Full Version: A Nomination Mess of Historic Proportions
What. A. Mess.
Barring some cataclysmic interference by the hand of God -- say, Barack Obama spontaneously combusts on the stump, or Hillary Clinton falls into a vat of antimatter -- it seems the democratic race is headed for a showdown at their convention in Denver this summer that could be as acrimonious as any convention since the 1968 convention in Chicago. Hoping to wrap up the nominating process somewhere in the next couple of months, DNC Chair Howard Dean recently made the following comment:
Not good news, indeed: an extended nominating contest or a brokered convention would give McCain a longer window of time to establish himself and wrestle unopposed for the center of American politics; it would offer a fractured GOP longer time to put aside their ideological differences and unite behind their presumptive nominee. An extended slog could turn bitter and tarnish both candidates. But, as a poster at DailyKos recently pointed out, there is essentially no way for either of the two remaining candidates to wrap up this nomination before the convention.
Even if Barack beat Hillary 55-45 in every state from here on out... a landslide, by all measures... she could easily breeze through a brokered nomination by winning a majority of unpledged delegates. Or vice-verse.
Meanwhile, Hillary is fighting to have the Florida and Michigan contests counted -- despite the fact that both states were stripped of their delegates from the onset of the race, and Barack Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
So, how should the democratic leadership handle this one?
I know this is technically a "dems only forum," but I welcome thoughtful and non-dismissive contributions from conservative libertarian, and green party posters...
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
4.) What a mess, right?
Barring some cataclysmic interference by the hand of God -- say, Barack Obama spontaneously combusts on the stump, or Hillary Clinton falls into a vat of antimatter -- it seems the democratic race is headed for a showdown at their convention in Denver this summer that could be as acrimonious as any convention since the 1968 convention in Chicago. Hoping to wrap up the nominating process somewhere in the next couple of months, DNC Chair Howard Dean recently made the following comment:
QUOTE
"I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April," Mr. Dean said Wednesday on the NY1 cable news channel, "but if we don’t, then we’re going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don’t think we can afford to have a brokered convention; that would not be good news for either party."
Not good news, indeed: an extended nominating contest or a brokered convention would give McCain a longer window of time to establish himself and wrestle unopposed for the center of American politics; it would offer a fractured GOP longer time to put aside their ideological differences and unite behind their presumptive nominee. An extended slog could turn bitter and tarnish both candidates. But, as a poster at DailyKos recently pointed out, there is essentially no way for either of the two remaining candidates to wrap up this nomination before the convention.
QUOTE
Here's the thing with that Dean comment: mathematically, there is no way the nomination will be settled before the convention, regardless of what happens from here on out...
To reach 2,025--the magic number to lock up the nomination--from only pledged delegates, without having to count on a single unpledged delegate (superdelegate), one of them would have to win almost four out of five of the remaining delegates, who are about 44% of the total pledged delegates. That ain't gonna happen.
If one of the candidates wins 70% of the remaining pledged delegates--which is highly unlikely--they would have about 1,900 total pledged delegates. They would need an additional 125 votes from unpledged delegates, or 16% of the unpledged delegates. That would not be difficult for either to muster.
If one of the candidates wins 65% of the remaining pledged delegates, they would have about 1,830 total pledged delegates. They would need an additional 200 votes from unpledged delegates, or 25% of the unpledged delegates.
If one of the candidates wins 60% of the remaining pledged delegates (which isn't likely but isn't completely implausible), they would have about 1,760 total pledged delegates. They would need an additional 250 votes from unpledged delegates, or 31% of the unpledged delegates.
If one of the candidates wins 55% of the remaining pledged delegates--and this isn't hard to imagine--they would go in to the convention with 1,689 pledged delegates, leaving them 335 delegates short of a majority. That's equal to 42% of the total number of unpledged delegates.
To reach 2,025--the magic number to lock up the nomination--from only pledged delegates, without having to count on a single unpledged delegate (superdelegate), one of them would have to win almost four out of five of the remaining delegates, who are about 44% of the total pledged delegates. That ain't gonna happen.
