Democratic Primary

[Fern]

Pledged Delegates 3,253
Super Delegates 796
Total Delegates 4,049

Number of delegates necessary to win (+50%) 2,025


Ok, so nobody can win without the Super Delegates. The Dem party looks to be in the throws of a melt-down. How to avoid it? Take it to the voters. Just eliminate the Super delegates. Have a DNC board meeting and eliminate them, or state in advance that they won't be seated and and reset the amount of delegates needed to win.

Pledged Delegates total 3,253. So the first candidate to reach 1,627 elected delegate wins the nomination. Straight-forward and simple. We'd still have a bruising campaign where they beat each other up, but it'll be over quicker than now, no way it'll go all the way to the convention.

The candidates' total pledged delegates are reported at various amounts, but RealClearPolitics shows the following:

Obama at 1,366

Hillary at 1,222

Remaining pledged delegates would therefore be 665.

Obama would need 261 more delegates.

Hillary would need 405.

IMO, this is inarguably fair to both sides.

What do you guys think?

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

way too late in the game for a change of that magnitude, and naturally, the Clintonistas would be pissed off over it.

 

[StageLeft]

Yes it is definitely fair, but it does essentially eliminate supers and they were created with some purpose, though that purpose is debateable.

 

[Arkaign]

I agree with the idea, but a change of that magnitude will likely result as the fallout of an '08 (D) loss in the Presidential race, not as an accepted solution beforehand. The sheer stupidity of the Hillary campaign will probably cause irrevocable damage leading into the general election.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Yes it is definitely fair, but it does essentially eliminate supers and they were created with some purpose, though that purpose is debateable.

The supers were created to allow them to chose the nominee if they were not happy with what was coming down the pike (ala Carter)

Self preservation and it will backfire again here.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I think any rule changes in the middle are dumb including this and seating MI and FL from their already held primaries. I wouldn't be against them holding new fair primaries though.

 

[Fern]

Why is it too late the change the rules?

H3ll, they're in the middle of changing the rules as it is - re-do FL & MI for example.

From my perspective, you're just getting rid of a Ginormous and unexpected bone of contention.

The Clintonistas have no valid room to complain. Either they win the election by vote of Dem primaries or they don't.

Let's the SDs off the hook too. They're elected officials, no matter which way they choose, some of their electorate is gonna be majorly pissed off. If it goes to the SDs like it looks now, we'll hear some future Dem challenger with campaign ads bringing this up in an effort to unseat an incumbant.

The Dem party has put themselves in a real clusterfvck, they need to get out of it. Right now they look like a bus full of people with no driver, and the thing's heading straight for a cliff. Seems to me they're hopelessly waiting for unknown "bump in the road" to change their direction. But somebody there needs to act like a grown-up and grab the steering wheel.

Edit: Also avoids the current likelyhood of alienating one of your constituency groups.

Fern

 

[Deeko]

haha you can't make a substantial change like that this late in the race. That would have to have been implemented a year ago.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Pledged Delegates 3,253
Super Delegates 796
Total Delegates 4,049

Number of delegates necessary to win (+50%) 2,025


Ok, so nobody can win without the Super Delegates. The Dem party looks to be in the throws of a melt-down. How to avoid it? Take it to the voters. Just eliminate the Super delegates. Have a DNC board meeting and eliminate them, or state in advance that they won't be seated and and reset the amount of delegates needed to win.

Pledged Delegates total 3,253. So the first candidate to reach 1,627 elected delegate wins the nomination. Straight-forward and simple. We'd still have a bruising campaign where they beat each other up, but it'll be over quicker than now, no way it'll go all the way to the convention.

The candidates' total pledged delegates are reported at various amounts, but RealClearPolitics shows the following:

Obama at 1,366

Hillary at 1,222

Remaining pledged delegates would therefore be 665.

Obama would need 261 more delegates.

Hillary would need 405.

IMO, this is inarguably fair to both sides.

What do you guys think?

Fern

None of it is really necessary. The Democrats aren't in the middle of a meltdown at all. So they have a contested primary? John Kerry wasn't the confirmed nominee until mid-march back in 2004. The superdelegates will go to whoever has the most delegates anyway, it's really not an issue.

