DNC Chairman Dean Calls for Super delegate Decision by July 1st

[Fern]

Link

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, hoping to avoid a divisive fight on the convention floor, weighed in on the Clinton-Obama battle Friday by calling on all party superdelegates to declare whom they support by July 1.

The 800 or so Democratic superdelegates will almost certainly decide the presidential candidate, because it?s unlikely either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will gain enough pledged delegates in the remaining primary contests to win the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination outright.

Dean, appearing on CBS? ?Early Show? Friday morning, was asked about the prospects of a vote among the superdelegates before the convention, an idea floated as a way to settle the still undecided Democratic race.

?Well, I think the superdelegates have already been weighing in. I think there?s 800 of them and 450 of them have already said who they?re for,? Dean said. ?I?d like the other 350 to say who they?re on between now and the first of July so we don?t have to take this into the convention.?

I don't know that there's a whole lot to add here. The last primary is June 22 IIRC. I think it's an obvious, and smart, decision to resolve the thing before the convention. As I've said before, the modern day convention is a show case to launch the candidate's bid for office, not a place for a fight.

I suppose this is mostly a call to declare, I see no need for them meet, just declare. Politico.com and other sites have the current list of those super delegates who have alreay declared.

In related news, Pelosi is not backing down from her assertion that the super delegates must follow the will of the voters. Moveon.org has backed her as well.

On Thursday, the deep-pocketed liberal organization MoveOn jumped into the fray, calling on its members to sign a petition rebuking a group of Clinton fund-raisers.

MoveOn?s action was prompted when the Clinton supporters sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, threatening to dial back their gift-giving if Pelosi maintains her position that superdelegates should follow the will of primary and caucus voters.

The Clinton campaign and its supporters ? seeking to gain an edge in superdelegates ? have argued that superdelegates are not bound by primary voting trends and were established under party rules to be independent.

Pelosi did not back down Thursday.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Pelosi ?believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

yeah, wouldn't it be disgusting if the system were to actually play itself out like it's supposed to? heaven forbid a convention actually matter and be something more than a pageant. the Obama supporters are the quickest to say that FL/MI shouldn't have a vote because they violated the rules, and then call for Hillary to drop out (because running a campaign is undemocratic) and tell the super delegates that they should ignore the rules and vote for whoever is winning in pledged delegates (because changing the rules in the middle of the race is ok when your guy does it)

in any event, it's cute when Howard Dean acts like he has the power and stature to actually do something.

 

[Robor]

Oh look. Hillary's supporters are threatening to blackmail the (D) party if she doesn't get her way. I'm shocked.

 

[palehorse]

I think it would be hillarious to see each superdelegate announce, one at a time, between now and July 1st... that way, the decision will all boil down to a single SUPER-DUPER DELEGATE who gets to be delegate #2025 for one candidate, or the other. It would be very similar to the "One-millionth Customer" giveaways!

oh, how exciting!!!!!! 😕

I wouldnt be surprised to see this happen...

 

[jonks]

"I want the superdelegates to come together and get behind one of the candidates ASAP, YAAAAAAAAA!!!"

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah, wouldn't it be disgusting if the system were to actually play itself out like it's supposed to?
How is it not if they wait until the last primary vote is counted?

heaven forbid a convention actually matter and be something more than a pageant. the Obama supporters are the quickest to say that FL/MI shouldn't have a vote because they violated the rules,
I thought that was the DNC?

and then call for Hillary to drop out (because running a campaign is undemocratic)
Primary campaigning is over June 22, the date of the last primary.

and tell the super delegates that they should ignore the rules and vote for whoever is winning in pledged delegates
Umm. What rules are you referring to? Is there some rule that says they have to vote for a Clinton? Or maybe the candidate with fewer elected delegates?

(because changing the rules in the middle of the race is ok when your gal does it)
Fixed for you. See the "4 State Pledge"

in any event, it's cute when Howard Dean acts like he has the power and stature to actually do something.
IMO, wouldv'e been "cuter" if he'd of excercised some decent judgement regarding FL & MI non-compliance.

 

[lupi]

And I thought it was Hillary that was being accused of trying to break the rules.

 

[nageov3t]

Umm. What rules are you referring to? Is there some rule that says they have to vote for a Clinton? Or maybe the candidate with fewer elected delegates?

the super delegates are supposed to be independent voters, not just an affirmation of the caucus/primary tallies. to me, at least, telling the SD's that they should stfu and vote in line with that seems to be like telling them that they should ignore the established rules that call for them to be independent.

IMO, wouldv'e been "cuter" if he'd of excercised some decent judgement regarding FL & MI non-compliance.

