Clinton backers "urging" Nancy Pelosi to butt out...

[Tracy]

What do you think of the letter that was sent to Nancy Pelosi by some Clinton backers who threatened to withhold funds from House Democrats if Nancy Pelosi doesn't stop saying that Superdelegates should vote the way the people vote?

I've been trying, really I have, to find something in Clinton that I could like. To find something about her campaigning that doesn't bother me, just in case something happened and Obama's campaign had the bottom drop out and I'd have to consider voting for Clinton. Then stuff like this comes up and it infuriates me. Add that to her claiming that she was under fire in Bosnia when she clearly wasn't and I just keep being reminded about why I don't trust her.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/war-breaking-out-over-superdelegate-role-in-democratic-primary/


List of Donors:

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=341

[Gargoyle]

The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.

I understand what they are saying, that the superdelegates aren't like regular delegates and aren't tied in to voting how the American public votes, but I do agree with the quote I posted. I really do think that if in the end the superdelegates push Hillary over the line, if Obama wins, there are going to be some royally pissed of people and vice versa.

Frankly, I find threatening a person, is just so low down. The woman has the right to speak her mind and how dare they threaten her.

[jerzymama]

I would expect a statement from Party officials and supporters.

Superdelegates have a responsibility to vote their conscience - that's the point of a "superdelegate". It's going to be extremely important this year and here's why:

While Obama is leading the *popular* Democratic primaries, Hillary has won in the states that normally are led by the Democrats and a couple of key swing states. Obama has won in states that historically vote *Republican and weight has to be given to the likelihood of whether he is a strong enough candidate to a) bring out more than the previous numbers of Democratic voters and/or b) take away Republican votes. Weight also has to be given to voters who feel strongly against either candidate (and I stand in this camp) who will likely vote for McCain or not vote at all - a couple of days ago there was a poll that said something like 20% of Barack & Hillary supporters would either not vote or vote for McCain.

If the goal is to get a Democrat in the White House, the question then becomes which candidate can best upset *barely* Republican states - i.e. Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, etc.

It's all well and good to publically state that the will of the voters should dictate the election but that's simply NOT how our system works.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[indigo]

I would expect a statement from Party officials.

Superdelegates have a responsibility to vote their conscience - that's the point of a "superdelegate". It's going to be extremely important this year and here's why:

While Obama is leading the *popular* Democratic primaries, Hillary has won in the states that normally are led by the Democrats and a couple of key swing states. Obama has won in states that historically vote *Republican and weight has to be given to the likelihood of whether he is a strong enough candidate to a) bring out more than the previous numbers of Democratic voters and/or b) take away Republican votes. Weight also has to be given to voters who feel strongly against either candidate (and I stand in this camp) who will likely vote for McCain or not vote at all - a couple of days ago there was a poll that said something like 20% of Barack & Hillary supporters would either not vote or vote for McCain.

If the goal is to get a Democrat in the White House, the question then becomes which candidate can best upset *barely* Republican states - i.e. Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, etc.

It's all well and good to publically state that the will of the voters should dictate the election but that's simply NOT how our system works.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Even given this, though, my fear is that superdelegates may not vote their consciences, but may, instead, vote for what's politically expedient for themselves. In fact, I'd be utterly shocked if there wasn't money or favors crossing hands here. No, I haven't seen evidence of this, but I've watched politics long enough to know that it's probably happening. That is the danger when you give individual people great power.

[jerzymama]

Even given this, though, my fear is that superdelegates may not vote their consciences, but may, instead, vote for what's politically expedient for themselves. In fact, I'd be utterly shocked if there wasn't money or favors crossing hands here. No, I haven't seen evidence of this, but I've watched politics long enough to know that it's probably happening. That is the danger when you give individual people great power.

We're not electing The Messiah, yk? I really think that's something that's often lost on Democrats. This is a *political* process and the *pick* has to be someone who can *win*. Republicans understand this and it's one of the reasons they've won the past two national elections.

[indigo]

We're not electing The Messiah, yk? I really think that's something that's often lost on Democrats. This is a *political* process and the *pick* has to be someone who can *win*. Republicans understand this and it's one of the reasons they've won the past two national elections.

