It's Time For Hillary To Concede

[101A]

Got it.

Doesn't sound bad; gonna think about the downside of that (if there is one).

OOOOOH, I know!!

Majority of Congressional districts are urban nationwide - carry those; win the presidential election. OR; you could end up with some VERY creative Gerrymandering to counteract that.

Also; would each state get two at-large electors (for the senators)?

[Mr. Peabody]

OOOOOH, I know!!

Majority of Congressional districts are urban nationwide - carry those; win the presidential election. OR; you could end up with some VERY creative Gerrymandering to counteract that.

Also; would each state get two at-large electors (for the senators)?

Well, the majority of the population is located in urban areas, so as the system stands now, you just have to focus on urban areas. My problem with the system now is that in a hyper blue (California) or hyper red (Texas) states, the candidates don't have to put in as many resources or address as many of our concerns as they do in true swings states.

However, if we award electoral college votes based on district, the Republican candidate will have to fight for votes in the Valley and the Democratic candidate will have to fight for votes in certain areas of California. I just think it is a way of making sure that neither party takes our states for granted.

[101A]

Well, the majority of the population is located in urban areas, so as the system stands now, you just have to focus on urban areas. My problem with the system now is that in a hyper blue (California) or hyper red (Texas) states, the candidates don't have to put in as many resources or address as many of our concerns as they do in true swings states.

However, if we award electoral college votes based on district, the Republican candidate will have to fight for votes in the Valley and the Democratic candidate will have to fight for votes in certain areas of California. I just think it is a way of making sure that neither party takes our states for granted.

Fair enough; although I would argue there are enough states where the "rural" is important enough, that they cannot be ignored. Midwest, primarily. Maybe it's there inordinate influence over the primaries that give them the influence, however.

You're right about Texas (and California) being either conceded, or taken for granted, however. Becauses of their isubstantial representation in Congress, they never get overlooked in terms of national agenda.

[101A]

(on a side note:
primaries NOT= general election

so this conjecture on how well obama/clinton might do in the general, based on primary results, not good.)

You think that Hillary being stronger in Ohio than Obama is meaningless in the general election?

O.K.

[Yonivore]

I think you're both missing the fundamental purpose of the Cons utional intent behind the manner in which the Executive is selected.

The "people" were never intended to elect their president. The president is the Chief Executive of the federal government and was supposed to be picked by an electoral college populated by delegates selected in any manner the various states saw fit.

So, while the states could collectively change the manner in which they choose their electors, I wouldn't hold my breath for a cons utional amendment that would take that power away from the states -- even if many of them choose, themselves, to allow popular and proportional selection of the electors through statewide elections.

The U.S. House of Representatives is your representative at the federal level and, until the 17th amendment, was the only person the general public had a cons utional right to select. The Senate was originally intended to be populated by persons, selected by the states, so that state interests would be guarded at the federal level. That got screwed up by the 17th amendment...a mistake the States aren't like to repeat.

The President was only ever intended to be an administrator of that government.

Oh well...

[Mr. Peabody]

I think you're both missing the fundamental purpose of the Cons utional intent behind the manner in which the Executive is selected.

The "people" were never intended to elect their president. The president is the Chief Executive of the federal government and was supposed to be picked by an electoral college populated by delegates selected in any manner the various states saw fit.

So, while the states could collectively change the manner in which they choose their electors, I wouldn't hold my breath for a cons utional amendment that would take that power away from the states -- even if many of them choose, themselves, to allow popular and proportional selection of the electors through statewide elections.

Again, I'm not arguing for a direct election, just apportionment of electors. And I may be mistaken, but don't some states do that already? I just think it'd be nice if Texas and other states adopted that system as well.

[Yonivore]

Again, I'm not arguing for a direct election, just apportionment of electors. And I may be mistaken, but don't some states do that already? I just think it'd be nice if Texas and other states adopted that system as well.

I understand. You're arguing for a national requirement for how the electors are apportioned. This would require either convincing 50 states to change the way they pick their electors so that they all do it the same way or to amend the cons ution to require the states to pick them that way.

Not going to happen. It cedes too much power to the federal government.

The biggest mistake the states have made in the last two hundred plus years is giving away the power to pick their Senators. They're not likely to do the same with the executive.

[Mr. Peabody]

I understand. You're arguing for a national requirement for how the electors are apportioned. This would require either convincing 50 states to change the way they pick their electors so that they all do it the same way or to amend the cons ution to require the states to pick them that way.

