Is it fair for candidates to force the DNC to change the rules during the process?
The candidates knew the rules beforehand. If they disagreed, they should have forced the issue before the delegates were stripped or they should have refused to sign the Four States Pledge. By agreeing not to campaign, they agreed that the vote would not be legitimate. Asking for the party to seat delegates based on a vote that is not legitimate makes me worry, as does Calvinball
I am very skeptical of the current “will of the people” argument as it is convenient. It did not exist before the vote in Florida occurred. Of course, it was not needed before the primaries began.
To be honest, I believe that Senator Clinton wants the pledged delegates from the people but what the campaign really desires are the Super Delegates. In a new election, she may only pick up 15 pledged delegates if she were to win both states and Michigan may go for Senator Obama, especially if they were to have a caucus. However, Senator Clinton would most likely NET 30+ Super Delegates. With the combined totals, Senator Clinton may only trail Senator Obama by 50 delegates and may overtake Senator Obama in the popular vote, though I am unsure about this as Senator Obama win will half of the remaining contests.
Should the DNC seat the delegates under the current vote?
The Clinton Campaign introduced this argument from a position of weakness after the Florida vote. This argument cannot be taken seriously on its face since the vote is illegitimate. I would hope that the Clinton campaign is using this only as a bargaining chip though if the delegates seated under the current election, Senator Clinton may take the delegate lead.
There have been other selections such as split the delegates 50 – 50 though I am not sure if this would imply that the Super Delegates would do the same or vote their conscience. The problem is that the popular vote is still dubious and if the delegate count between the Obama and Clinton becomes close (under 50) to a point where the Super Delegates want to consider the popular vote, they will make their decision based on unsound evidence. Further, if you were going to split the delegate count, why hold the election in the first place?
There are other proposals to seat half of the delegates from the current vote and then have an additional vote via primaries in mid-May to determine the other half of the primary. So, only half of the delegates would be from the illegitimate first vote and then there is the redo question.
2 comments:
You are definitely right that what she is after is Super delegates. Everyone knows that. But as a self-serving politico, what else can she do? Her net in pledged delegates from both Florida and Michigan, after all, will be doing very well indeed, if it exceeds Obama's net in the Democratic strongholds of Missisiippi and North Carolina.
Regarding the popular vote, Harrogate will bet you five dollars that she outdraws him in that department, especially if they disingenuously Change the Rules in Midstream and Revote in States that Broke the Rules.
But then, it is delegates, not the popualr count that gets one the nomination. She will only be making an outright fool of herself if she goes before the SuperDelegates and argues that they take the popular vote into account.
Gore, for example, might actually spit in her face before telling her to get out of his solar-panelled Sauna (but to bring him a beer before she goes).
You are absolutely correct on the Supers and the popular vote. However, as I argue later, the "meaning" of the new popular vote, which reflects fewer choices and occurred at a different point in the election and under different circumstance, could be disastrous, especially if the Super Delegates decide the election on the bases of popular vote if Senator Clinton gains the advantage in popular vote and Obama still possesses the lead in pledged delegates.
There may be a major problem under this scenario.
Post a Comment