Does anybody really think the SuperD's will make make history and take Obama's nomination away?

[RiverStone]

In the last 30 or so years since Super Delegates were created, the Democratic party has never had a scenerio where the SuperD's over rode the will of the pledged delegates. Approximately one-fifth the total number of delegates are SuperD's.

It seems that it would take an argument so compelling that not only would the SuperD's sense an over-ride was needed, but a majority of the electorate as well. Obama has just stuffed the Wright issue in the bag for good, in fact - the more Wright goes off - the more it will draw a definitive contrast between him and Obama. I know not one Obama supporter who has abandoned Barack because of Wright's rants. Obama's core constituency remains steadfast and very dedicated.

And as we know, that group also represents the majority of popular voters, contests won, and pledged delegates.

Does anybody really think the SuperD's will make history and for the first time ever tell Obama and all who have organized, worked, caucused, volunteered, and voted for him ----thanks, but no thanks. I can't fathom Howard Dean and the DNC agreeing to what would be a sure fire way to not only lose the GE, but hurt many of our other candidates down ticket. Remember what gaining majorities on The Hill finally felt like in 04 - say goodbye to that.

We are not seeing a mass exodus of SuperD's to Hillary post multiple Wright stories nor will we. The same goes for all who voted for him. We are still here! Think history will be made in Denver when SuperD's decide our nominee, opposed to the pledged D votes, during that first fateful roll call?

No fucking way!

History will be made in November when not only will we elect the first African American president, but very possibly one of the greatest presidents our country has ever known.


peace~:)

[Hoof Hearted]

1. Obviously it's not his nomination.

That's why we're still voting.

ETA: It's that whole pesky democracy thingy.

[RiverStone]

6. Wrong, the perception would be just the opposite

If the SuperD's awarded Hillary the nom against the pledged D and popular vote, you would see how many people felt it was "democracy" by the unprecedented numbers that walked away from the party in disgust - maybe for good. No, I'd NEVER vote for a rethug, but I'd feel the party utterly abandoned their democratic principles and in turn, this voter.

On that point alone, I remain baffled how we Dems - we Dems who hate Shrub and all the war mongering arrogance - can see the same thing so very differently.

[JackORoses]

18. sure it is.

Beware of eating the shit that Hillary shovels, it causes Hoof and Mouth disease.

[islandmkl]

2. it won't be the first time the dem leadership has f***ed something major up...

gotta give them a chance, either way...

[MNDemNY]

3. Yes.

[featherman]

4. The SD's are not and never will be a "voting bloc". It's silly to think so

EACH SD will make up his or her own mind and it will break no worse for Obama than 50-50 and likely much better. After a lifetime in Democratic politics, I have no idea why anyone could think it would turn out any differently than what is obvious. Duh... each makes own decision. "Herding cats" comes to mind. The very phrase that "the SD's will do this or that" is ludicrous on its face.

[ksoze]

5. If they sense a probable loss in GE - Yes

and the trend lately for OB is not good - despite the tinted lens wearers here.

[Maribelle]

7. There are a lot of caucus states that have yet to hold their state's conventions

where they once again vote on delegates. While MSM and most like to report Obama's caucus delegates as 'pledged delegates' they are not yet 'pledged'. In the Iowa caucus conventions, district conventions or country conventions - I forget which - it is report Obama lost a delegate, which he could or could not win back at the state convention.

My point - many delegates remain to be pledged that are free to change their minds.

[rpannier]

8. Since neither will have enough votes to win the nomination outright there's nothing to take away

To say otherwise is just spin.

That being said, it would be a bad move if he has more popular vote and more delegates than Clinton does at the end of this whole process -- which I'm 90% sure he will.

The only way I can see justifying him not getting the nomination would be if:
1. He gets his clocked totally cleaned in the remaining primaries and the electorate has soured on him (ie poll numbers show him behind Clinton)

2. Some major scandal rocks his campaign

3. He says or does something so incredibly stupid that he destroys himself

I don't forsee any of those things occurring

[BlueIdaho]

9. Follow the money

Politics runs on money - HRC's pathetic fund raising results to date tell party elders all they need to know. There is no sense giving her the nod - especially over the perceived leader - if people will just sit on their pocket books in the fall. Recent information about fat cat donors leaving her fold and demanding money back from the DNC make clear one thing. The SDs will only give HRC the nod if they have a political death wish.