:thumbsup:

that's where this whole clusterfuck is coming from... I really wished Obama had endorsed some type of plan to let the FL vote stand (because there's a reasonable argument to be made based on the FL demographics and voting histories of other states that it would have voted more or less along the same lines anyways), let MI have a do-over, and cut their delegates in half like the R's did. would have been seen as a courageous stand to give his opponent an advantage, but it wouldn't have been so much of an advantage that she could have overtaken his delegate lead.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
"I want the superdelegates to come together and get behind one of the candidates ASAP, YAAAAAAAAA!!!"

lol, we need a Dean shouting face emoticon.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: loki8481
yeah, wouldn't it be disgusting if the system were to actually play itself out like it's supposed to? heaven forbid a convention actually matter and be something more than a pageant. the Obama supporters are the quickest to say that FL/MI shouldn't have a vote because they violated the rules, and then call for Hillary to drop out (because running a campaign is undemocratic) and tell the super delegates that they should ignore the rules and vote for whoever is winning in pledged delegates (because changing the rules in the middle of the race is ok when your guy does it)

in any event, it's cute when Howard Dean acts like he has the power and stature to actually do something.

Even though I'm not really a democrat, I tend to agree. The superdelegates were created for a reason, and they shouldnt try to recast the rules mid election because they are inconvenient at the time. If the superdelegates should follow the popular vote without question, what is the point of having superdelegates in the first place, considering questioning the popular vote was their explicit purpose.?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Robor
Oh look. Hillary's supporters are threatening to blackmail the (D) party if she doesn't get her way. I'm shocked.

What shocks me is Fern quoting MoveOn.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Robor
Oh look. Hillary's supporters are threatening to blackmail the (D) party if she doesn't get her way. I'm shocked.

What shocks me is Fern quoting MoveOn.

there was a funny quote from MoveOn.org encouraging Pelosi not to listen to the fat cats...

I don't think they realize, they are the fat cats.

this really highlights the Pelosi-Clinton divide, though, between the left Pelosi and the triangulating, centrist Clintons.

 

[Lemon law]

All in all, I think what Dean makes a lot of practical sense. When I first saw the thread title my first question was how could the delegates be convened and polled. But the Dean idea is a simple and practical idea that can well work.

Since Edwards won so few delegates, either Obama or Hillary are almost certain to have a majority of 2025 and very probably long before the last super delegate weighs in.

Some one should point out that political conventions are seldom calm or peaceful. Even if a show of joy and unity on the convention floor, in the back rooms, they are usually a war zone. First over seating and party rules which is an early show of various factions power, and then on to hammering out a platform thats will not be so extreme either way, or the consequence can be losing big parts of the party base.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481
that's where this whole clusterfuck is coming from... I really wished Obama had endorsed some type of plan to let the FL vote stand (because there's a reasonable argument to be made based on the FL demographics and voting histories of other states that it would have voted more or less along the same lines anyways), let MI have a do-over, and cut their delegates in half like the R's did. would have been seen as a courageous stand to give his opponent an advantage, but it wouldn't have been so much of an advantage that she could have overtaken his delegate lead.

Not really. I was a registered (R) at the time FL did their primary. I haven't voted for a (R) since Bush1 but I never bothered to switch parties. I didn't vote in this primary because I wasn't going to vote for McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, etc and our votes weren't going to count anyway so I didn't file to switch parties. I did finally switch about 6 weeks ago - just in case FL did a redo. As it turns out I was too late so I'm not allowed to switch until after the next election. Stupid freakin' rule IMO.

My situation is rather unique but I think the turnout would have been higher had the votes actually counted for something. I would be fine with your suggestion though just to shut everyone up on the subject.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Umm. What rules are you referring to? Is there some rule that says they have to vote for a Clinton? Or maybe the candidate with fewer elected delegates?

the super delegates are supposed to be independent voters, not just an affirmation of the caucus/primary tallies. to me, at least, telling the SD's that they should stfu and vote in line with that seems to be like telling them that they should ignore the established rules that call for them to be independent.

IMO, wouldv'e been "cuter" if he'd of excercised some decent judgement regarding FL & MI non-compliance.

:thumbsup:

that's where this whole clusterfuck is coming from... I really wished Obama had endorsed some type of plan to let the FL vote stand (because there's a reasonable argument to be made based on the FL demographics and voting histories of other states that it would have voted more or less along the same lines anyways), let MI have a do-over, and cut their delegates in half like the R's did. would have been seen as a courageous stand to give his opponent an advantage, but it wouldn't have been so much of an advantage that she could have overtaken his delegate lead.

Did the Rs know ahead of time that the MI delegates would be cut in half?

