DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Texsox]

I was talking yesterday with someone who is a super delegate, and in his mind, the "mission" is to get a Democrat elected President. They should, after analyzing and careful thought, vote for that candidate. They have a separate, independent, vote, and that is how they should vote, with their conscious as a guide. If they are suppose to just vote for whom another group voted for, they could drop the entire super delegate concept and just use the primaries.

 

He would not mention who he is voting for, but my guess would be Hillary.

 

Here's a question, for those that think they are duty bound to go with the person who received the most primary votes, would that be in your state, county, or district? If you are an elected official for a county and Candidate 1 won your county, but lost your state, who would you vote for?

[Texsox]

Another quick thought, I would not have a problem if a candidate managed to pull out a win with the help of the super delegates. It is possible within the rules. Since it is allowed, I respect a candidate who uses every advantage.

[southsider2k5]

I was talking yesterday with someone who is a super delegate, and in his mind, the "mission" is to get a Democrat elected President. They should, after analyzing and careful thought, vote for that candidate. They have a separate, independent, vote, and that is how they should vote, with their conscious as a guide. If they are suppose to just vote for whom another group voted for, they could drop the entire super delegate concept and just use the primaries.

 

He would not mention who he is voting for, but my guess would be Hillary.

 

Here's a question, for those that think they are duty bound to go with the person who received the most primary votes, would that be in your state, county, or district? If you are an elected official for a county and Candidate 1 won your county, but lost your state, who would you vote for?

 

IE, the general public isn't smart enough to get it right, so we do it for them...

 

For the party that has complained the loudest about the electoral college, they need to clean up their own house first.

[Texsox]

IE, the general public isn't smart enough to get it right, so we do it for them...

 

For the party that has complained the loudest about the electoral college, they need to clean up their own house first.

 

Actually, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the original system was party delegates picking the candidate, then they opened it up to the voting public. First with the so called "registered" then in "open" primaries. So we seem to be on the path that you, and I, would prefer. But we are not there yet. And I think I know why.

 

Because at this point anyone, including the other party, can vote in the other primary, shouldn't the party have some safety in place? The super delegates, from what I see looking over the South Texas list, are rank and file, dyed in the wool, loyal party members. With the GOP race for all practical purposes over by Texas, many Reps crossed over and presumably voted for the weaker candidate. Should a party member be bound by the votes of what could be the other party wishes? In a close race, they might be the ones tipping the scales.

Perhaps, the GOP candidate would even signal who they should vote for with a press release announcing who he would prefer to run against?

[HuskyCaucasian]

This campaign has been defined by the concept that Survey USA = good, there are a few that are pretty good most of the time, the local ones tend to be all right, and a few like ARG and Zogby have just been trash.

FOr waht it's worth:

SurveyUSA has Clinton's lead in PA "down" to 14 points 54-40. The survey was conducted in the heard of the "bitter" comments debate and he rose 2 while she went down 2. Interesting.

[Rex Kickass]

IE, the general public isn't smart enough to get it right, so we do it for them...

 

For the party that has complained the loudest about the electoral college, they need to clean up their own house first.

 

Neither system is perfect, but the Democratic model is far more representational. Unlike the GOP model, there are not winner take all situations in states.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Neither system is perfect, but the Democratic model is far more representational. Unlike the GOP model, there are not winner take all situations in states.

I agree. The closer we get to "popular vote" representation is good to me. As you can see in my sig, I am in favor of national popular vote. I dont think it works well in primaries because of the difference it time between the elections. Having "delegates" is a good way to judge the primaries. But if they could figure out an easy way to do it, popular vote would be preferable.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Fox News is one of the most accurate? Interesting... sure doesn't fit the propaganada hurled at it, that's for sure.

What that probably means is that in a couple of specific states (look at the total number of polls Fox did of individual states) they contracted out with someone who knew the territory well & their results were good.

[Texsox]

I agree. The closer we get to "popular vote" representation is good to me. As you can see in my sig, I am in favor of national popular vote. I dont think it works well in primaries because of the difference it time between the elections. Having "delegates" is a good way to judge the primaries. But if they could figure out an easy way to do it, popular vote would be preferable.

 

While there is a lot of surface merit to that position, abandoning over 200 years of being individual states united together, makes me pause.

[HuskyCaucasian]

While there is a lot of surface merit to that position, abandoning over 200 years of being individual states united together, makes me pause.

Yea, i dunno. I completely understand the whole "states rights" thing. And I am very respectful of it. But, it is REALLY democratic when one person receives 500,000 more votes than the other and looses?

 

I think it's still fair to let them have their own regional issues that states take care of. but this is a NATIONAL president, not a state governor. I dont think it's fair that a person in Idaho has twice the voting power as a person in CA or IL.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

 

Still needs some time to play out... but post "bitter-gate" Obama holds his largest national lead over Clinton EVER.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I swear I am not trying to bash CLinton, but this is pretty funny...

"100 Mayors for Hillary" Rally Fizzles

Only 19 mayors of Pennsylvania cities showed up for Tuesday's rally in the Rotunda of the Pennsylvania Capitol. Other mayors' names were listed on placards supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York for the Democratic presidential nomination.

[Balta1701]

Bloomberg/LA Times are reportedly going to put out an Indiana Poll later today showing BO + 5 over Hillary.

