Clinton Banks On Superdelegates

[Glocksman]

The plural of anecdote isn't data, so take this for what it's worth.
In my case, my support of Obama isn't because I support everything the Democratic Party stands for.
Instead, it's because I'm fucking sick of the politics as usual brigade and disilluionment with the Repubs over GWB's bullshit.

If the Dems sink to the same level of insider manipulation and nominate HRC in spite of Obama winning the majority of pledged delegates, I'll leave the 'Presidency of the US' section on the ballot blank.

Now if HRC wins the nomination because the voters nominated her, then I'll hold my nose and vote for the bitch.
If my reaction is in any way typical, the Dems don't dare assume that Obama's supporters will all fall in line and vote for Hillary in November.

[Eris]

Glocksman's response is hardly unique to the unusual people who are declaring their intention to vote against their normal tendencies and cross the line into the Obama camp. I'm fairly left of centre on many issues, and were Clinton to override a popular vote on this, I'd vote Obama as a write in anyway.

Now, it's hard to say if this is a broad enough trend to actually make a difference in a general election. But, with the level of enthusiasm that Obama is generating from his supporters, it doesn't seem unreasonable to tentatively infer that a non-trivial portion of them would be gravely offended by what might be perceived as a stolen election, no matter if it's technically legitimate.

[Invictus ChiKen]

If HRC goes through with this I'll switch parties.


Also on the McCain not debating her. Could he not spin it as saying he wont debate Hillary as she stole the nomination, yet WOULD debate Obama the Democrats TRUE candidate?

If this dividing the Democratic Party.

[Civil War Man]

Glocksman's response is hardly unique to the unusual people who are declaring their intention to vote against their normal tendencies and cross the line into the Obama camp. I'm fairly left of centre on many issues, and were Clinton to override a popular vote on this, I'd vote Obama as a write in anyway.

IIRC, polls indicate that somewhere around 80+% of Clinton supporters view Obama as an acceptable candidate in the general election, while closer to only ~70% of Obama supporters think the same about Clinton. Since, at least now, Obama seems to have a larger base, it would seem that more votes would be lost with a Clinton nomination, and it may also affect the turnout of young voters who mobilized in force for Obama and may get disillusioned if the supers somehow banded together specifically to annoit Clinton.

[HemlockGrey]

Again, despite the fact the trend is the exact opposite direction. Even then, her wins need to be consistant and big in the remaining primaries.

My dismissal is rooted firmly in reality and logic, with some math thrown in. Your insistance this be taken ultra-serious is based on nothing but your own credulity.. Which you admit when you say the only reason is 'They said that!'.

My insistance is that this remains a possibility. Predicting outcomes in politics is notoriously difficult. Just a few months ago everyone thought McCain was dead in the water, just as an example. Unlike a Huckabee win, this is not mathematically impossible; Hillary is expected to win in Ohio and Texas, and these big-state victories could give her the buoyancy she and the Clenis need to work their considerable influence and reverse the trend of superdelegates moving away from them. That's the reason I consider it a likely scenario.

As for the 10% thing, I never said that it was going to be a 10% gap. I was just taking issue with the idea that a 20% delegate gap is somehow insignificant or small. If this comes to pass I would imagine the gap would be much smaller, but the news and the public aren't going to focus on the exact numbers, they'd just focus on "HILLARY LOSES POPULAR VOTE, WINS ON SUPERDELS"

However, I do agree that it remains unlikely. I just don't think we have firm grounds for dismissing it entirely. What I find really odd is this statement:

I'll look forward to when she just plain loses, because the flat out paranoid delusions that the media propagates and people eat up about the Clintons are so very annoying to a thinking mind.

Clearly if her consultants are openly talking about this, its hardly a paranoid anti-Clinton delusion propagated by the media.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What DO you expect to happen as trends pan out right now, Hemlock?

[SirNitram]

Clearly if her consultants are openly talking about this, its hardly a paranoid anti-Clinton delusion propagated by the media.

