The Next President: Obiously We Know Who It Is

College Confidential Community
41

<p>^ Ditto</p>

<p>(effin 10 chars)</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
BedHead: I think that if Hillary can get to convention without Obama taking her superdelegates, she'll probably win, because she has compelling electoral arguments and how much better she is at backroom politics than Obama. So the 2-1 reflects how likely I think it is that Obama will take her supers before the convention.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If the Democratic party decides to do the most undemocratic things possible and subvert the will of a significant majority of Democratic voters in respect of backroom politics, it will lose a generation of voters. The Party knows this. Superdelegates are not the tie-breakers in this case. There is not a tie. Obama leads Clinton by 118 pledged delegates. </p>

<p>But I don't even have to raise the moral issues. Within the next couple of days, as well, he will surpass her superdelegate vote count. He has even successfully peeled off people who were previously committed to her.</p>

<p>I just don't see how the 2-1 numbers are even close. Unless there are pictures of Obama having sex with farm animals, he's wrapped this thing up.</p>

<p>Actually, I agree with an off-the-record Clinton advisor who said that they lost the election on Super Tuesday. </p>

<p>In a way it's a huge shame. I have friends who have spent time with Hillary at smallish events. Apparently she is warm and captivating in person. It's just she didn't run a campaign that reflected this.</p>

<p>She's obviously smart and has some extremely strong talents. But she's too much of a politician and just not that inspiring.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I honestly believe that McCain has a good chance of winning simply because of the divide in the democratic party.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree. It seems like there is a huge number of people voting declined to state now, and that threw off the two party system I think.</p>

44

<p>
[quote]
But I don't even have to raise the moral issues. [.quote]
Please explain. What are the moral issues?</p>

45

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm confused. If the only point of the superdelegates is to affirm the vote of the people, what exactly is the point of having them at all?</p>

<p>No, the only possible reason for their existence is to be the deciding factor in a nomination contest that has failed to produce a nominee. It seems likely that this one will fail to produce a nominee based solely on pledged delegates. Therefore it is neither immoral nor unjust for the superdelegates to do their job and vote for the candidate they consider better.</p>

<p>Now, Hillary has some compelling arguments as to why she would be the better candidate in the general. There are also compelling arguments for Obama (you made one with the "if the superdelegates nominate Hillary they will lose a lot of voters"). But you are seriously mistaken in asserting that it is immoral to consider those arguments on their merits. </p>

<p>Superdelegates are not and never have been a rubber stamp. They will decide this nomination, in Obama's favor or not. But it is both presumptive and incorrect to say that they must vote one way or another based on anything other than their conscience and opinion.</p>

46

<p>Disagree on both counts. First of all your "2-1" odds indicates, in my mind, that you are asserting wishful thinking in favor of Hillary. If you read today's headlines, I don't see how you could possibly assert such odds.</p>

<p>On its face the argument you are making makes sense, but it's not applicable here. Obama has won the popular vote, the pledged delegate count, and does extremely well in unofficial polls by the mainstream media. The process has produced a clear leader and the leader is Obama. If the situation were less clear -- let's say that Hillary had won the popular vote, for instance, but lost the pledged delegate count by a squeaker -- things might be different. Things don't change even when Michigan and Florida are fairly factored in.</p>

<p>Voters have been given a chance to judge her arguments -- the ones you call compelling though they are not at all compelling to many, many people -- and they've not turned towards her in any great surge of momentum. There are no new facts.</p>

<p>The superdelegates had better reflect the will of the people. </p>

<p>Absent any new information or a murkier accounting of a win it would be very unwise -- and yes immoral -- to say that completion of the contest requires the vote of superdelegates and then for those superdelegates to turn around and bless the candidate who is clearly behind by any standard. Her arguments have only been accepted by the media that has an interest in keeping the contest going.</p>

<p>But all this is moot, because as I write superdelegates are flipping into Obama's column. The premise on which you asserted 2-1 odds has failed. Obama's the winner.</p>

47

<p>why argue for Hillary or Obama when we all know McCain has already won the elections</p>

48

<p>


</p>

<p>The headlines have been saying Hillary should get out since mid-February. Clearly that hasn't happened - don't base your estimation of what is going to happen or when she is going to leave off of the media's coverage, which with respect to the Democratic primary has been declining in quality since January.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>See, this is not correct. It might help to draw an analogy with the way certain countries elect their presidents: they run an election, and if there is no majority candidate, a run-off is held.</p>