If one of the candidates wins 70% of the remaining pledged delegates--which is highly unlikely--they would have about 1,900 total pledged delegates. They would need an additional 125 votes from unpledged delegates, or 16% of the unpledged delegates. That would not be difficult for either to muster.
If one of the candidates wins 65% of the remaining pledged delegates, they would have about 1,830 total pledged delegates. They would need an additional 200 votes from unpledged delegates, or 25% of the unpledged delegates.
If one of the candidates wins 60% of the remaining pledged delegates (which isn't likely but isn't completely implausible), they would have about 1,760 total pledged delegates. They would need an additional 250 votes from unpledged delegates, or 31% of the unpledged delegates.
If one of the candidates wins 55% of the remaining pledged delegates--and this isn't hard to imagine--they would go in to the convention with 1,689 pledged delegates, leaving them 335 delegates short of a majority. That's equal to 42% of the total number of unpledged delegates.
Even if Barack beat Hillary 55-45 in every state from here on out... a landslide, by all measures... she could easily breeze through a brokered nomination by winning a majority of unpledged delegates. Or vice-verse.
Meanwhile, Hillary is fighting to have the Florida and Michigan contests counted -- despite the fact that both states were stripped of their delegates from the onset of the race, and Barack Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
So, how should the democratic leadership handle this one?
I know this is technically a "dems only forum," but I welcome thoughtful and non-dismissive contributions from conservative libertarian, and green party posters...
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
4.) What a mess, right?
I was watching election coverage (forget what channel) and they played Dean's comments regarding the status of the race. I was thinking he must be nuts if he thinks there's any way it will possibly be decided before the convention since it's statistically damn near impossible. I was, however, happy to hear his comments about the fact that something will need to be done to ensure the integrity of the process. What that something is, though...
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
On the same show that played Dean's comments, someone jokingly suggested a coin toss. I didn't find it funny at all because that's sort of what this whole thing feels like...maybe a little more like Roulette (what's that saying about always betting on black?
). I am certainly not well-versed enough in the process to know whether it's possible, but I'd like the super-delegates to side with their constituency, something a few folks have already said they'd do if it came down to it. Otherwise, the voice of the people is essentially rendered useless.
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
That depends on who they are endorsing/siding with
- seriously...I think they should side with their constituents in the end.
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
Yes and no. Michigan and Florida should never have changed their primary dates knowing the consequences. But it wasn't the voters who made the decision, so they should not be punished. Again, I don't know the legality of the issue, but I liked someone's previous suggestion on some topic regarding a re-vote in those two states. It's the ONLY possible way to make good out of a really terrible situation. It's lose-lose any other way.
4.) What a mess, right?
Indeed.
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
On the same show that played Dean's comments, someone jokingly suggested a coin toss. I didn't find it funny at all because that's sort of what this whole thing feels like...maybe a little more like Roulette (what's that saying about always betting on black?
). I am certainly not well-versed enough in the process to know whether it's possible, but I'd like the super-delegates to side with their constituency, something a few folks have already said they'd do if it came down to it. Otherwise, the voice of the people is essentially rendered useless.2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
That depends on who they are endorsing/siding with
- seriously...I think they should side with their constituents in the end.3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
Yes and no. Michigan and Florida should never have changed their primary dates knowing the consequences. But it wasn't the voters who made the decision, so they should not be punished. Again, I don't know the legality of the issue, but I liked someone's previous suggestion on some topic regarding a re-vote in those two states. It's the ONLY possible way to make good out of a really terrible situation. It's lose-lose any other way.
4.) What a mess, right?
Indeed.
QUOTE(drewyorktimes @ Feb 11 2008, 01:05 PM) 
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
4.) What a mess, right?
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
4.) What a mess, right?
As Elvis Costello once said, "I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused."
1. I'd like to see a unified Democratic Party coming out of its convention enthusiastic, motivated and 100% behind the candidate---Barack Obama. However, if Hillary Clinton emerges as the standard bearer, I won't take my ball and go home to sulk with my thumb in my mouth. I'll still work to get her into the White House. Just not with the same ardor and passion I would if Obama is The One.