[RiverStone]

12. Why do some people not see your point?

I agree BlueIdaho, follow the money.

Lets see, I think Obama was about 50 million in the black after last months fund-raising reports came out; Hillary was in the red.

That point alone seems enough to give pause to any SuperD - of course, now folks are reclaiming that Hil's $$$ machine is back on track.

But is it?

[BlueIdaho]

29. April ends tomorrow.

If She has had an amazing month we'll hear all about shortly. The longer her campaign waits to release any news - the worse her month has been. I really don't see how her financials are going to change much. She may have had an uptick in donations but Obama forced her to spend heavy to protect a state that should have been a lock for her.

The Obama campaign is a proven grass roots money machine HRC, not so much. If I were a super D I know who I'd support.

[nsd]

10. Thanks for this post. You're right.

No Obama supporter that I know has wavered because of the Wright controversy. If anything, it's strengthened our resolve to fight this through, not to give in to the old Rovian bullshit. "Not this time" -- indeed.

There's no way the superdelegates would turn it over to Clinton on this basis. It would not only lose us the presidency but harm our candidates down ballot. In fact, I suspect the anger and sense of betrayal would continue hurting the party in later election years.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. Without 2025 delegates

he doesn't have the nomination.

I see that the Obama camp's new tactic is to lie about this and pretend that Obama has somehow already earned the nomination. He hasn't.

[RiverStone]

15. Nevertheless, there is only ONE way for Hillary to get there...

And that is to throw the pledged D's under the bus.

Obama already has a majority ON the bus.

That difference alone is a deal breaker.

Better to be on the bus then under it.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. There's only one way for EITHER candidate to get there -

and that's with the support of superdelegates.

Being ahead in the pledged delegate count doesn't mean squat. Obama can't get to 2025 without superdelegates, either.

[RiverStone]

19. round and round we go...

Alas MonkeyFunk, we will never see this the same - but ya know, we have probably already bantered the point. Funny how things repeat on DU eh?

Lets just hope when the nominee is known, we can figure out how to unify. I liked what Howard Dean said on MTP last Sunday - that party unity will rest more on how the loser handles the situation.

[book_worm]

13. Obama only needs 134 more pledged delegates to have a majority among that group

he will easily get them.

[rocktivity]

14. Certainly not the SDs who have to re-apply for their OWN jobs in November!

rocknation

[jackson_dem]

17. How do you "take" what Obama never had?

[RiverStone]

24. You don't, unless the SD's want to make the very worst kind of history

Technically, it's not offical jackson - but you know the argument.

You really think there is enough compelling evidence to toss Obama et. al. under the bus?

[jackson_dem]

42. Not right now but let's see what happens in the upcoming primaries

He needs to have respectable showings with some demographics to assuage the concerns of many supers. He doesn't need to win them. He just can't keep getting blown out among them. The latest Kentucky poll has to be scary to the Obama campaign...

[RiverStone]

45. He will win Montana, South Dakota, N.C. and Oregon for sure...

And lose WV and Ken for sure as well.

Puerto Rico and Indiana are toss ups.

Oh, Guam - what about the heated race for Guam!!!!!? Has either candidate ever visited? :hi:

OK jackson, lets see what happens. Though in the end, I stand by my lack of compelling evidence argument to have a SD coup.

[shayes51]

40. Exactly!

[Spazito]

20. Nope, they can read....

the financial reports, the delegate count, the inevitable disaster on their own re-election chances if they allow this to go all the way to Denver without a clear presumptive nominee. Not going to happen.

Edited to add: They can also read the numbers on Clinton's "unfavorables".

[NashVegas]

21. LMAO! "Obama's Nomination?"

He's got to earn it. He's got to win. He's got to get 2025 delegates and he hasn't.

[RiverStone]

25. What about my question?

There is only ONE way for Hillary to get there - ya really think she & co. will throw the pledged D's under the bus to make it so?

There is no other way.

[TheZug]

22. A better question:

Are they insane enough to think that African Americans will dutifully line up to vote for Hillary after Obama has been denied because of his "scary black preacher"?

[RiverStone]

26. Thankfully - that scary preacher is looking more silly then spooky

Obama did a good job today clarifying that his positions are vastly different from the man he met 20 years ago.