<p>In the Democratic nomination process, superdelegates play the role of the runoff election. There is no moral or political maxim that they must vote according to the primary voters - they have freedom to choose precisely so that they can vote their conscience.</p>

<p>You may consider it immoral that the will of the people can be overturned. I would point out that superdelegates are really the smallest undemocratic component of the primary system, which, on the Democratic side, includes such obfuscations as awarding double delegates to the (almost uniformly black) districts that voted for Kerry in 2004, and so forth.</p>

<p>I assume you are an Obama supporter, because this kind of complaining about a perfectly legitimate and by-the-books potential outcome (superdelegates nominating Hillary) without complaining about any of the other unfair, but by-the-books practices in the primaries is a defining characteristic of his supporters.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Obviously her arguments are not particularly compelling to many people. They are voting on who they want to see president. That's not the superdelegates only job, though; their job is to support the candidate they want to see president and who they think can actually be elected president. Hillary's arguments have focused on the latter, as they have to at this point; and since the latter is not at all something that voters in the primaries are concerned with, they are obviously not listening to them.</p>

<p>You may not like it that Obama is potentially not a viable general election candidate, and that it may be that Hillary is actually more electable, but your argument so far here has been spurious and baseless, filled with pronouncements about what the superdelegates "better" do, and so forth. The bias towards your candidate of choice is clearly showing.</p>

<p>And, by the way (to answer your unspoken question), while I think Hillary is a better candidate than Obama, I don't particularly like either of them. I'd prefer to vote for Ron Paul, if he ever had a chance... haha.</p>

49

<p>One of my best friends is proposing to move to Europe if McCain wins.</p>

50

<p>i support mccain. But i would go for clinton over obama even though she is a woman. jk bout the woman comment :)</p>

51

<p>1of42, this name is not stupid, some of us like sports. I think your name is pathetic and conveys no meaning - who the hell are you? At least I convey something!
And I'm asserting is that Obama is IN the office in January. This is historical enshrined fact. Look at the polls and look at the nation and look at the media, its all on Obama. I'm not a die hard Obama fan myself, I'm just going with what is commonly understood right now, and that is that Obama is in the lead.</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
See, this is not correct. It might help to draw an analogy with the way certain countries elect their presidents: they run an election, and if there is no majority candidate, a run-off is held.</p>

<p>In the Democratic nomination process, superdelegates play the role of the runoff election. There is no moral or political maxim that they must vote according to the primary voters - they have freedom to choose precisely so that they can vote their conscience.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's an idiotic analogy. A run-off typically seeks as a result that the winner of an electoral contest should win by a majority of placed votes. There is no analogy between that process of whittling down and the subversion of a fair fight which has provided a clear majority of votes in a contest that is essentially between two people. </p>

<p>I understand well that the superdelegates don't need to vote with the will of the majority. But neither for that matter do the pledged delegates. They are in fact free to vote their conscience. By the logic you are using, it would be perfectly fair and appropriate for all the delegates to choose to vote whatever way they wanted. During this election about a month or a month and a half ago, Hillary actually directly alluded to that, saying the pledged delegates could and should vote as they pleased; that's how bankrupt her campaign has become. I actually thought that showed remarkable chutzpah when she said it because I thought in fact that it was quite possible that pledged delegates thus untethered would actually flock in greater numbers to Obama, not to Hillary, as her statement seemed to imply. That's just another example of her ambition clouding her better judgement. What principle in that stance?</p>

<p>Yes, I am an Obama supporter. But on this issue, I occupy the (moral) high ground. Whether it would serve my candidate or not, I would concede that the person arguing my viewpoint does in fact occupy the (moral) high ground. You on the other hand are saying that it would be entirely appropriate, essentially without principle, for people to vote the way you agree because you agree with it. I have principles on my side. You really don't.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You may not like it that Obama is potentially not a viable general election candidate, and that it may be that Hillary is actually more electable, but your argument so far here has been spurious and baseless, filled with pronouncements about what the superdelegates "better" do, and so forth. The bias towards your candidate of choice is clearly showing.</p>