Everyone is making way to big a deal out of the Democratic primary.

 

[dphantom]

The supers would put up so much resistance this will never carry, IMO. Still, it is an intriguing idea that could work if all sides were intent on being as fair as possible.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha you can't make a substantial change like that this late in the race. That would have to have been implemented a year ago.

The same could be said of the MI/FL punishment that was agreed to, by all candidates, a long time ago... but apparently Clinton and Co. have no problem trying to do so.

And Fern, your solution works too much in Obama's favor. Clinton would cry... literally,and loudly.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Deeko
haha you can't make a substantial change like that this late in the race. That would have to have been implemented a year ago.

The same could be said of the MI/FL punishment that was agreed to, by all candidates, a long time ago... but apparently Clinton and Co. have no problem trying to do so.

And Fern, your solution works too much in Obama's favor. Clinton would cry... literally,and loudly.

I hate the primary system so much.

 

[Arkaign]

Hillary will cry literally and loudly in any case. Bleh. She's going to set back the entire idea of a woman in the white house for a discouragingly long time.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Fern
Why is it too late the change the rules?

H3ll, they're in the middle of changing the rules as it is - re-do FL & MI for example.

From my perspective, you're just getting rid of a Ginormous and unexpected bone of contention.

The Clintonistas have no valid room to complain. Either they win the election by vote of Dem primaries or they don't.

Let's the SDs off the hook too. They're elected officials, no matter which way they choose, some of their electorate is gonna be majorly pissed off. If it goes to the SDs like it looks now, we'll hear some future Dem challenger with campaign ads bringing this up in an effort to unseat an incumbant.

The Dem party has put themselves in a real clusterfvck, they need to get out of it. Right now they look like a bus full of people with no driver, and the thing's heading straight for a cliff. Seems to me they're hopelessly waiting for unknown "bump in the road" to change their direction. But somebody there needs to act like a grown-up and grab the steering wheel.

Edit: Also avoids the current likelyhood of alienating one of your constituency groups.

Fern

changing rules that have existed for 20+ years half-way through an election is different than trying to do something about the clusterfuck that is MI/FL from 3 months ago.

 

[jonks]

I think we need to redo the entire proportional delegate allocation system. Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, yet Obama gets more delegates? Or do you only want to redo the aspects of the primary that benefit Obama?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dphantom
The supers would put up so much resistance this will never carry, IMO. Still, it is an intriguing idea that could work if all sides were intent on being as fair as possible.

I actually think that many of SDs would like off the hook.

Seems to me no matter which way they go, they're gonna piss off a big chunk of their constituency - take your poison (Women, Blacks, young people, college educated or blue collar).

We may end with a candidate nominated NOT because they'd make the President, or the one most likely to win in the general election. We may end up with one that collectively best ensures the Dem incumbants (SDs) stay in office.

I suspect each and everyone (excluding past President etc) is going to look at what is least most unpopular in their district. They're going to want to stay in office.

I don't sense much forsight here, this thing is simply not being thought through adequately. There are some inevitable consequences and pressures that are going to come into play for the SDs. Thinking they have the luxury to make a pressure-free and altruistic decision in the best interest of the collective good of the country or the party is naive and unrealistic.

They are already under a lot of pressure. It's only going to intensify and grow.

I wouldn't be surprised if they continue on with it that we see corruption charges in the future stemming from this.

Hillary and Obama are already "donating" campaign $'s to some of the SDs from I hear. I really don't see how that's a good thing. One day historians may look back and declare the nomination was simply purchased. Nor would I be surprised if some journalists get on the trail of this line of thinking after the smoke clears and all the deals are done. It would totally discredit our sitting President if such a story were to break, or the perception of that come about.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
I think we need to redo the entire proportional delegate allocation system. Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, yet Obama gets more delegates? Or do you only want to redo the aspects of the primary that benefit Obama?

That stuff is "history", it's already in therecord books. SD votes aren't.

And I'll remind you that state primary rules are up to states, not the DNC.

SDs are a creation of the DNC, they can simply "uncreate" them.

Edit: Otherwise I agree that the Dems needs to fix this "Fvckenstien monster" of a system they created. The damn things broke free of it's chains and is running around terrorizing the party. Of course, the MSM loves it. That fact alone outta tell you something.