[SoCalDem]

23. If they want to serve President McCain..

Mark my words.. If Obama has it "taken away from him" or it's even perceived that way, his name will be written in on MILLIONS of ballots...so in a sense he will still be "running".. those "spoiled ballots" will be a vote for McCain..

[tritsofme]

27. If people are stupid enough to do such a thing.

Then they will get what they deserve.

[SoCalDem]

35. "people" have proved that many many times..

President Richard M. Nixon

President Ronald Reagan

President George HW Bush

President George W Bush

[zulchzulu]

28. The Democratic Party would implode if the SDs voted against the voters

Obama is the nominee and after Indiana and North Carolina, it's going to be pretty obvious to anyone that he is.

The SDs are generally party hacks more interested in their own survival...hence they would not want to be running in a re-election with voters out to vote them out.

[jpalmer]

31. Which is why they're hedging their bets with Al Gore

We probably won't know anything until after June 3, but the SDs really want to win this year after the 2000/2004 debacles. Just talk to a few SDs and you'll find they're worried about Obama not being vetted very well and concerned about what the RNC attack machine will do to him in the Fall. Hillary has such high negatives that she brings her own problems in the GE. The word on the ground among local campaign workers is that there's a possible third option that the party leaders believe will make everyone happy (although it could just be a rumor): It's called the "Denver Plan". If it's true, the reason Al Gore did not participate in the primary was to be a "nuclear" (or "eco-friendly") option in case things went badly in the primary as has happened. It's also the reason he has not endorsed anyone. If anyone can reunite the party it's probably him and the conventional wisdom is that his brave stand against Global Warming has made him familiar to Americans from all walks of life. As far as Obama and Clinton's part, I've heard both that the winner of the delegate vote (whoever totals more) or the winner of the overall popular vote would then be the VP candidate. If that's the same person, then it would appear to help build the consensus. It's probably just wishful thinking, but who knows what Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the other Democratic leadership folks have planned.

[Zachstar]

30. I will say this. If they pull his nomination I will leave the party.

Simple as that. No ifs or buts. No popular vote or anything. They do it and I am OUT.

[RiverStone]

32. You and millions of others...

I wonder who is taking that into account?

[Mezzo]

33. FACT: More Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton than have for Barack Obama. Get over it.

[RiverStone]

34. Yes we know, you are counting illegitimate contests

FLA and MI do NOT count as is and will never count as is - get over that!

I'm all for a redo.

The voters should not be screwed by arrogant party idiots who broke the rules - but what happened in either states was nothing but spring training.

[crankychatter]

38. lol.... Support our Soviet Elections or WE WILL BURY YOU

give that gal a shoe

[crankychatter]

36. keeping ppl cynical keeps the party small and secures power

they could fuck up a wet dream

it seems unlikely... I agree

but in light of history?

probable...

my money's on my man Obama

[Barack_America]

37. Sure! If they want a cash-strapped, dying Democratic Party, that is.

You know, the status quo.

[Jersey Devil]

39. One reason why some SDs may keep holding off as long as they can

As I understand it, a good number of the uncommitted superdelegates are freshman members of congress or those ending their 2nd terms who are scared stiff of pissing off their constituents by endorsing one or the other before the primary race is essentially over.

[Dyllyn]

41. Exactly and by the looks of things this year won't be any different

[hokies4ever]

43. Hillary=1 term effect, Obama = generation effect

The superdelegates won't steal it from Obama. If Hillary wins, yes, she can win this election. If Obama wins, he stands to change the electoral map and the Democratic Party for the better for decades to come.

[RiverStone]

44. Exactly!

:kick: this post

[kenny blankenship]

46. No. They're not that stupid or suicidal.

Hillary and co. are asking the Party to link arms and jump off a cliff for her. if they go over that edge they will PERMANENTLY alienate some of the most crucial elements of the Democratic Party base, without which they don't get elected. They will never rise again.

If she really thinks they'll do that, she's as unhinged as her screech monkeys around here. She will probably force the Supers to tell her to go fuck herself, but without any real expectation of getting her way. This zombie campaign of hers has much more to do with sabotaging Obama in November and putting McCain in office instead, the Senator from the Cancer Foundation who, if he even makes it to November would be the surest one term President ever. Then she can do this to us all over again in 2012. Wouldn't that be nice?