I'm not really sure how your response addresses what I said, but, Ok, I absolutely agree that we're not electing the messiah. LOL.

[chantele]

I'm not really sure how your response addresses what I said, but, Ok, I absolutely agree that we're not electing the messiah. LOL.

Are you sure?? :rofl:
http://www.radaronline.com/quiz/2008/03/jesus_or_barack_obama_quiz_01.php

[bannanabette]

I would expect a statement from Party officials and supporters.

Superdelegates have a responsibility to vote their conscience - that's the point of a "superdelegate".

You know, this is going to shock you but I STRONGLY agree with you philosophically. I think the argument that the superdelegates should vote as their constituents vote or as the popular vote/pledged delegates vote is specious. And I think they should vote not so much with their conscience as with their political acumen - that's what they were created to do - to give the "experts" of the party (expert by virtue of being political creatures) the ability to temper the course of the mob, so to speak. I wish Obama would stop making that argument because I think it's just flat out wrong. Of course, making political calculations about how damaging it might be to the party to go against the leader in pledged delegates should be a big part of their decision as well.

However (you know there was going to be a however, right?) what I really wish the superdelegates would do is come out *right now* in full force for Obama and declare their support and effectively end the primary now before it gets any more damaging. It's within their power to prevent the continued bloodletting - they can't bemoan the state of the campaign if they have the power to end it, so I think that they should put up and shut up. They're not bound by what the final votes are going to be - although it's pretty clear that Obama is going into the convention leading in delegate votes and probably popular vote as well, so if they're staying on the sidelines for fear of offending one or the other candidate, that's just too bad. They need to show a little courage. Like Peter Parker says, with great power comes great responsibility.

So I don't want to hear any more whining about Pelosi saying this or that - they should ALL come out and declare who they're supporting now. I have no problem with what Pelosi said in the sense that if she's pushing people to start making their decisions and declaring, that's all good in my book.

[jerzymama]

xx

[jerzymama]

However (you know there was going to be a however, right?) what I really wish the superdelegates would do is come out *right now* in full force for Obama and declare their support and effectively end the primary now before it gets any more damaging. It's within their power to prevent the continued bloodletting - they can't bemoan the state of the campaign if they have the power to end it, so I think that they should put up and shut up. They're not bound by what the final votes are going to be - although it's pretty clear that Obama is going into the convention leading in delegate votes and probably popular vote as well, so if they're staying on the sidelines for fear of offending one or the other candidate, that's just too bad. They need to show a little courage. Like Peter Parker says, with great power comes great responsibility.

So I don't want to hear any more whining about Pelosi saying this or that - they should ALL come out and declare who they're supporting now. I have no problem with what Pelosi said in the sense that if she's pushing people to start making their decisions and declaring, that's all good in my book.

I agree with you 1,000% that the *bloodletting* must end -because ultimately it will sink the Democrats. Both Obama and Clinton MUST realize that every argument against each other will ultimately be used by the Republicans. However (I have one too) - I think it would be wholly premature for the superdelegates to make any declaration prior to the outcomes of the remaining primaries.

Personally, other than general endorsements - I think Pelosi and any other Demo, should basically keep their mouths shut on topics other than policy. Because frankly, at this point, I'm not sure what EITHER candidate's policies or opinions are ...re: the economy, health insurance, Iraq.

[indigo]

xx

Really? That's funny because I didn't say anything reverential or idealistic. In fact, it was sort of on the cynical side because I said that I doubted that superdelegates WOULD vote for the candidate that their conscience told them they should. I said that I suspected they'd vote for the candidate who greased their palm with the best offer.

[Bickery]

You know, this is going to shock you but I STRONGLY agree with you philosophically. I think the argument that the superdelegates should vote as their constituents vote or as the popular vote/pledged delegates vote is specious. And I think they should vote not so much with their conscience as with their political acumen - that's what they were created to do - to give the "experts" of the party (expert by virtue of being political creatures) the ability to temper the course of the mob, so to speak. I wish Obama would stop making that argument because I think it's just flat out wrong. Of course, making political calculations about how damaging it might be to the party to go against the leader in pledged delegates should be a big part of their decision as well.