Not going to happen. It cedes too much power to the federal government.

The biggest mistake the states have made in the last two hundred plus years is giving away the power to pick their Senators. They're not likely to do the same with the executive.

No, I agree. Plus, whoever is in power at the time (Demo or Repub) will not want to change the system that put them into power, which is why no matter how much we Demos about the current primary system, it won't change.

[Yonivore]

No, I agree. Plus, whoever is in power at the time (Demo or Repub) will not want to change the system that put them into power, which is why no matter how much we Demos about the current primary system, it won't change.

The Demos won't when the system works to their favor.

But, we're talking apples and oranges now; the primary system is something entirely different than the electoral system. You won't find political parties mentioned in the cons ution...and, I could care less (outside of my own affiliated party) how the partisans pick their candidate.

[Evan]

clinton haters run rampant

Perhaps there is a reason why?

[Wild Cobra]

She's putting her personal ambitions above everything else.

Are you finally realizing this? Those of us to the right have known that for several years. She has always operated that way, including her husband.

However, if we award electoral college votes based on district, the Republican candidate will have to fight for votes in the Valley and the Democratic candidate will have to fight for votes in certain areas of California. I just think it is a way of making sure that neither party takes our states for granted.

To my understanding, that is exactly why such a system was developed. This nation is a republic, not a democracy. No democracy has lasted over 200 years.

[Nbadan]

Looks like DNC chairman Howard Dean isn't in too much of a hurry to let Florida and Michigan vote again...

[Nbadan]

...and Dean says FL, MI delegates won't be seated without a new primary

[Yonivore]

I heard somewhere, and you Demophiles can correct me but, without Michigan and Florida, Obama needs to win 77% of the remaining delegates to take the nomination and Hillary needs to win 97% of the remaining delegates. so, if Obama get 4% more and Hillary gets 24% more (very likely for both of them), this shindig doesn't get decided until the Convention. Right?

Somebody help me out here...

[Yonivore]

And speaking of conventions...

Ever notice how suicidal the left-o-sphere is? No sooner did Nancy Pelosi become speaker than Cindy Sheehan was running against her. Now there is a group that wants to turn the Democratic National Convention next year into Chicago 1968. Great strategy: Let’s turn Hillary into Hubert Humphrey.

This is so bizarre that I wonder if Recreate ‘68 isn’t some sort of parody. Its mission statement:

Welcome to the “Re-create 68″ website, your virtual activists’ Convergence Center for the Denver Democratic National Convention of 2008. This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party.

R-68 agrees with the proposition, POTESTAS IN POPULO, “all power comes from the people.” What stands between the people and power are the party machines. The parties were devised as a means to represent the people. Today they represent nobody, not even party members, but only party bureaucracy. The people have been left without appropriate ins utions for their representation. We intend to create those ins utes!

Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained.

Grassroots? Remove the G and the R.

Sadly, I have no address for Republicans to send contributions to these loons.

[Mr. Peabody]

I heard somewhere, and you Demophiles can correct me but, without Michigan and Florida, Obama needs to win 77% of the remaining delegates to take the nomination and Hillary needs to win 97% of the remaining delegates. so, if Obama get 4% more and Hillary gets 24% more (very likely for both of them), this shindig doesn't get decided until the Convention. Right?

Somebody help me out here...

The percentages are the percentages of "pledged" delegates they would have to win to secure the nomination prior to the convention. That number does not factor in the superdelegates. It could be the case that by the time the convention rolls around, one candidate has reached 2,025 delegates by combining pledged delegates and superdelegates.

Here's an explanation of where it stands as of now -

The math has been simplified. ABC News’ delegate count has Obama with 1,566 (a 109 lead despite Mrs. Clinton’s Tuesday win) and Clinton with 1,457. And with 12 contests to go, the democrats are left with 611 more pledged delegates to grab in, Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico.

Now, if a candidate wants to avoid the superdelegate contest in August, he or she needs 2,025 to claim the democratic party’s nomination, but neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama can reach the required number without the votes from the superdelegates.

getting the math right

The math from ABC’s Political Unit’s delegate calculator further predicts that to secure the nomination before the convention, Obama would need to win 75 percent of the remaining pledged delegates and Clinton would need to win 93 percent of them, a tough job indeed if not outrightly impossible.

