Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

by shermangeneral Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:47 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?ei=5065&en=6866c9b35cbe72c6&ex=1203829200&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1203201517-bduIG6QNMedlLcbhMei5og

Well it looks like the so-called mainstream media will not be able to annoint Obama prior to the convention.

Try as they might.

But unlike their obsession with getting McCain on the GOP ticket, it looks like their efforts for Obama will not avail them.

Hillary will not be swiftboated as easy as Kerry was.

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:37 pm

Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans So is a train wreck! What's your point?

by Aaron Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:53 pm

This is the democrats worst nightmare. Neither is going to have enough pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination BEFORE the convention, so like it or not, the superdelegates are going to have to decide.

Do they go with the will of the people or do they vote their conscience and cast their vote to whom they believe is the most qualified democratic candidate?

Either way, I think they lose.

by shermangeneral Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:03 am

Well Aaro I have asked you before but you side-stepped me on your answer.

How does the republican side fare better in apportioning their delegates than the Dems?

Just look at WV for example.

They have already chosen Huckabee to get a bunch of delegates, but he did not win the caucus/convention plus they have not even held the primary yet.

I dont question yall's right to pick your candidate any way you want, I am just responding to your criticism of how democratic our side is.

by Aaron Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:14 am

You'll have to direct your question at either OC or Stephanie, both of whom I believe are registered Republicans. I'm an Independent that's never been registered as a Republican so I have no idea how they do it.

I can give you my personal opinion on how delegates are awardes if you like, but it would only be my opinion.

by Aaron Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:16 am

On this topic Sherm, I have a question for you.

Is Obama the overall choice of democratic voters?

by shermangeneral Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:43 am

I think, among just the Democrat voters, Hillary would be ahead in the popular vote right now.

Hard to say about caucus states, since there is a lot of peer pressure and coercion in that process.

by Aaron Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:47 am

I think Hillary would have a nice lead over Edwards and/or Obama if only democrats were allowed to vote.

So if superdelegates vote for Hillary, it's safe to say they are choosing who democratic voters chose, right!!!

by shermangeneral Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:03 am

I could not argue with that Aaron.

by ziggy Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:24 pm

shermangeneral wrote:I think, among just the Democrat voters, Hillary would be ahead in the popular vote right now.

What is a "Democratic voter", Sherm?

In states that allow cross-over voting, those who vote in the Democratic primary are Democratic voters- regardless of from what or where they "crossed-over".

Some states even require that those who "cross over" sign up on the spot to membership with the partry whose primary they want to vote in on that day

You see, There is no national, monolithic Democratic or Republican Party. Each state's political parties are organized under different leadership, under different laws of different states. And so a member of the Democratic or Republican Party in one state is not a member of the Democratic or Republican Party of another state- because every state party is a separate entity- the similarity of name notwithstanding. Yet Democratic and Republican candidates for president and vice-president routinely represent themselves as affiliated with the Democratic and Republican parties of all the other states for purposes of candidacies for president and vice-president- even in the absence of federal laws defining party affiliation..

And the established political parties of various do and have used different names in different states. Currently, the Democratic Party in North Dakota appears on the ballot as "Dem-Nonpartisan League", and the Democratic Party in Minnesota appears as "Democratic-Farmer-Labor".

Also in Minnesota, the Republican Party was on the ballot as the Independent Republican Party, 1974-1994.

And unlike West Virginia, about half of the states do not register voters by political party affiliation at all- leaving voter identification and political party definitions up to individuals and the various parties to define.

So I find the suggestion that the "Democratic voter" is a well defined, fixed entity to be inconsistent with the on the ground political reality out there. In actual practice political party inbreeding is likely more commonly the rule than the exception. So where does that put the proverbial "Democratic voter" or "Republican voter"- especially in the 24 or so states that do not even register voters by political party affiliation?

by Aaron Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:39 pm

I think Hillary would have a nice lead over Edwards and/or Obama if only democrats were allowed to vote.

So if democratic superdelegates vote for Hillary, it's safe to say they are choosing who democratic voters chose, right!!!

by ziggy Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:45 pm

Aaron wrote:I think Hillary would have a nice lead over Edwards and/or Obama if only democrats were allowed to vote.

So if democratic superdelegates vote for Hillary, it's safe to say they are choosing who democratic voters chose, right!!!

I'll ask you the same as I asked Sherm- being as about half of the states do not even register voters by party affiliation, how do we define who are "democratic voters"?

by ziggy Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:46 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I think Hillary would have a nice lead over Edwards and/or Obama if only democrats were allowed to vote.

So if democratic superdelegates vote for Hillary, it's safe to say they are choosing who democratic voters chose, right!!!

I'll ask you the same as I asked Sherm- being as about half of the states do not even register voters by party affiliation, how do we even know who are "democratic voters"?

by Aaron Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:32 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I think Hillary would have a nice lead over Edwards and/or Obama if only democrats were allowed to vote.