<p>And, by the way (to answer your unspoken question), while I think Hillary is a better candidate than Obama, I don't particularly like either of them. I'd prefer to vote for Ron Paul, if he ever had a chance... haha.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Voting is not made purely on the basis of electability, but electability is factored in. I actually believe a) Obama is infinitely more electable both because of his personality and intelligence and because of Hillary's incredible baggage and b) I have long been aware that Obama might provide greater "electability risks" because he wasn't as vetted as HRC -- that is an argument she made -- but that it would still be better to have him at the top of the ticket because he is more inspiring.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They are voting on who they want to see president. That's not the superdelegates only job, though; their job is to support the candidate they want to see president and who they think can actually be elected president. Hillary's arguments have focused on the latter, as they have to at this point; and since the latter is not at all something that voters in the primaries are concerned with, they are obviously not listening to them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What a crock. Many people definitely factor in a judgement of electability when they vote for one candidate or another; it's utterly ridiculous that you suggest this is not something that voters factor in at all. That is not at all the privilege or separate domain exclusively of the superdelegate as you imply.</p>

<p>Hillary made her electability arguments front-and-center of her campaign to the general public. It hasn't really made a difference. As I said before, absent new, shocking revelations, the superdelegates better fall in with the will of the majority. Yes, it's a moral imperative I speak of, with all the weight of principle and living in concert with a democratic spirit and according to democratic mores.</p>

53

<p>Wow. Okay. I have to chime in.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The superdelegates were created so that the actual Democratic Party (as an organization) could have control over the person elected. They learned after McGovern won the Democratic nomination and then lost all but 1 state in the national election. Superdelegates (a media word) are NOT just there to affirm the popular vote. They are there to make independent choices that serve the party's best interests even if the people do not.</p></li>
<li><p>There is nothing guaranteed about Obama's win. Actually, as an Obama supporter, I hope he loses. I think the Democratic Party would be smart to look long term - they have Hillary in her prime right now and a wide open political center. I think this battle has earned her a great deal of respect amongst the more conservative minded voters. Let her secure the party as a centrist, let Obama mature as VP and then take over when she's done and he's mature enough to handle it. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Change is a slow boat. It doesn't just swing with a president whose proposals are, in actuality, rather politically pedestrian.</p>

54

<p>Acid, abortion, and amnesty.</p>

<p>IF you catch my drift...</p>

55

<p>


</p>

<p>The difference is that delegates are expressly intended to vote according to the district they represent. They are not required to, no, but they are supposed to. Superdelegates are required to do no such thing.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Not at all. I'm saying it would not be inappropriate for the superdelegates to vote against the will of the people because it is the superdelegates job to support the candidate they consider best - for the general election and for the presidency. If that is not the choice of the people, it is unfortunate but b no means in contravention of their purpose.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Superdelegates vote at the end of the process, and can take advantage of many resources normal citizen voters cannot. It is their job to act in the best interests of the party to get the best candidate they can elected. Both parts of that statement - best candidate and elected, and by extension electable - are key. I'm not taking a stand on which is more electable, merely pointing out that if the superdelegates decide HRC is more electable (they probably won't), that would not be immoral or out of the normal - it would in fact be doing their exact job.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>If you really believe most primary voters seriously consider demographics, polling, districting, message and all the other components of electability when they vote in the primaries, I have a bridge to sell you. Really now, most primaries voters vote on image, personality and policy in that order (policy running a distant third).</p>

<p>As for moral imperatives, you think it's a moral imperative because you consider a superdelegate overturn to be a theft of the nomination. Let me point out the fallacy in your argument: what if there was a surge in racist sentiment, and the Democratic primary leader was a virulent racist who was just short of the number of delegates required to win, due to wins in southern and rural states? Would you consider using superdelegates to overturn that result immoral? If so, you're off the deep end, in my honest opinion.</p>

<p>Now, I know the example is wildly different than this election, but it bears out my point: you consider using superdelegates to decide the nomination immoral not because of any inherent immorality in the process they are a part of (and even if you did consider that immoral, in the fine tradition that Obama has upheld of "following the rules" you'd really just have to shut up about it, because, like MI and FL being excluded, this is perfectly within the scope of the rules), but because of what might result from the entirely legitimate and well-laid-out process they can follow.</p>

<p>You need to read applejack's post, because as you would know if you paid attention to the history of the democratic nomination process, superdelegates were created precisely so that the party itself had some input into the nomination. It was never about rubber stamping the popular nominee. It was always about ensuring the best nominee.</p>

