Will Kerry and Kennedy feel constrained to cast their super

[anamandujano]

delegate votes for the person who took their state, as many have suggested here about all the other supers? Just askin.

[JVS]

1. Your thread sucks

[anamandujano]

15. Awesome argument! As good as it gets from most Obamatrons.

Keep up the good work and thanks for bumping.

(Please note that I did say MOST, not ALL.)

[Political Heretic]

2. I don't think there should be SD's at all - so I hope they vote for whoever has the most

pledged delegates.

[sandnsea]

3. When the voters have chosen a winner

Kerry & Kennedy will case their vote accordingly, as they've already stated. The primary isn't over so comments like yours are not relevant.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Sure if Martin O'Malley and Barbara Mikulski do the same...

And while we're on the subject how about Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.

[johnnydrama]

5. i'd take the senator trade

Since Obama will probably win 30+ states.

[Saturday]

6. This isn't an issue to Obama supporters.

They don't believe in "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

[Inuca]

7. Your screen name

is a prefect reply to your comment.

[anamandujano]

16. They keep trying to make new rules depending where their candidate

stands.

If he's ahead in STATES, the supers have to vote by number of states.

If he's ahead by PLEDGED, the supers have to vote by number of pledged.

If he's ahead by POPULAR VOTE, the supers have to vote by who's ahead there.

I say stop moving the goal post, applying some rules that were standing and changing others to suit. Sick of it.

[mmonk]

8. Do they tend to match their state or the nation?

I guess you would have to approach it from that angle as well. The way I understand it, it's up to their judgment.

[bigtree]

10. It would make more sense if they gave their votes to the candidate in the lead

rather than try and go back and recap their individual states' votes.

[karynnj]

12. That is precisely Kerry and Kennedy's position

Kerry said it would be a disater to do otherwise.

[bigtree]

13. good

[anamandujano]

14. What about the Obama people's argument that the supers should

be bound to go with the voters of their district?

You may have read the John Lewis threads that he should be bound by his constituency. There has been much arm twisting by Jesse Jackson of black supers on behalf of Obama. I saw some of the interviews on TV.

I believe I read before here at DU that Kerry was voting for Obama no matter what.

If they are going to be bound, let's keep it consistent.

Since it looks like neither of the two will reach the required 2025, there can be no question of "overturning" the voters. That number was selected for a reason, possibly to reflect the clear and incontestable will of the voters. It has been a long standing RULE. The new theories being set forth of whoever has the most pledged, even if it's up by 30 or 1 doesn't fly. We all know the Repukes have crossed over to meddle and will say so-long-sucker for the general.

As far as the vague "stronger" candidate argument, the idea that supers should be swept along and vote on the hype and artificial momentum put forth by the MSM is not going to work.

[Debi]

9. Murray and Cantwell planning on doing the same? Clinton just lost one in Iowa (Sarah Swisher)

The rest should be following suit.

[karynnj]

11. Kerry has said in many interviews that the superdelegates

should not overturn the decision of the pledged delegates. This suggests that he would vote for HRC IF she won the most pledged delegates. This is the correct position.

1) Look at which campaign is floating the idea that it is ok if the candidate who lost the pledged vote, wins. (Clinton)

2) Both campaigns have sought to win the superdelegates who are NOT BOUND by the vote - now one is implying a new rule - that ALL the superdelegates from a state have to vote for the winner of the state. - There is no precedence for this. It is also mostly being directed at Kerry and Kennedy.

3) This new winner take all philosophy on superdelegates is a way to weight the large states more. It was not in the rules when this started.

I think there should be no superdelegates - which I said before Kerry stated his position. So, I am happy with Kerry's position.

[anamandujano]

17. If neither has the requisite 2025, a number chosen for a good

reason, then there can be no question of overturning the will of the voters.

The high number was set to make the contest incontestable.

[karynnj]

18. Is that the new Clinton definition?

I think it is a sign that they know they will not get the majority of pledged delegates that has led to putting out as a trial balloon that it is ok if the superdelegates split in Clinton's favor to make up for a pledged delegate deficit.

The call for Kerry and Kennedy to be bound some way by the way their state or district voted would - if everyone followed this rule for which there is no precedent, would split the superdelegates somewhat close to how the pledged delegates voted - leaving the remaining superdelecates - unelected party insiders to determine the nomination. Frankly, I wish NO superdelegates had votes - making it all the voters/caucus goers. The second group I trust is the the elected politicians, as they do have to stand before the voters. The group I least want making the choice are the party insiders.