However (you know there was going to be a however, right?) what I really wish the superdelegates would do is come out *right now* in full force for Obama and declare their support and effectively end the primary now before it gets any more damaging. It's within their power to prevent the continued bloodletting - they can't bemoan the state of the campaign if they have the power to end it, so I think that they should put up and shut up. They're not bound by what the final votes are going to be - although it's pretty clear that Obama is going into the convention leading in delegate votes and probably popular vote as well, so if they're staying on the sidelines for fear of offending one or the other candidate, that's just too bad. They need to show a little courage. Like Peter Parker says, with great power comes great responsibility.

So I don't want to hear any more whining about Pelosi saying this or that - they should ALL come out and declare who they're supporting now. I have no problem with what Pelosi said in the sense that if she's pushing people to start making their decisions and declaring, that's all good in my book.

OMG did you just quote Spiderman. :spit:

I love reading your posts on political stuff. So thought provoking.

[Tracy]

I will be very upset if the Superdelegates make a decision contrary to how the voters have voted. If they do not chose the candidate based on who received more of the popular vote then how on earth is that any different than George Bush being handed the presidency by the Supreme court when the popular votes were for Gore?

I am really fed up with Clinton snubbing the voters. She says that Caucus voters don't count, that primarily black states don't count, she's now telling us that pledged delegates don't need to vote for whom they are pledged. Her camp told Richardson that his opinion doesn't count and had her "people" (James Carvel)call him a traitor for God's sake! A traitor because he isn't supporting her! Her and Bill are even *suggesting* that if she isn't the candidate then McCain should be. It's been brought up several times now. That, to me, shows someone who only cares about herself and not the voters, and certainly not the DNC.

Also, to have her supporters virtually blackmail the DNC by "hinting" that they will withhold money of it doesn't go the way that Clinton wants makes me so angry. This is not the Hillary show but she can't seem to see that.

Finally, no, we are not electing the "Messiah" (Not sure what that means exactly) But this is quite possibly the most important election of my life and I am taking that quite seriously as are so many voters who are coming out in droves. To ignore them would be downright WRONG.

[jerzymama]

I will be very upset if the Superdelegates make a decision contrary to how the voters have voted. If they do not chose the candidate based on who received more of the popular vote then how on earth is that any different than George Bush being handed the presidency by the Supreme court when the popular votes were for Gore?

I am really fed up with Clinton snubbing the voters. She says that Caucus voters don't count, that primarily black states don't count, she's now telling us that pledged delegates don't need to vote for whom they are pledged. Her camp told Richardson that his opinion doesn't count and had her "people" (James Carvel)call him a traitor for God's sake! A traitor because he isn't supporting her! Her and Bill are even *suggesting* that if she isn't the candidate then McCain should be. It's been brought up several times now. That, to me, shows someone who only cares about herself and not the voters, and certainly not the DNC.

Also, to have her supporters virtually blackmail the DNC by "hinting" that they will withhold money of it doesn't go the way that Clinton wants makes me so angry. This is not the Hillary show but she can't seem to see that.

Finally, no, we are not electing the "Messiah" (Not sure what that means exactly) But this is quite possibly the most important election of my life and I am taking that quite seriously as are so many voters who are coming out in droves. To ignore them would be downright WRONG.

Florida and the 2000 election are EXACTLY the reasons that not having all the delegates beholden to the perceived *popular* vote is a GOOD idea.

By the time the electoral college convened, it was decided that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida - albeit by a very very small margin. But the delegates had no CHOICE but to vote the popular vote. If some of those delegates had been able to chose otherwise - Gore may have won the election.

[bannanabette]

Florida and the 2000 election are EXACTLY the reasons that not having all the delegates beholden to the perceived *popular* vote is a GOOD idea.

By the time the electoral college convened, it was decided that Bush had won the popular vote in Florida - albeit by a very very small margin. But the delegates had no CHOICE but to vote the popular vote. If some of those delegates had been able to chose otherwise - Gore may have won the election.

