Politics
I read something last week (and now I can't seem to find it, may have to check my browser history at work) that was a hypothetical argument between Obama and Clinton over who deserved the nomination. It made some very interesting points. Of course at this point neither of them can win without the super delegates. I find it endlessly amusing that after numerous attacks against Republicans for disenfranchising women, minorities and voters in Florida, that the democratic race is going to be decided by a group largely composed of white men and without any delegates from Florida (at least currently that's the case.) But I digress, the point is since the super delegates are going to be deciding this thing what sort of arguments is each side going to make to sway these super delegates...
Of course Obama's argument is that the super delegates should go to whomever has the most pledged delegates. On the other side Clinton has some interesting arguments of her own. One of the points the article raised, which I wasn't aware of is that while Obama's argument hinges on his delegate numbers as being reflective of the will of the people that most of his pledged delegates have come from caucuses, which if you know anything about caucuses mostly represent the will of a somewhat unusual subset of really dedicated people who are willing to spend long hours in the evening at a caucusing place during the cold winter evening. Also when you look at the big battleground states Clinton has basically won all of those. Now if that's all there was to it then I would still say Obama's pledged delegate point is the winner, but that's not all there is.
Florida and Michigan, as you probably know, moved their primaries forward and as a result were stripped of all their delegates by the DNC. This was a big mistake by the way, they should have done what the republicans did and just stripped half the delegates. (Even with half the delegates Florida and Michigan were hotly contested.) So unless they can do something about the Michigan/Florida problem (why does it always come down to Florida?) Clinton, who won both of those states is going to have a really big argument that without counting those two states that the victory is going to be tainted.
Anyway just a couple of thoughts. It certainly has been the most interesting primary season I can ever remember and it just promises to get more interesting. I'm really hoping this goes all the way to a contested convention...
Bad for the democracy but very interesting
Of course Obama's argument is that the super delegates should go to whomever has the most pledged delegates. On the other side Clinton has some interesting arguments of her own. One of the points the article raised, which I wasn't aware of is that while Obama's argument hinges on his delegate numbers as being reflective of the will of the people that most of his pledged delegates have come from caucuses, which if you know anything about caucuses mostly represent the will of a somewhat unusual subset of really dedicated people who are willing to spend long hours in the evening at a caucusing place during the cold winter evening. Also when you look at the big battleground states Clinton has basically won all of those. Now if that's all there was to it then I would still say Obama's pledged delegate point is the winner, but that's not all there is.
Florida and Michigan, as you probably know, moved their primaries forward and as a result were stripped of all their delegates by the DNC. This was a big mistake by the way, they should have done what the republicans did and just stripped half the delegates. (Even with half the delegates Florida and Michigan were hotly contested.) So unless they can do something about the Michigan/Florida problem (why does it always come down to Florida?) Clinton, who won both of those states is going to have a really big argument that without counting those two states that the victory is going to be tainted.
Anyway just a couple of thoughts. It certainly has been the most interesting primary season I can ever remember and it just promises to get more interesting. I'm really hoping this goes all the way to a contested convention...
Bad for the democracy but very interesting
posted by DireKobold at 9:22 PM
1 Comments:
The Democrats' cries are pure chutzpah. They basically stole Illinois in 1960. Nixon, for all his weaknesses, was concerned enough for the state of the Union to concede and not challenge the outright fraud. (He was more concerned in 1960 than '72, but I digress). How many bumper stickers did you see and shrill cries did you hear back then accusing the Dems of stealing the election?
Post a Comment
<< Home