So if democratic superdelegates vote for Hillary, it's safe to say they are choosing who democratic voters chose, right!!!

I'll ask you the same as I asked Sherm- being as about half of the states do not even register voters by party affiliation, how do we define who are "democratic voters"?

Ask ABC.

But in regards to the superdelegates, it's really a moot point. Each was selected for their position based on loyality or service to the democratic party. Each should vote for whom each thinks is the best democratic candidate without regard to what the national vote count is, don't you think!!!

by ziggy Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:55 pm

But in regards to the superdelegates, it's really a moot point. Each was selected for their position based on loyality or service to the democratic party. Each should vote for whom each thinks is the best democratic candidate without regard to what the national vote count is, don't you think!!!

Yes, as long as it is understood that they were chosen and their votes were cast more for their party service and loyalty and what might be best for the fifty state Democratic affiliated parties- than for what might be best for a wider democracy in the United States of America.

by Aaron Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:27 pm

ziggy wrote:
But in regards to the superdelegates, it's really a moot point. Each was selected for their position based on loyality or service to the democratic party. Each should vote for whom each thinks is the best democratic candidate without regard to what the national vote count is, don't you think!!!

Yes, as long as it is understood that they were chosen and their votes were cast more for their party service and loyalty and what might be best for the fifty state Democratic affiliated parties- than for what might be best for a wider democracy in the United States of America.

Yes. Period.

It is their vote to cast as they see fit.

Period.

by **ohio county** Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:50 pm

Yes, as long as it is understood that they were chosen and their votes were cast more for their party service and loyalty and what might be best for the fifty state Democratic affiliated parties- than for what might be best for a wider democracy in the United States of America.

But we can all see that the entrenched party bigwigs will be selecting the nominee.

by **Stephanie** Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:01 pm

ohio county wrote:
Yes, as long as it is understood that they were chosen and their votes were cast more for their party service and loyalty and what might be best for the fifty state Democratic affiliated parties- than for what might be best for a wider democracy in the United States of America.

But we can all see that the entrenched party bigwigs will be selecting the nominee.

What I see is a perfect storm of public discontent with both parties. The Democratic party will be in tatters if this is decided at the convention by superdelegates.

The GOP is only in slightly better condition. The conservatives aren't happy with McCain. He isn't trusted on important issues like immigration and taxes. There are many Republicans like me, who favor an end to aggression in the Middle East and we fear what McCain will do. We see him as a war monger, a man joking about bombing Iran doesn't evoke a lot of confidence.

Point is, I think conditions are ripe for an independent or 3rd party candidate to do very well.

by ziggy Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:07 pm

ohio county wrote:But we can all see that the entrenched party bigwigs will be selecting the nominee.

Yes, it would appear so. And although the Democratic Party and I parted political ways several years ago, and so maybe it is none of my business, it still causes me to cringe to realize that the party of Truman and McGovern is top heavy with bosses who give not a whit about democracy within the party's processes.

by Aaron Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:12 am

Superdelegates are part of the 'democracy'. They have not only the right, but are duty bound to the democratic party to cast their vote for the most viable candidate, no matter what independent voters in Iowa or Republican voters in Texas say.

by Aaron Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:15 am

Stephanie wrote:
ohio county wrote:
Yes, as long as it is understood that they were chosen and their votes were cast more for their party service and loyalty and what might be best for the fifty state Democratic affiliated parties- than for what might be best for a wider democracy in the United States of America.

But we can all see that the entrenched party bigwigs will be selecting the nominee.

What I see is a perfect storm of public discontent with both parties. The Democratic party will be in tatters if this is decided at the convention by superdelegates.

The GOP is only in slightly better condition. The conservatives aren't happy with McCain. He isn't trusted on important issues like immigration and taxes. There are many Republicans like me, who favor an end to aggression in the Middle East and we fear what McCain will do. We see him as a war monger, a man joking about bombing Iran doesn't evoke a lot of confidence.

Point is, I think conditions are ripe for an independent or 3rd party candidate to do very well.

I said this was going to happen more then a week ago. Seems that happens quite a bit though.

At any rate, Republicans will come out in November not so much to support McCain but to defeat whom ever the dumocrats nominate.

As for his C-I-C duties, there are few individuals that are MORE qualified to assume those duties then McCain and of the few, none are dumocrats.

by SFCraig Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:03 pm

The Superdelegates are really meant to coronate a winner, and I believe they will do just that after March. Especially after they (as party leaders) see that Obama wins over McCain in many polls.

That being said, if either Hillary or Obama has the lead but has a Macaca moment, the S.D.s will switch their opinions faster than Mitt Romney!

by Aaron Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:40 pm

Color me a Missourian on what the superdelegates will do!!!

by SamCogar Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 am

shermangeneral wrote:Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Well, I guess this was a clue that Sherman is about to again start with his

"Republicans hiring prostitutes for their Conventioneers".

Laughing

by Sponsored content

Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans

Re: Dem Convention to be exciting, unlike republicans