 

[jpeyton]

The drum beats are getting louder :thumbsup:

I have a feeling this will be over sooner than we expect. With the Casey endorsement today, plus calls from numerous high-ranking Democrats (Dean, Leahy) for the Hildebeast to withdraw, plus the mathematical impossibility of her getting the pledged delegate lead...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: loki8481
that's where this whole clusterfuck is coming from... I really wished Obama had endorsed some type of plan to let the FL vote stand (because there's a reasonable argument to be made based on the FL demographics and voting histories of other states that it would have voted more or less along the same lines anyways), let MI have a do-over, and cut their delegates in half like the R's did. would have been seen as a courageous stand to give his opponent an advantage, but it wouldn't have been so much of an advantage that she could have overtaken his delegate lead.

Not really. I was a registered (R) at the time FL did their primary. I haven't voted for a (R) since Bush1 but I never bothered to switch parties. I didn't vote in this primary because I wasn't going to vote for McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul, etc and our votes weren't going to count anyway so I didn't file to switch parties. I did finally switch about 6 weeks ago - just in case FL did a redo. As it turns out I was too late so I'm not allowed to switch until after the next election. Stupid freakin' rule IMO.

My situation is rather unique but I think the turnout would have been higher had the votes actually counted for something. I would be fine with your suggestion though just to shut everyone up on the subject.

the turnout might have been higher, I think the argument is that the overall percentage split of the delegates would have been roughly the same.

Did the Rs know ahead of time that the MI delegates would be cut in half?

as far as I know, yes.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The drum beats are getting louder :thumbsup:

I have a feeling this will be over sooner than we expect. With the Casey endorsement today, plus calls from numerous high-ranking Democrats (Dean, Leahy) for the Hildebeast to withdraw, plus the mathematical impossibility of her getting the pledged delegate lead...

If by sooner than we expect you mean the day after the convention, I agree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._obama_should_withdraw

"Interestingly, Republicans are more eager to see Clinton drop out rather than Obama. Forty-one percent (41%) of GOP voters say the former First Lady should withdraw while just 24% say the same about the Senator from Illinois."

Now that Reps have seen Obama doesn't actually walk on water, they seem to be much more optimistic about facing him in the general, even if they still think he'd ultimately be the more difficult opponent.

"Six percent (6%) of Democrats would like both Clinton and Obama to drop out of the race."

lol

 

[jpeyton]

I really could care less about polling Republican minds; the numbers are guaranteed to change in a head-to-head one both parties have officially announced a nominee.

And I think Hillary will withdraw before the convention. If Pennsylvania turns out to be an even contest (and it will be with her Bosnia slip-up plus the Obama-Casey endorsement), she's out.

 

[nageov3t]

other than perhaps Crist for McCain in FL, has any endorsement really meant anything in any of the primaries?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481
other than perhaps Crist for McCain in FL, has any endorsement really meant anything in any of the primaries?

Certainly not a Senator anyway (*cough*Kennedy*cough*)

Originally posted by: jpeyton
And I think Hillary will withdraw before the convention. If Pennsylvania turns out to be an even contest (and it will be with her Bosnia slip-up plus the Obama-Casey endorsement), she's out.

She's not dropping out until enough supers pledge to vote Obama. Whether that happens in July or at the convention is an open question.

The Bosnia flop has been going on all week. Latest polls show negligible movement. http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

"13% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 23% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary."

This is not Obama's state. Your prediction of PA coming out even is seriously unlikely.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The drum beats are getting louder :thumbsup:

I have a feeling this will be over sooner than we expect. With the Casey endorsement today, plus calls from numerous high-ranking Democrats (Dean, Leahy) for the Hildebeast to withdraw, plus the mathematical impossibility of her getting the pledged delegate lead...

If by sooner than we expect you mean the day after the convention, I agree.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co..._obama_should_withdraw

"Interestingly, Republicans are more eager to see Clinton drop out rather than Obama. Forty-one percent (41%) of GOP voters say the former First Lady should withdraw while just 24% say the same about the Senator from Illinois."

Now that Reps have seen Obama doesn't actually walk on water, they seem to be much more optimistic about facing him in the general, even if they still think he'd ultimately be the more difficult opponent.

"Six percent (6%) of Democrats would like both Clinton and Obama to drop out of the race."

lol

right. that's one way to interpret those statistics

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
-snip-
Did the Rs know ahead of time that the MI delegates would be cut in half?

Yes, when the FL legislature voted to move the primary up, the RNC cut their delegate number in half instead disqualifying them all like the DNC did.

Fern

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Your prediction of PA coming out even is seriously unlikely.

Clinton winning in PA by more than 10 points isn't going to happen either. And she needs to win by 20+ points to seriously cut into Obama's lead.

With the way pledged delegates are distributed, any win by <10 points is a wash for Clinton. It might as well be even.

 

[Kerouactivist]

I think it would be better no matter who the nominee is for it to be done by July the 1st...

Whether u support Clinton or Obama doesn't that part of the OP make sense to both sides?

If it does go to the convention it could tear the party apart and I seriously doubt Obama or Clinton supporters want that.

I guess even if it doesn't go to the convention it could still tear the party apart...