This means that it all comes down to the superdelegate vote to be decided at the Democratic convention. A possible Democratic convention that officials want to avoid due to the worry that there could be a general discontent if the candidate with fewer elected delegates gets chosen. The 1968 Chicago convention, it seems, has a role to play in this worry.

preventing the super vote

This superdelegate race could just be prevented. That is, if the two candidates recompete for Florida and Michigan — the two states had their primaries results cancelled due to non adherence to party rules – with a combined number of 366 delegates.

But should the unwanted superdelegate vote take place, the general question will be; how are the candidates faring on the grounds of superdelegates? Have any superdelegates pledged their support for any of the two?

To begin with, there are about 800 superdelegates recorded by the democrats. Clinton so far has a lead over Obama in the superdelegate count. In conclusion, the remaining questions cannot be answered, simply because they are not forced to support the leading candidate at the convention and also even if some superdelegates favour one candidate now, they reserve the right to change their minds in the end.

[Holt's Cat]

What provision in the Democratic party primary process binds the "pledged" delegates to vote for a particular candidate at the convention? If I am not mistaken, there is none.

[Yonivore]

The percentages are the percentages of "pledged" delegates they would have to win to secure the nomination prior to the convention. That number does not factor in the superdelegates. It could be the case that by the time the convention rolls around, one candidate has reached 2,025 delegates by combining pledged delegates and superdelegates.

Here's an explanation of where it stands as of now -

As long as it goes to the convention, that's all I care about. Life would be perfect if that crazy "Re-create '68" crowd then turned the convention into a vivid reminder of what the Democrats were in 1968.

God Bless America and the Democratic nominating system.

[Holt's Cat]

How about this scenario:

New primaries are held and Hillary takes Michigan and Florida.
She wins Pennsylvania.
She's still short in the pledged delegate count but the margin is under 50.
She makes the case that she's won every big state primary or caucus save for Illinois and is more electable in the general election.
She calls on the superdelegates plus any pledged Obama delegates willing to switch to vote for her at the convention.

?

Not only could I see that as a possibility, I think that's her strategy. The Clintons aren't going to walk away from this now that things are a little messy. That's not exactly their M.O. Messiness breeds opportunity for them.

[Nbadan]

How about this scenario:

New primaries are held and Hillary takes Michigan and Florida.
She wins Pennsylvania.
She's still short in the pledged delegate count but the margin is under 50.
She makes the case that she's won every big state primary or caucus save for Illinois and is more electable in the general election.
She calls on the superdelegates plus any pledged Obama delegates willing to switch to vote for her at the convention.

?

Not only could I see that as a possibility, I think that's her strategy. The Clintons aren't going to walk away from this now that things are a little messy. That's not exactly their M.O. Messiness breeds opportunity for them.

That's a possible scenario but conventional thinking is that more superdelegates will jump on the Obama bandwagon as he begins winning contests that are coming up, it's just like basketball, superdelegates love a winner and when it becomes more apparent that he will win the nomination they will jump on board....

[Holt's Cat]

That's a possible scenario but conventional thinking is that more superdelegates will jump on the Obama bandwagon as he begins winning contests that are coming up, it's just like basketball, superdelegates love a winner and when it becomes more apparent that he will win the nomination they will jump on board....

So he wins Wyoming and Mississippi. She just won Texas and Ohio. Out of those four, which is most important for a Democratic candidate come November?

[Extra Stout]

So he wins Wyoming and Mississippi. She just won Texas and Ohio. Out of those four, which is most important for a Democratic candidate come November?

That's always struck me as a specious argument (assuming you're referring to Ohio or any other swing state). Just because one candidate wins the primary does not mean the other candidate would be doomed in the general. You have to show some evidence that the voters who decided the election for Clinton would either vote McCain or stay home if Obama were the nominee.

[Holt's Cat]

That's always struck me as a specious argument (assuming you're referring to Ohio or any other swing state). Just because one candidate wins the primary does not mean the other candidate would be doomed in the general. You have to show some evidence that the voters who decided the election for Clinton would either vote McCain or stay home if Obama were the nominee.

Do you think those people who turned out for Clinton would do so for Obama? Ohio's like Alabama between Cleveland and Cincinnati, without the black folks.

[Nbadan]

So he wins Wyoming and Mississippi. She just won Texas and Ohio. Out of those four, which is most important for a Democratic candidate come November?

I think 15 - 3 in the last 18 would be more important....why should the big states have higher priority?

[Holt's Cat]

I think 15 - 3 in the last 18 would be more important....why should the big states have higher priority?

Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania are rather important for winning in the general election. Certainly more important than the notion that being able to win a caucus in Wyoming, Idaho, or Utah proves much.