And if you'd bothered to read my posts instead of continuing these credulous frettings because everything a consultant says must be true, you'd realize that smell is the smell of fear, for the inevitability of Clinton is gone.

By the by, I will clue you in to something. These consultants are paid either way. Indeed, one of the major sources of anger against the DLC, the actual group and the faction that has crystallized around it and has Hillary as a de-facto spokesperson, is that the consultants of it ruled the party unfettered from 1992 to 2004.

Their strategies include such gems as going along with Bush on Iraq and everything else, campaigning only in blue or battleground states, and not drawing distinctions between Dems and Reps. Anyone who saw the Democratic party's fates in the elections from 1994 until 2006's DNC revolt can figure out what the crap happened there: The Dems became more and more irrelevent.

The DLC still got paid. They still held onto powerful positions. They still got gigs. They were failing and still raking in massive consulting fees.

A 12 year spread of evidence is enough to conclude that they are not obsessively about winning: They are obsessively about their control over what they see is 'theirs'. They will talk up any strategy if it keeps them on the presidential nomination campaign. It does not matter if they lose. Some idiot who believes running as anything other than a far-right conservative will hire them next cycle.

[HemlockGrey]

What DO you expect to happen as trends pan out right now, Hemlock?

I don't have any iron-clad predictions. I think if Hillary can take Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania she can make make a legitimate run at the nomination. But I think whats more likely is that Obama will barely edge her out in delegates and she won't be able to muster enough supers to win. But I can't really divine the way the race is going to go.

[Flagg]

I have no real issue with super-delegates turning the election in Clintons favor. It's part of the Democratic nomination process and the candidates were fully aware of it when they started their runs. I take issue with this fucktard wanting to pull some Rovian doublespeak shit with calling them "automatic delegates". How the fuck is that in any way more accurate than "super-delegates"? If anything, a better term would be "free delegates".

The other thing really pissing me off about the Clinton campaign is this bullshit with Michigan and Florida. Not so much because they have any real chance of seating these delegates (of course if they did it would be akin to stealing the nomination), but because they are running around shouting "disenfranchisement". Considering the 2000 election in Florida and the 2004 shenanigans in Ohio, for one Democratic candidate to use the specter of election theft against another as a purely political ploy is unacceptable to me.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Personally, i have no problem with Clinton. I don't really get why everyone hates her so much; i disagree strongly with her stance on some issues and despite that, i wouldn't let that sour my whole view of the woman. And to be frank, a lot of the hate geared towards HRC boarders on sexism, IMO. I get the feeling if a male politico were doing the same stuff (which, lets face it, is par the course for politicians, even Obama probably) they wouldn't get cute nicknames like "Shillery". How droll.

[SirNitram]

There's no doubt that the media hates her for two reasons:

She's female, and she's a Clinton.

No one else gets media figures whining like brats that their voice is like 'Nails on a chalkboard'. And no one else will ever be said their career comes from their married partner mucked about.

There is practically a cottage industry within the whole echo-chamber/professional-welfare system of the Right in hating her and perpetuating reasons to. However, I will still think she's scum for the basic reason she's the embodiment of the DLC: Hawkish, not progressive, and idiotic.

[Flagg]

There is definitely an undercurrent of sexism against her within the media, but I don't think Obama has been making sexist attacks, nor do I think he would. It runs counter to his overall message. Not that I don't think Obama is a political animal (Oh noes! I called him an animal! I must be teh racist!!). The very fact that he's in position to win the Democratic nomination and possibly the presidency shows that he's compromised himself on some level. Everyone in that position has, it's the nature of the beast (More of teh racizms!!!).

But let's not act like Clinton isn't pulling some sexist shit of her own. Crying before a primary not once, not twice, but at least three times in order to garner on voter sympathy is playing right into the hands of the people who say she'd do anything to win. That's not to say all of the attacks against her are necessarily fair. Chris Matthews comes to mind as being one of the more douchy motherfuckers when it comes to that. And though I doubt she had any personal role in the statements made by the president of the New York chapter of NOW, it sounds just like something she'd put out there herself. I mean this is the same campaign that tried to use Obama's drug use (Because Bill didn't inhale, right?) against him, not to mention that retarded "He's wanted to be president since he was in Kindergarten!" attack.