2. Elected officials are supposedly there to represent the will of their constituents.
Now can I interest you in some swampland in Florida? My expectation is the superdelegates will get behind the guy or gal they figure can do them the most good. Obama has demonstrated strength in all areas of the country and that's got to be appealing to Red State Democrats who could benefit from his coattails. I'm not as certain that Clinton brings that same possibility, but betting against her is always a risky proposition. As there are not major policy differences between Obama and Clinton, the superdelegates can't ignore which of the two presents the biggest risk or reward for the "down ticket" candidates. It does little good to recapture the White House, but lose control or not expand on the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
3. It bothers me that there is a possibility of two critical states like Michigan and Florida not being represented at the summer convention and the party paying a heavy cost for it in the fall. But it seems more than a little unfair to Obama to seat the delegates as presently constituted when they are so heavily slanted towards Senator Clinton.
Columnist E.J. Dionne on RealClearPolitics.com weighed in on this: And that is why feelings would be so raw if this nomination were settled by something as grubby as a credentials fight over disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan. Two things are true. Delegations from those important states, currently in defiance of party rules, will eventually have to be seated. But if Clinton were to take the nomination because of her "victories" in primaries that all the candidates agreed not to contest, she would be seen by her adversaries as cheating.
The only solution is for the two states to agree to hold new rounds of voting that look as much like primaries as possible before the process ends in early June. Doing so would increase the chances that voters, not insiders, would pick the nominee. Democrats would not have to put up with invidious comparisons between their battle and the ugliness of Bush v. Gore. And one of these candidates might then actually be able to win.
A breakout, a fair deal, or bedlam: Those are the Democrats' options.
This is a migraine headache for Howard Dean and the DNC, but one of their own creation. Of course, it's possible that this may still be settled by states like Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
4. A mess? Yeah, maybe, but then as Will Rogers said, "I'm not part of a organized political party. I'm a Democrat." The superdelegates were put in place to avoid another George McGovern insurgency candidate as in 1972 and the resulting wipe-out that followed. The problem with a fail-safe like the superdelegates is nobody could have anticipated what might happen if it ever came down to actually using them.
Still, I'd rather have this drama than the dilemma the Republicans have when their likely candidate is the one guy who turns off and could actually depress the party base.
Think what things would be like if Joe Lieberman were the Democratic standard bearer in 2008 and that gives you a glimmer of the heartburn it gives many Republicans to have John McCain leading the parade this fall. This is what the sound of one hand clapping sounds like.
QUOTE
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
I would like to see the person with the highest delegate count the nomination. In this occurring, I'd like to see the super delegates vote the way the people of their respective states did.
QUOTE
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
See above
QUOTE
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
No, the decision was made to lay out the election calendar. The states can't choose to not abide by those rules, they should not be seated. If the people of Michigan adn Florida are outraged, they should take it up with their state party leaders who in their stubborn nature, made sure that their voice wouldn't be heard.
I am in favor of a coin flip. I think both are fabulous people humans....... I think the winner of the coin flip gets to be the president for 4 years and the the other is VP. Then in 4 years the pres can not run and VP runs in a ticket with the Pres who will be VP. that is my dream team... then in 8 years both get to run for pres again...
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
I think the nomination should go to the person with most confirmed delegates. I
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
The super delegates should side with the majority of the democratic party. If one person has more delegates and the greater popular vote there is no reason why the super delegates shouldn't go for that person. If one candidate has only the popular vote then the delegates should go with the person with the most delegates assuming the delegate count isn't close (as in within 50 delegates)
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
Michigan and Florida should not be counted or should be counted in such a way that they don't count. I think both Florida and Michigan should split their delegates.
4.) What a mess, right?
Yea its a mess all right. I hope they change the rules this convention to take this possibility into account.
I think the nomination should go to the person with most confirmed delegates. I
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
The super delegates should side with the majority of the democratic party. If one person has more delegates and the greater popular vote there is no reason why the super delegates shouldn't go for that person. If one candidate has only the popular vote then the delegates should go with the person with the most delegates assuming the delegate count isn't close (as in within 50 delegates)
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
Michigan and Florida should not be counted or should be counted in such a way that they don't count. I think both Florida and Michigan should split their delegates.