Actually, electors in the EC are not bound by their states popular votes and absolutely could have changed their vote without reprisal in 2000. So called "faithless electors" are not prohibited in the Constitution. 24 states have state laws basically prohibiting them (by require an formal pledge), but 21 have no such restriction at all. And in the 24 that do, the penalties for going against a pledge is basically a fine.

Constitutionally the Electoral College was conceived as in effect a college of super delegates, so I don't think that state laws that force electors to vote a certain way (breaking the pledge would incur penalties but still not actually be prohibited) would hold up to a constitutional challenge.

Electors absolutely could have changed their votes in 2000. Only one chose to, one of the three Democratic electors from DC. She chose to abstain as protest.

Here's an interesting article: http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm#1

So that part of your argument is false - they did have a choice and Gore still did not win the EC.

[bannanabette]

OMG did you just quote Spiderman. :spit:

I love reading your posts on political stuff. So thought provoking.

I know, I'm such a geek! LOL! And thank you for saying the second part! nt

[jerzymama]

Actually, electors in the EC are not bound by their states popular votes and absolutely could have changed their vote without reprisal in 2000. So called "faithless electors" are not prohibited in the Constitution. 24 states have state laws basically prohibiting them (by require an formal pledge), but 21 have no such restriction at all. And in the 24 that do, the penalties for going against a pledge is basically a fine.

Constitutionally the Electoral College was conceived as in effect a college of super delegates, so I don't think that state laws that force electors to vote a certain way (breaking the pledge would incur penalties but still not actually be prohibited) would hold up to a constitutional challenge.

Electors absolutely could have changed their votes in 2000. Only one chose to, one of the three Democratic electors from DC. She chose to abstain as protest.


So that part of your argument is false - they did have a choice and Gore still did not win the EC.

At the very least - it would have been immoral - according to Florida's constitution. Whether any other states' electorates could've voted faithless is not the issue. Bush was declared the popular winner in Florida; those were the delegates that won the election. Actually I think it's Maine and Nebraska? That have a better system - I *think* in those states it's NOT winner take all - I believe it's done by district - which to me, is a much more equitable arrangement.

[bannanabette]

At the very least - it would have been immoral - according to Florida's constitution. Whether any other states' electorates could've voted faithless is not the issue. Bush was declared the popular winner in Florida; those were the delegates that won the election.

I don't really understand the point that you're trying to make? I guess I'm just saying that your premise that Gore would/could have won the election had the delegates not been pledged doesn't make sense to me (unless that wasn't the argument and I misread it?) Since at least 21 delegations did have the option to change their votes and vote against their popular vote. Floridians may not have (although again, immoral or no, they still could have tried) but Bush didn't win by Florida delegates alone, and the popular vote was known by then. An elector in some other state could have reasoned that since Gore won the popular vote nationwide, they should vote along with the national vote rather than their state vote.

And for anyone who didn't know that electors are not constitutionally bound, your post would have been misleading, so I felt I needed to add clarification.

If the argument is that superdelegates or even pledged delegates should not be bound, because binding electors prevented Gore from winning in 2000, it's not a good argument because electors aren't bound. I'm not saying that superdelegates should be bound - in fact I said earlier that I think they were created specifically for the purpose of balancing the power of pledged delegates and are not bound - I just don't see how the 2000 election can be used as an argument in support of superdelegates since the electors weren't bound.

And indeed, it may very well happen that unbound superdelegates will make the choice to vote for Obama either because they feel that following the pledged delegate lead is the wisest political course or because they feel that Obama is the best candidate to run against McCain (both of which I agree with LOL) That's why I'd like to see them come out quickly and declare rather than letting it drag on to the convention.

ETA: I do strongly prefer proportional allocation over winner take all in the Electoral College, but I can't argue that winner take all has made for a cleaner, less contentious primary season for the Republicans. But I won't complain - proportionality has been hugely responsible for keeping Obama's candidacy alive. If the Democrats had a winner take all system, he'd probably have been out of the race by now.

