Obama Says Superdelegates Should Back Candidate W/ Most Pledged Delegates. How does he enforce that?

[bigtree]

February 8, 2008, 3:38 PM
(CBS)
From CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic:

SEATTLE -- Barack Obama said today that Democratic party superdelegates should throw their support to him if he wins the most states and pledged delegates.

“My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.”

He told reporters at a press conference in Seattle that the almost 800 superdelegates should also consider who is most capable of beating John McCain in the general election. Obama predicted that the race with Hillary Clinton will be very tight and that it’s too early to speculate what will happen. Right now, Obama wants to focus on reaching out to voters who are not as familiar with him as they are with Clinton.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/08/politics/fromtheroad/entry3809478.shtml

[quinnox]

1. He can't

He is just trying to make a political point. But I don't think he will have the most delegates at the end. IMHO Hillary will by a close margin.

[joshcryer]

27. Check out this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4481539

Basically it's one of two arguments that will be made. He's hoping for a delegate majority. Note he doesn't make any mention of the popular vote. Both candidates can make an argument to the superdelegates when the vote is tabled, and they can chose whichever way they want to go.

[RiverStone]

37. He should and she should!

I think this rule should apply to who ever is in the lead - why should super delegates ignore the will of the people?

They elected them.

Who do we want to decide the nomination - the voters or an elite and exclusionary tiny group of people? This is not an Obama issue or a Hillary issue - it is a valid point for any body.

[miceelf]

2. ???

He's stating what he thinks should happen and it's a pretty reasonable position. I don't know what enforcement has to do with it. How will Sen. Clinton "enforce" her view that the rules should be changed to seat the FL and Michigan delegates?

[bigtree]

22. Then what's his strategy for controlling those votes?

It's going to be hard to influence SDs who aren't presently in office

[geek tragedy]

3. How does he enforce it?

By telling his supporters to walk out and encouraging them to vote third party if superdelegates steal it for Clinton.

[pampango]

4. Neither candidate can force the SDs to do anything. Each can talk all they want

about what they want them to do, but that's it.

[RiverStone]

38. And a SD can chose to ignore the will of the people...

And be judged to be an arrogant, elite fuck - or follow the lead of the people who elected him/her.

And I say this rule should apply to Obama or Hillary equally. Even as an Obama supporter - if Hil is in the lead - then the delegates should follow that lead. But - I hope they won't have to. :hi:

[HeraldSquare212]

5. It sounds like what I read in the paper this morning, that

he thinks superdelegates a majority of whose constituents voted for him, should also vote for him. That happened the other day, when a superdelegate changes his pledge to Obama for that reason. I don't think Obama is saying that whomever wins the most states should get all the superdelegates.

The enforcement is really just the fear on the part of the superdelegates that voters will remember that the superdelegate supported someone they didn't support, come election time.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. That's amusing... he doesn't say SDs should support the pledged vote winner

He says that SDs should support HIM if he happens to be the pledged delegate winner.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Read the whole thing... the CBS News Headline does not match the article

The headline says "Obama Says Superdelegates Should Back Candidate With Most Pledged Delegates", but the article doesn't say that at all.

The article says he thinks all SDs should support him if he gets the most pledged delegates. He doesn't say they should support Hillary if she gets the most pledged delegates, and advises SDs to look at his electability.

[bigtree]

20. I see that equivocation

interesting

[Life Long Dem]

33. He was talking about himself. What do u think of that!!

[still_one]

If the winner of the primary loses the nomination because of super delegates

not backing the will of the people, the Democratic party will go into full melt down, and they can kiss the white house goodbye

[joshcryer]

7. And if Clinton has the most popular vote, she'll say they should back the candidate with most votes.

[goodgd_yall]

26. True

Which is more representative of the will of the voters?

[joshcryer]

28. Check this thread out, they're both compelling arguments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4481539

Obama won a lot of caucus states, so delegates would be more representative of him.

Hillary won a lot of primary states, so popular vote would be more representitive of her.

It's going to be crazy! :)

[MaineDem]

8. It can't be enforced.

"Superdelegates" are really Unpledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials. I have no idea where the term "superdelegates" came from.

No one has control over those votes. The delegates are free to endorse whomever they want - or not. But nothing other than ethics binds them to vote that way in Denver.

[busymom]

9. what a crock of shit...

So Hillary is a demon for wanting Florida and MI to count, but Obama can try and demand a rule change and that's ok?

what. ever.

I call bullshit.

[still_one]

15. The only way Florida and MI should count is if they re-run those primaries

The super delegates should not decide the winner. The primary contests should.