[Darth Wong]

Personally, i have no problem with Clinton. I don't really get why everyone hates her so much

I hate the fact that she made health care the entire focus of her public persona, and then promptly rolled over for the health insurance companies the minute they showed up at her door waving money at her. I hate the fact that she criticizes the Bush Administration for its conduct during the Iraq War but, as far as I can tell, supported every specific decision that they made. That, to me, is HRC in a nutshell.

[Flagg]

Personally, i have no problem with Clinton. I don't really get why everyone hates her so much

I hate the fact that she made health care the entire focus of her public persona, and then promptly rolled over for the health insurance companies the minute they showed up at her door waving money at her. I hate the fact that she criticizes the Bush Administration for its conduct during the Iraq War but, as far as I can tell, supported every specific decision that they made. That, to me, is HRC in a nutshell.

The only issues I can think of that she hasn't completely caved in on are abortion rights (and the myriad of other issues that encompasses, right or wrong) and her crusade against video games. She gets points for one of those, and loses points for the other.

She's still head and shoulders above McCain, but I think we'll see a continuation of alot of Bush's current policies regarding "national defense" and executive power. More than that, I just don't trust her. Not that I really trust any politician, but to the extent that I do trust some of them, I most assuredly don't trust her.

[Metatwaddle]

Today the NYT published a pretty comprehensive list of superdelegates and who they plan to vote for, indicating who is going against the popular vote of their district or state. As expected, there are a lot more people from Obama states voting for Hillary than vice versa.

Turns out my governor is planning to vote for Hillary even though we voted for Obama by a double-digit margin. Our "committeeman" and "committeewoman" - representatives to the DNC - have also endorsed Clinton. I'm going to write to all three of them, although it probably won't do much good as none of them will probably ever run in a Delaware election in the future (our governor's second term ends in January and the other two are unelected). Anyone have suggestions on how to phrase the letter?

Anyway, ranting aside, the original article is here and the list is here. I don't know if registration is required, but it's free anyway.

[Flagg]

Today the NYT published a pretty comprehensive list of superdelegates and who they plan to vote for, indicating who is going against the popular vote of their district or state. As expected, there are a lot more people from Obama states voting for Hillary than vice versa.

Turns out my governor is planning to vote for Hillary even though we voted for Obama by a double-digit margin. Our "committeeman" and "committeewoman" - representatives to the DNC - have also endorsed Clinton. I'm going to write to all three of them, although it probably won't do much good as none of them will probably ever run in a Delaware election in the future (our governor's second term ends in January and the other two are unelected). Anyone have suggestions on how to phrase the letter?

Anyway, ranting aside, the original article is here and the list is here. I don't know if registration is required, but it's free anyway.

I'd urge them to vote the way the majority of the Democrats across the state have since they are supposed to be representing the people, and those people have made their wishes known, even though their representation of the people isn't as party officials and delegates.

But to be fair, super-delegates are under no obligation to vote for whom the majority of their state has. Their obligation is to vote for whom they think will best serve the interests of the Democratic party and the USA. So I wouldn't really hold it against them as some subjugation of democracy if they still voted for Clinton despite Obama winning the primary in your state.

If you're really worried about a subjugation of democracy then I'd urge them to do whatever it is they need to within party rules to not allow the delegates from Michigan and Florida to cast votes at the convention unless another primary or caucus is held in those states. One withall of the candidates still in the race on the ballot and participating.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I hate the fact that she made health care the entire focus of her public persona, and then promptly rolled over for the health insurance companies the minute they showed up at her door waving money at her.

What are you referring to? I thought she gave up the health care thing after being dragged through the mud so hard about it.