[jerzymama]

I don't really understand the point that you're trying to make? I guess I'm just saying that your premise that Gore would/could have won the election had the delegates not been pledged doesn't make sense to me (unless that wasn't the argument and I misread it?) Since at least 21 delegations did have the option to change their votes and vote against their popular vote. Floridians may not have (although again, immoral or no, they still could have tried) but Bush didn't win by Florida delegates alone, and the popular vote was known by then. An elector in some other state could have reasoned that since Gore won the popular vote nationwide, they should vote along with the national vote rather than their state vote.

And for anyone who didn't know that electors are not constitutionally bound, your post would have been misleading, so I felt I needed to add clarification.

If the argument is that superdelegates or even pledged delegates should not be bound, because binding electors prevented Gore from winning in 2000, it's not a good argument because electors aren't bound. I'm not saying that superdelegates should be bound - in fact I said earlier that I think they were created specifically for the purpose of balancing the power of pledged delegates and are not bound - I just don't see how the 2000 election can be used as an argument in support of superdelegates since the electors weren't bound.

And indeed, it may very well happen that unbound superdelegates will make the choice to vote for Obama either because they feel that following the pledged delegate lead is the wisest political course or because they feel that Obama is the best candidate to run against McCain (both of which I agree with LOL) That's why I'd like to see them come out quickly and declare rather than letting it drag on to the convention.

ETA: I do strongly prefer proportional allocation over winner take all in the Electoral College, but I can't argue that winner take all has made for a cleaner, less contentious primary season for the Republicans. But I won't complain - proportionality has been hugely responsible for keeping Obama's candidacy alive. If the Democrats had a winner take all system, he'd probably have been out of the race by now.

Where the vote is so very controversial and close, I would welcome the opportunity for some delegates to be truly free to vote their conscience - without moral or legal impediment. In the other states - as far as I recall, either Bush or Gore were *clear* winners. Florida remained the *deciding* vote. While obviously - a delegate *could've* been faithless..in the 2000 climate it would've created more problems than it solved, further pushing the election into lawsuits, etc. Again - if memory serves me correctly - that was why Gore finally conceded - the cost to the country did not seem worth it.

Oh and I'm not sure why you keep saying that the superdelegates should just declare their vote for Obama and get it over with. **shrug**

Either way - to be honest - I'm fairly discouraged; I think the Dems have, once again, shot themselves in the foot and I have a strong feeling that McCain will win the general election.

[bannanabette]

Oh and I'm not sure why you keep saying that the superdelegates should just declare their vote for Obama and get it over with. **shrug**



I'm saying that's what *I* would like to happen. The superdelegate argument has devolved into pro-Clinton forces saying that the superdelegates should not be bound by the pledged delegate outcome, the pro-Obama forces saying that superdelegates should be bound. I just like to make the argument that superdelegates should not be bound, but that I don't think that necessarily is to Obama's disadvantage. Additionally I'm proposing that if superdelegates feel that the race has become too costly, then superdelegates do have an option that could bring it to an end, but it takes a certain amount of courage.

I'm really arguing it more as an intellectual exercise since, fundamentally, I have no problem with the process or time in which a superdelegate comes to his/her vote (having already argued that superdelegates should vote with their political acumen), although obviously as an Obama supporter I fervently hope that the vote does go his way eventually and that they'll come to see a vote for him as politically wise.

But I feel that we're talking at cross purposes and I apologize if I've upset you - I get the feeling that I have and if I did it was unintentional. I don't feel that acrimony toward either candidate serves the process well.

[jerzymama]

I'm saying that's what *I* would like to happen. The superdelegate argument has devolved into pro-Clinton forces saying that the superdelegates should not be bound by the pledged delegate outcome, the pro-Obama forces saying that superdelegates should be bound. I just like to make the argument that superdelegates should not be bound, but that I don't think that necessarily is to Obama's disadvantage. Additionally I'm proposing that if superdelegates feel that the race has become too costly, then superdelegates do have an option that could bring it to an end, but it takes a certain amount of courage.

I'm really arguing it more as an intellectual exercise since, fundamentally, I have no problem with the process or time in which a superdelegate comes to his/her vote (having already argued that superdelegates should vote with their political acumen), although obviously as an Obama supporter I fervently hope that the vote does go his way eventually and that they'll come to see a vote for him as politically wise.