<p>I'll reiterate that I've never said that superdelegates should support Hillary - I'm pretty undecided on that point. But it would not be in any way immoral or out of normal process for them to do so.</p>

<p>

For the record, there's lots of us who like sports (playing on a D1 varsity team, I think I probably am a little more involved in sports than you might think I am), but we don't all go around sporting names involving "baller".</p>

56

<p>the only real solution would be to vote me for president.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
Superdelegates vote at the end of the process, and can take advantage of many resources normal citizen voters cannot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, and that is in a nutshell why my position is the right one. I fully understand that the superdelegates can do pretty well what they damn well please. Duh. And so can pledged delegates in many states. You're clearly off the deep end if you argue in favor of anointing a priestly class of wise men who can subvert the popular will without principle. The essential marker of whether a principle is being served in this case is whether or not is whether there have been changes in the situation over time or new material circumstances pertaining that justify overturning the popular will. Again, I know the pledged delegates can do whatever they please, but they'd better have new information -- not new formulations of old information -- to justify their positions. These don't.</p>

<p>But look, I am going to end this discussion right here: my position is being borne out by the day, indeed by the hour, as the trickle of superdelegates is becoming more than that -- almost exclusively in Obama's favor. In every respect these people are doing the right thing: they are following the will of the people. And, in my opinion, they are selecting the better candidate. It's nice to see that the just thing and the strategically good thing are on the same side of things.</p>

<p>You're the one off the deep end who's not paying attention and is basically full of it.....Shall I go on with repitition of all the useless insults that didn't really make up for the fact that yours is the losing position -- in philosophical as well as practical world terms?</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
2. There is nothing guaranteed about Obama's win. Actually, as an Obama supporter, I hope he loses. I think the Democratic Party would be smart to look long term - they have Hillary in her prime right now and a wide open political center. I think this battle has earned her a great deal of respect amongst the more conservative minded voters. Let her secure the party as a centrist, let Obama mature as VP and then take over when she's done and he's mature enough to handle it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Only Hillary's done that by "bombing" her own party and its positions. Her negatives have always been and will continue to be too high to beat someone like John McCain.</p>

<p>Hillary got really mature being a First Lady. She went to dangerous places and risked being shot at constantly. She called in her biggest dog to help her win the nomination battle -- her husband. </p>

<p>Look, I actually have respect for her, probably just about the same way that you "support" Obama, Applejack. I just think she ran a horrible campaign that did nothing to assuage negative views of her and that would set her up for slaughter in the general campaign.</p>

<p>Of course there is nothing guaranteed about an Obama win. But spare me the suggestion that HRC or John McCain for that matter is any more mature than Obama. He's better spoken than either one and clearly very sharp.</p>

59

<p>@Bedhead</p>

<p>Regardless of your perspective on public goods, nominations for political parties are PRIVATE processes. The democrats and republicans could have a rabid dog bite a person and choose them as their nominee if they wished. Similarly, you can create the BedHead party and have 100 people in it but still make yourself the nominee every single time.</p>

60

<p>Look, the essential divide in this argument is that you consider superdelegates to be moral only when they vote for the candidate you support in this case. You failed to address my hypothetical situation of the virulent racist because it illustrates this plain fact: you're not disagreeing with the superdelegate process, you're disagreeing with the potential result it could have.</p>

<p>On the other hand, given that superdelegates have been an open part of this nomination process from the beginning, and nobody was complaining about it until it looked like they might decide the nomination, I consider this a fairly heaping load of opportunistic complaining.</p>

<p>Now tell me, exactly, why you think it is that the superdelegates are morally required, or required by the structure of the Democratic nomination, to rubber stamp the popular vote leader? Their purpose, insofar as they make independent decisions, is actually quite the opposite: as you would know if you knew anything about the history of superdelegates, they are meant to ensure that the candidate that wins the pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses is acceptable to the party organization itself. You might consider that horrible and immoral; I think it's merely practical, given the party's previous experiences with nominated candidates massively failing in the general.</p>

<p>But the take away message here is that your opposition is based solely on your perception of who is the better candidate, whereas mine is based solely on the role superdelegates are intended to play, something applejack pointed out explicitly to you and you ignored, probably because it's a hard thing to refute.</p>

<p>Finally, I'm unclear how superdelegates switching to Obama means I'm wrong. I said only that they could vote for whoever they thought was better. Clearly some of them have decided Obama is better; that in no way weakens my argument.</p>