[Texsox]

Yea, i dunno. I completely understand the whole "states rights" thing. And I am very respectful of it. But, it is REALLY democratic when one person receives 500,000 more votes than the other and looses?

 

I think it's still fair to let them have their own regional issues that states take care of. but this is a NATIONAL president, not a state governor. I dont think it's fair that a person in Idaho has twice the voting power as a person in CA or IL.

 

Remember at the time, we had states getting together and forming a national government, not the other way around. So it is natural they figured out a way were each state would pick the President, not as individuals. Perhaps we have outgrown the need. But using your example. someone in a small state is totally screwed by whatever the large states want to do. Since the Federal government makes decsiions that effect the states, each state would want equal, or close to equal representation.

 

Again, we are made up of states united together to form a federal government.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Remember at the time, we had states getting together and forming a national government, not the other way around. So it is natural they figured out a way were each state would pick the President, not as individuals. Perhaps we have outgrown the need. But using your example. someone in a small state is totally screwed by whatever the large states want to do. Since the Federal government makes decsiions that effect the states, each state would want equal, or close to equal representation.

 

Again, we are made up of states united together to form a federal government.

very good points all around. I agree that it was VERY important in the beginning that states needed to have authority. I think there isnt a need for a state by state vote, but that is my opinion and I think your points are completely valid.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Bloomberg/LA Times are reportedly going to put out an Indiana Poll later today showing BO + 5 over Hillary.

Polls are out:

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

 

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

 

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

 

The poll, conducted under the supervision of Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 623 voters in Pennsylvania, 687 in Indiana and 691 in North Carolina who expected to cast Democratic ballots. The margin of sampling error for the findings in each state is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

 

[Balta1701]

Those are odd results. Closer than I'd expect in both PA and NC, and higher for Obama in IN than I'd expect, so it's really hard to point at it and say "There's a clear bias in this direction covering all 3".

[lostfan]

I was talking yesterday with someone who is a super delegate, and in his mind, the "mission" is to get a Democrat elected President. They should, after analyzing and careful thought, vote for that candidate. They have a separate, independent, vote, and that is how they should vote, with their conscious as a guide. If they are suppose to just vote for whom another group voted for, they could drop the entire super delegate concept and just use the primaries.

 

He would not mention who he is voting for, but my guess would be Hillary.

 

Here's a question, for those that think they are duty bound to go with the person who received the most primary votes, would that be in your state, county, or district? If you are an elected official for a county and Candidate 1 won your county, but lost your state, who would you vote for?

They should drop the superdelegate BS IMO. It's undemocratic, and the Dems actually have the better system with the proportional representation without it.

[Balta1701]

They should drop the superdelegate BS IMO. It's undemocratic, and the Dems actually have the better system with the proportional representation without it.

After this election, I think most people would probably agree with that. It's something that was probably a good idea at the time (Motivated in part by the need to encourage people to actually show up at the convention, motivated in part by a desire to try to make sure there was some sort of veto against an "unelectable" candidate), but times change, and it's pretty obvious now that they are a problem that should be done away with.

 

The problem might be...since the people who'd have to get rid of the superdelegates are the DNC and are therefore all superdelegates themselves, will they want to reduce their own power?

[kapkomet]

Well, let's just do away with the ENTIRE SENATE if we need to vote by "popular vote". That's why in some of the parliamentary systems, we see prime ministers win with 20% of the vote. No thank you, I like our system just fine.

 

Don't forget the Senate angle when you're talking about doing away with the electoral college system, because that's where the balance is in this whole argument.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Well, let's just do away with the ENTIRE SENATE if we need to vote by "popular vote". That's why in some of the parliamentary systems, we see prime ministers win with 20% of the vote. No thank you, I like our system just fine.

 

Don't forget the Senate angle when you're talking about doing away with the electoral college system, because that's where the balance is in this whole argument.

So, I understand the motivation for keeping the Senate in that it certainly does even out the power of the states. But I would like to hear you make the case about why that's a useful thing in the Presidential race, where his job is to represent the country, not necessarily the sates? Why should some states have more power over deciding the President than others, and perhaps more importantly, why should winning the electoral college with weighted states count more than the popular vote?

[kapkomet]

So, I understand the motivation for keeping the Senate in that it certainly does even out the power of the states. But I would like to hear you make the case about why that's a useful thing in the Presidential race, where his job is to represent the country, not necessarily the sates? Why should some states have more power over deciding the President than others, and perhaps more importantly, why should winning the electoral college with weighted states count more than the popular vote?

IMO you have to look at it as a whole, and not the fragmented parts.

 

[lostfan]

Well, let's just do away with the ENTIRE SENATE if we need to vote by "popular vote". That's why in some of the parliamentary systems, we see prime ministers win with 20% of the vote. No thank you, I like our system just fine.

 

Don't forget the Senate angle when you're talking about doing away with the electoral college system, because that's where the balance is in this whole argument.

They have more than 2 political parties more often than not if I'm not mistaken, and they aren't locked into this one-or-the-other system like we have.

[lostfan]

IMO you have to look at it as a whole, and not the fragmented parts.

Actually to me that kind of sounds like an argument against the electoral college (I'm assuming you want to keep it like it is).

[Heads22]

Heh, Obama beating McCain in North Dakota.