But I feel that we're talking at cross purposes and I apologize if I've upset you - I get the feeling that I have and if I did it was unintentional. I don't feel that acrimony toward either candidate serves the process well.

And I'm definately feeling otherwise grumpy and irritable. Eh, who am I kidding? I'm always a little grumpy and irritable. :P

I actually think we agree on most points. :) Perhaps I'm also irritated and disappointed that it's a near mathematical impossibility - even with the superdelegates that Hillary will get the nomination. The only thing that could possibly turn it around number-wise would be delegates from FL and MI and I fear that would be waaay too a high a cost, even for me; no good could come of it.

Like I said above - I do think Hillary would have had a better chance at beating McCain.

[Tracy]

It's funny. I feel the exact opposite. I can't see any way that Hillary will beat McCain. I think we'll get another four years of Bush Policy...

Oh...And I'm grumpy too, but that has to do with me being super duper sick this last week and it's made it almost impossible to be happy that my neighbors from hell have moved !:)

[indigo]

It's funny. I feel the exact opposite. I can't see any way that Hillary will beat McCain. I think we'll get another four years of Bush Policy...

Oh...And I'm grumpy too, but that has to do with me being super duper sick this last week and it's made it almost impossible to be happy that my neighbors from hell have moved !:)

Yeah I think that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain too. I've heard many, many Republicans say to me that they're thinking of voting Obama in the general election, but certainly not Clinton, who seems to be despised by Republicans. Haven't polls indicated similar feelings? (It's been a while since I've seen one, but the ones that I saw a little while ago indicated that Obama had a better chance in a general election.)

[jerzymama]

Yeah I think that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain too. I've heard many, many Republicans say to me that they're thinking of voting Obama in the general election, but certainly not Clinton, who seems to be despised by Republicans. Haven't polls indicated similar feelings? (It's been a while since I've seen one, but the ones that I saw a little while ago indicated that Obama had a better chance in a general election.)

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

If you go down the list (especially on pollingreport), Clinton more consistently shows a lead over McCain. Of course, I wouldnt take too seriously polls from any organization with a known bias (i.e. Fox)

FWIW, I think like real estate, it's location, location, location. Here in NJ/NY/PA, many people I've spoken with have indicated that if the choice is Obama or McCain, they will vote McCain - it's very troubling because these are historically staunch Demos, pro Union types.

[bannanabette]

On the contrary, I'm enjoying the discussion.


Heh, ok :) I was too


I have a sinus infection though. And I'm definately feeling otherwise grumpy and irritable. Eh, who am I kidding? I'm always a little grumpy and irritable. :P


LOL - well I hope the sinus infection passes soon.

How I discuss politics depends a lot on my frame of mind. Some days I'm a wonk and go at it like a spectator sport (obviously last night was one of those times) but when I feel that things aren't going well for my candidate and I'm caught up in the frustration it's hard for me to talk about it without getting a bit twitchy.

My DH, who is always a wonk and never gets emotionally invested in candidates agrees with you, btw. He thinks that Hillary is a better candidate against McCain for a variety of tactical reasons (nothing to do with polling).

[jerzymama]

My DH, who is always a wonk and never gets emotionally invested in candidates agrees with you, btw. He thinks that Hillary is a better candidate against McCain for a variety of tactical reasons (nothing to do with polling).

Helps me forget that I dropped out of college. :)

My opinion is the only states that really matter for Dems are the swing states. I'll give Obama Georgia - but the other states are very sketchy. What we really want to see would be a huge win for either Hillary or Obama in the swing state(s). I believe - Hillary has been a much stronger candidate in the swing states that she's won - that's what I think is tactically more important. I also think historically, although there is tremendous *buzz* around Obama; I think with some Baby Boomers already *in* and vast numbers approaching retirement - there is no big desire for a perceived radical candidate - make no mistake the #1 issue by November will be the economy and jobs will only be a small part of it; investment income (Boomer 401K, IRAs, etc.) will also be a huge consideration. I think it would be huge tactical mistake for Dem voters to underestimate the base of accumulated wealth that exists in this country - even with scores of people losing their homes - they are loath to touch their retirement accounts.