[Pablo Sanchez]

And if you'd bothered to read my posts instead of continuing these credulous frettings because everything a consultant says must be true, you'd realize that smell is the smell of fear, for the inevitability of Clinton is gone.

Do you think that perhaps this superdelegate maneuvering by her campaign is actually a put-on, because they're afraid of their supporters in the remaining primaries deciding that the fight is already lost? Like, they'll say that the fight is never over, so that Clintonites will still come to the polls, but if they keep losing, they'll back off for the sake of the party. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised.

[Metatwaddle]

And if you'd bothered to read my posts instead of continuing these credulous frettings because everything a consultant says must be true, you'd realize that smell is the smell of fear, for the inevitability of Clinton is gone.

Do you think that perhaps this superdelegate maneuvering by her campaign is actually a put-on, because they're afraid of their supporters in the remaining primaries deciding that the fight is already lost? I wouldn't be surprised.

They don't seem to have decided that yet. She's up by double digits in Ohio in a poll ending February 13th. In Texas, as of February 14th, she's either up by 7 or 16 or she's down by 6, depending on who you listen to. (My source is electoral-vote.com, which for some reason isn't telling me who did which polls in Texas.)

[Flagg]

I hate the fact that she made health care the entire focus of her public persona, and then promptly rolled over for the health insurance companies the minute they showed up at her door waving money at her.

What are you referring to? I thought she gave up the health care thing after being dragged through the mud so hard about it.

Except she then took money from the people who did the dragging when she ran her first Senate campaign and IIRC is now the leading recipient of Insurance and Pharmaceutical company contributions. Probably why her healthcare plan is basically "force everyone to buy health insurance and force the insurance companies to offer affordable plans". Which basically means "Fuck you American consumers!"

[CmdrWilkens]

Honestly it comes down to some very simple truths

1) Clinton's campaign is desperaely trying to piece together a strategy. They had nothing, and I mean nothing, planned for after 'Super Tuesday" so they haven't been able to generate a message or a meaning in any speech or ad campaign. They've had to replace the top two campaign figures outside of Mark Penn (who should be axed in public) and are basically trying to rebuildon the fly.

2) Everything they say or do is deisgned to appeal to one of two groups:
a) Party Insiders, say antyhing else about the Clintons but they were the last Democrats to hold the white house and they did so for 8 years. Bill basically built or started a whole bunch of political careers (which is why something like 5 ex-DNC chairs are behind Clinton)so now they are playing the "you owe us one' card.
b) The "disenfranchised voter", If they aren't targeting the elite they are targeting the absolute base by telling them that Obama and his elitists don't care about them and that they are better than the snobs who vote for Obama. All the messages such as "Michigan counts" or 'caucus states don't" is designed (though not neccessarily effective) at telling the white blue collar union worker that his vote should matter and it will only matter if Hillary wins and stops the crazienss of uppity college kids and rich super-liberals taking over the party through tactics designed to keep the work a day man's voice from being heard.

3) Just because they repeat point 2 doesn't make it true. Their campaign right now is trying to shift gears from "inevitable" to "scrappy underdog" and along the way it is playing all of the traditional games of deriding an oppoentns wins and building up the importance of one's own coalition int he general election. That said their points are very often conflicting and flase so the more time Obama has to counter them the more effective he becomes at showing voters that if they want to really change the system and get results then sticking with linton isn't going to do it. Her campaign can harp all they want about getting the loyalty of party insiders (and how that somehow shows her to be more electable) but the truth is that they aren't flocking to her. Something like half of her endorsements are pre- Nov 2007 endorsements, that is before this became a two horse race. In that contezt she has not shown any ability to actually attract super delegates EXCEPT when she can win states.

4) If she loses either Texas or Ohio then she is done. at that point the delegate math and pace of the campaign all favor Obama. For all the talk about the superdelegates supposedly shifting the election you have to remember who these folks are: career politicians. They are NOT going to sacrifice the general election because of personal appeals by Bill and Hillary. If she enters the convention with a significant disadvantage in pledged delegates the supers are going to swing decisively in his favor.