4.) What a mess, right?
Yea its a mess all right. I hope they change the rules this convention to take this possibility into account.
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
Through the party rules, which I understand would involve further votes and so political zience goes on.
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
Vote their own judgment. My bet is on Obama.
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
I don't care, it's up to those two states to figure it out.
4.) What a mess, right?
Seems to be a lot of people want a 1968-like clash to happen in Denver. It won't happen. For one thing the air is too thin and people will be groggy even before drinking the grog. For another this is not Chicago. For a third the mountain backdrop will awe the eye and free the spirit. For another the Iraq thing isn't Vietnam. Additionally, there aren't as many radical youth groups running around and innocence has long since been lost
I expect a lot of convention-goers will be taking long rides up there, sight seeing and buying funky artsy-craftsy stuff, singing John Denver tunes, getting RM high.
Some might drift down to Colorado Springs with the intention of driving up Pikes Peak. My advice is to not stop in CS but to keep on driving toward the Peak and those famous donuts. Or if you stop in CS, don't mess with the cops. It's the closest thing we have to Chicago.
Through the party rules, which I understand would involve further votes and so political zience goes on.
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
Vote their own judgment. My bet is on Obama.
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
I don't care, it's up to those two states to figure it out.
4.) What a mess, right?
Seems to be a lot of people want a 1968-like clash to happen in Denver. It won't happen. For one thing the air is too thin and people will be groggy even before drinking the grog. For another this is not Chicago. For a third the mountain backdrop will awe the eye and free the spirit. For another the Iraq thing isn't Vietnam. Additionally, there aren't as many radical youth groups running around and innocence has long since been lost
I expect a lot of convention-goers will be taking long rides up there, sight seeing and buying funky artsy-craftsy stuff, singing John Denver tunes, getting RM high.
Some might drift down to Colorado Springs with the intention of driving up Pikes Peak. My advice is to not stop in CS but to keep on driving toward the Peak and those famous donuts. Or if you stop in CS, don't mess with the cops. It's the closest thing we have to Chicago.
QUOTE(drewyorktimes @ Feb 11 2008, 01:05 PM)
What. A. Mess.
So, how should the democratic leadership handle this one?
So, how should the democratic leadership handle this one?
If it gets to the point where one of the canidates has the majority of the delegates then they get the nomination. I'm thinking it will be Obama and this is a prime opportunity for Clinton to push her agenda even if she does not end up with the nomination.
QUOTE
I know this is technically a "dems only forum," but I welcome thoughtful and non-dismissive contributions from conservative libertarian, and green party posters...
I would be interested in seeing something simular in the General Political discussion forum.
QUOTE
1.) Assuming Hillary and Barack wrapped up their state-by-state contests with less than a winning majority of delegates, how would you like to see this race settled?
The same way all our elections are settled, the majority prevails. My only worry is that the popular vote and the delgate vote could cast a cloud on the whole thing. Hillary Clinton could very easily have a majority of the popular vote and trail in delegates. That would be a mess but it comes down to the delegates, I can't think of any other recourse.
QUOTE
2.) How would you like to see your elected representatives behave as super-delegates? Would you want them to side with the majority of American voters, or endorse a candidate on their own judgment?
It has happened that the delegates counter the popular vote. The delegates are going to decide this and I have some doubts about whether or not this is the best way to settle it.
QUOTE
3.) Should the Michigan and Florida contests be "counted" and why or why not?
Of course they should, Obama even offered to pay for another vote. It's Michagan and Florida that is to blame for it but that does not make it right.
QUOTE
4.) What a mess, right?
Try to see the positive in the negative:
Pelosi said she is confident the nominee will be decided before the Democratic convention in August.
She said she was "never among those who believed this would be resolved by now," and argued that the prolonged campaign is good for the party, offering Democrats a chance to "make a clear distinction" about their differences with Republicans on a range of issues.Dems weight lengthy fight to the nomination, CNN
I think this is a good thing for the Democrates because it takes virtually all the attention away from McCain.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.