack doesn't get it I'm totally and immediately in the Hillary camp" it would have read as disingenuous.

It's still much less incendiary than "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know."

It's still much less incendiary than "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know."

But equally as honest...

And it compares to the "Clinton is Bush Lite" and/or "Clinton is owned by corporate interests" quotes coming from a bunch of Obama supporters (not sure if they're, by and large, official Obama campaign staffers).

And it's not just Michelle Obama who's saying that. I see it all over quite a few liberal blogs, too. Things along the lines of, "If Clinton gets the Dem nomination, I'm voting for McCain".

I also have failed to see any quotes from the Clinton campaign saying they'd have to think about voting for Obama if he wins the nomination. Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

If you think the eeeevul Clagina has been tagging Obama with body blows, I'd be interested to know how you think the Republican't slime and deflect machinery will be treating him, comparatively speaking.

For the record, I don't think that any Democratic politicians should ever speak negatively of a fellow Democrat, and focus on the much worse (by orders of magnitude) Republican't malfeasance. And I don't like either of the remaining campaigns' forays into that type of persuasion. And a frelling ficus plant could beat McClueless and the Anything-But-Straight Talk Express in November. I also think that I have seen an awful lot more apocalyptic rhetoric (of the "if my candidate doesn't win, I'm taking my votes and going home!" type) coming from the Obama camp than I have from the Clinton camp this cycle.

I also have failed to see any quotes from the Clinton campaign saying they'd have to think about voting for Obama if he wins the nomination.

That's because no one is asking them directly.

Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

Ask Taylor Marsh. My feeling is probably not.

I also have failed to see any quotes from the Clinton campaign saying they'd have to think about voting for Obama if he wins the nomination.

That's because no one is asking them directly.

Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

Ask Taylor Marsh. My feeling is probably not.

I also have failed to see any quotes from the Clinton campaign saying they'd have to think about voting for Obama if he wins the nomination.

That's because no one is asking them directly.

Or similar sentiments being expressed by blogs who support Clinton being the nominee.

Ask Taylor Marsh. My feeling is probably not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png

sorry 'bout that.

Tom said :"I believe you were ragging on someone earlier for distorting OW's words? Perhaps you should look in a mirror when making such claims the next time."

No.

I wasn't distorting their (i.e., Save Farris') words. I was pointing out that s/he wasn't making their own case.

To review:
I said far too many in the Clinton camp seem willing to destroy the party if they don't get their way.
SaveFarris quoted me and added "To be fair, Obama supporters are saying pretty much the same thing."

I think what he meant to say is apparent. Obama supoprters would act the same way.
But as he actually wrote it what he actually says is Obama supporters also believe Clinton is willing to destroy the party. And then he provide a link that didn't support his point.

And I pointed out "Sheesh, even with the distortion you can't make the point you're aiming for."

If you think the eeeevul Clagina has been tagging Obama with body blows, I'd be interested to know how you think the Republican't slime and deflect machinery will be treating him, comparatively speaking.

Gee, I don't recall ever using that terminology, much less even hearing it before now.

And just because I think they've been landing body blows doesn't mean that I think he can't withstand them.

For the record, I don't think that any Democratic politicians should ever speak negatively of a fellow Democrat, and focus on the much worse (by orders of magnitude) Republican't malfeasance. And I don't like either of the remaining campaigns' forays into that type of persuasion. And a frelling ficus plant could beat McClueless and the Anything-But-Straight Talk Express in November.

Agreed. Which is why I wish she hadn't made her recent forays into "McCain is more ready to be President than Obama," which will only hurt the Democrats if she doesn't win the nomination. She could have continued to wield her "experience" hammer (which again, Obama supporters will counter, "vs. judgment") without having to endorse McCain in the process.

I dunno, guys. As a lifelong democrat, when I hear a democratic presidential hopeful say that the Republican hopeful is better suited to be President, I just have to say "Whoa, DUDE! Not cool."

Perhaps she's hedging her bets and hoping for a McCain/Clinton ticket if she can't get the Clinton/Obama ticket? That's scary.