Fern

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
I think we need to redo the entire proportional delegate allocation system. Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, yet Obama gets more delegates? Or do you only want to redo the aspects of the primary that benefit Obama?

That stuff is "history", it's already in therecord books. SD votes aren't.

And I'll remind you that state primary rules are up to states, not the DNC.

SDs are a creation of the DNC, they can simply "uncreate" them.

Fern

Let me guess - you're an Obama fan?

Its not that simple, and you know it.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Let me guess - you're an Obama fan?

Its not that simple, and you know it.

I agree that "it's not that simple". But not the way you're thinking.

I believe a lot of us see a clusterfvck unfolding like a slow motion train wreck.

We know the Dem party leaders wanna see a solution to avoid it, they've said so.

Anybody else got any ideas?

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sirjonk
I think we need to redo the entire proportional delegate allocation system. Hillary won the popular vote in Texas, yet Obama gets more delegates? Or do you only want to redo the aspects of the primary that benefit Obama?

That stuff is "history", it's already in therecord books. SD votes aren't.

And I'll remind you that state primary rules are up to states, not the DNC.

SDs are a creation of the DNC, they can simply "uncreate" them.

Edit: Otherwise I agree that the Dems needs to fix this "Fvckenstien monster" of a system they created. The damn things broke free of it's chains and is running around terrorizing the party. Of course, the MSM loves it. That fact alone outta tell you something.

Fern

Actually "pledged" delegates are not really bound to anything, and can vote any way they want at the convention, so I dispute this as something that's pure history. The delegates haven't voted for anyone yet.

Assuming the candidates structured their campaigns in such a way that they took SDs into consideration, it would be unfair to remove them from the process at this point.

Supers are the essentially the only way hillary can win the nom, so I understand why you'd like to get rid of them. I would to, but not in the middle of the campaign. I've already stated a dozen times the winner of the delegate count and popular vote should get the nom.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Let me guess - you're an Obama fan?

Its not that simple, and you know it.

I agree that "it's not that simple". But not the way you're thinking.

I believe a lot of us see a clusterfvck unfolding like a slow motion train wreck.

We know the Dem party leaders wanna see a solution to avoid it, they've said so.

Anybody else got any ideas?

Fern

Yep. Let the popular vote decide it. One person, one vote... the way democracy is SUPPOSED to work.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Let me guess - you're an Obama fan?

Its not that simple, and you know it.

I agree that "it's not that simple". But not the way you're thinking.

I believe a lot of us see a clusterfvck unfolding like a slow motion train wreck.

We know the Dem party leaders wanna see a solution to avoid it, they've said so.

Anybody else got any ideas?

Fern

Yep. Let the popular vote decide it. One person, one vote... the way democracy is SUPPOSED to work.

How do you count caucus states?

There's no "popular vote" there.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Let me guess - you're an Obama fan?

Its not that simple, and you know it.

I agree that "it's not that simple". But not the way you're thinking.

I believe a lot of us see a clusterfvck unfolding like a slow motion train wreck.

We know the Dem party leaders wanna see a solution to avoid it, they've said so.

Anybody else got any ideas?

Fern

Yep. Let the popular vote decide it. One person, one vote... the way democracy is SUPPOSED to work.

How do you count caucus states?

There's no "popular vote" there.

Fern

there should be no caucus states

at least in a perfect world... and yeah, I'm still pissed at the Iowa farce for electing Kerry in '04

 

[lopri]

Why not strips out delegates from caucuses as well. This year's caucuses have been a total mess. I don't feel the need to link videos and anecdotes of rampages and thievery for various reasons, but you can easily search those out through Google, YouTube, etc. I think I'm finally becoming a Hillary supporter, from neutral, after facing so many of these Obamaniacs with fascist ideas.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Fern

How do you count caucus states?

There's no "popular vote" there.

Fern

I admit I don't know how that works. Aren't the caucus votes still counted and reflected in the popular vote numbers we have now?

If you check realcearpolitics popular vote breakdown, you can see caucus states listed there, although there is this note:
(*Obama Not on Michigan Ballot; Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals)

And just to piss off you Obama fanboys :laugh:

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* - - Obama 13,570,148 Clinton 13,608,340