Anything else, and we will lose the white house, because the party will be divided

They had better get this straightened up before the Convention

[joshcryer]

23. IT'S NOT A RULE CHANGE. They vote at the DNC, they table things to vote on. It's called democracy.

As I said in another thread, this is one of the two big arguments going into the DNC.

[xultar]

10. Sounds good though don't it.

[LittleClarkie]

11. He said should. He didn't say he could enforce a thing

And it would be nice if the pledged delegates and the super delegates agreed.

[bigtree]

19. politics is rarely 'nice'

[joshcryer]

12. BTW, he's not going to "enforce" it. He's merely making the argument. You can make an argument to...

...the superdelegates who they should support.

[bigtree]

18. sure, that's true. he's making the argument, but it's really not his decision to make, is it?

and he's not going to be able to do much to influence the ones who aren't presently holding office.

Maybe some rule adjustment can be agreed to, by the candidates, at the convention, with enough outside pressure.

[joshcryer]

24. Right, it's not his decision, but as I said in my other thread about this, that's one of the...

...arguments that will be used.

[Deep13]

13. Putting the cart before the horse.

First he will need to finish with the most elected delegates.

To answer directly, a candidate cannot force the hands of the superdelegates. The whole reason they are there is to insure some kind of institutional memory and to prevent a popular-among-party-faithful firebrand who has no hope of winning the general election. (No it is not a veiled criticism of O. He is hardly a firebrand.)

[gasperc]

14. well historically this true

but I'm sure both camps will be alot more aggressive in trying to lock down votes. Clinton may also be realizing that she may lose a string of states and fall behind Obama in the delegate count however, could start tarnishing Obama later and convince the public and the super delegates to support her for the nomination. Would be very, very risky and would likely cause tons of bad blood going into the general.

[still_one]

17. We would lose the general election if the Super Delegates go against the primaries

and it might even be worse than that, where Congress should be a shoe in, it could cause people to sit out the general election

It better be resolved before the Convention, and that includes re-running the MI and Florida primaries

[Life Long Dem]

21. Super delegates have to reverse the pledged delegates.

To go against that is to go against you! To do so means kicking down the doors!

[joshcryer]

25. Here's a thread where I discuss this (Skinner chimes in!):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4481539

[bigtree]

29. thanks. I'm sorry I missed that one

[bigtree]

30. how would the pledge he wants signed be instituted?

Does Dean really have enough leverage on these officials?

[joshcryer]

31. I dunno, it's more likely than them getting to the DNC.

If they get to the DNC without signing such a pledge it's unlikely they'd accept a vote to pledge only for the winner of the pledges. They have power by the time they get to the DNC.

Dean seems to want to broker it with the two nominees, and basicaly the two arguements are "I have popular vote," and "I have pledged delegate majority." If you can say both of those, you have the nomination, if you can say one of those, I'm not so sure.

[bigtree]

32. thanks for the insight on the two points of contention

something to consider

[UALRBSofL]

34. Interesting ideas

And then we have to consider MI and FL because these two states could determine the outcome. If they are ignored we don't know what will happen.

[Bitwit1234]

35. But he wants Florida and Michigan to be disqualified.

POUTY BOY has taken over all ready hasn't he...that head will get so big there won't be room for all the US citizens.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. POPULAR VOTE is the ONLY way to make this FAIR. It's the ONLY way

the people won't be disenfranchised again!

[Igel]

39. His reasoning was rejected at the state level.

It's part of the reason for the near tie in delegate counts. At the state level, one could argue that the delegates should vote for whoever got a majority of the popular vote. It's been argued; it's undoubtedly been done that way in the past. But it's not done that way. It's not winner take all. It would be interesting to look at delegate totals recalculated with that as an assumption, just for the heck of it, to see what consistency in his argument would produce.

But let's assume that Obama does wind up with 10 more delegates than HRC (prior to adding in the superdelegates). He won't have a majority because voters didn't give him one. He wouldn't even have a majority of the regular delegates, now would he--he'd simply have a plurality. Edwards got some delegates, no? So couldn't a reasoned counterargument be that the superdelegates should simply reflect the will of the voters--if the regular delegates were assigned proportionally (in some sense of the word), ask superdelegates to parley and vote in accordance with their voters. And there still won't be a winner. Not "QED", to be sure.

Preaching to the superdelegates ... strange idea. But consistent.

[sunonmars]

40. What was that he was going on about lately changing the rules mid campaign?

Only when it benefits him.

Well Tough!