Posted on 02/21/2008 9:05:01 AM PST by seanmerc
Congressmen and women who believe that they can ignore the expressed will of their districts constituents and vote with impunity for whomever they want for president at the Democratic Convention had better think again. A vote for Clinton by a congressman whose district backed Obama is likely to become the single most dangerous vote the member has ever cast.
If Obama loses the nomination, all will be forgotten, if not forgiven. But if he wins and gets elected, as I think he will, dont expect much mercy from his enraged supporters. Voting one way while ones district votes the other is the stuff from which primary challenges emerge!
Voters memories tend to be short, and the natural tendency is to tell pollsters that they voted for the winner, particularly if he becomes a popular president. So even a district in which the Clinton/Obama vote was close may well become one in which the strong majority remember that they voted for Obama.
If a primary challenger points out that the incumbent backed Clinton even though the district voted for Obama, hes likely to find fertile ground upon which to build his candidacy.
Because the presidential primary vote is so publicly tabulated by congressional district, House members are particularly vulnerable to retribution by an angry electorate. On no other issue is the members vote so directly and easily compared to the expressed will of his district. And no other vote the congressman casts is likely to be as important as the decision he makes on the floor of the convention.
In most House votes, there are multiple options, alternative versions of the legislation, and only a vaguely expressed and even more vaguely remembered measure of the will of ones district. But the clarity of the primary votes on the one hand and of the congressmans vote at the convention on the other makes this a vote unlike any other.
For governors and senators, the stakes are even higher. Everybody will be watching them.
God help the governor of a state, or its U.S. senator, if he votes for Clinton when his state went for Obama! Because everybody knows which state went for which candidate, it is so very easy for voters to keep track. Iowa went for Obama.
New Hampshire went for Clinton. Minnesota voted for Obama. California was for Hillary. Every schoolchild knows that in this most highly publicized and followed of all presidential elections. For a governor or senator to vote against the will of his state is the most obvious form of thumbing ones nose at ones own voters.
For party officials, the votes can be cast in relative anonymity. But should any of them seek public office, their vote for or against the will of their state will be there to be used against them even a decade down the road.
This chaotic Democratic nominating process must lead to two obvious reforms:
The number of superdelegates needs to be reduced. This credential, usually little more than an honorific reward for party toil, should be restricted to public officials and, perhaps, state party chairmen. To have more than 300 party officials entitled to voting seats at the convention makes no sense at all. The party may have to reward its laborers, who are often volunteers, with free seats at the convention, but need not confer voting rights upon them.
The Democratic Party should convert its contests to the winner-take-all format the Republicans largely use. The proportional representation system breeds the same kind of paralysis when used to nominate a candidate as it once caused when the French tried to select a premier during the Fourth Republic. The fact that John McCain can campaign with an increasingly united party behind him while the Democrats tear each other apart subverts the latter partys intention in front-loading its primaries and makes obvious the need for change.
I know Obama has the delegate and Popular vote count, but if we take all 435 congressional districts down based on primary vote, how would the talley break out? Also, if we broke out the states Obama won based on electoral votes and compared that to the states Hillary won based on electoral votes, what would be that result?
Morris just wants to see the clintons hurt, so he is saying things he knows are not true.
Hillary Clinton got Bill to fire Morris. He has been trying to get even ever since he left. What he posts as analysis is based on hurting Hilary. It has nothing to do with solid analysis.
The Democratic primary election is pretty much in a tie. And Morris knows that Hillary has a lot of so called "uncommitted" special delegates in her hip pocket. Morris is trying to frighten them into deserting Hillary.
It will not likely work. What I think will happen is George Soros will try to buy enough specical delegates to get Obama the nomination. Hillary does not have the money to compete.
But some of those "for Sale" delegates will actually be Hillary Delegates who are very likley to go public with Obama's attempt to buy them. There would be just one way for a delegate to prove that Obama had not bought his vote, and that would be to cast his ballot for Hillary.
This thing is a long way from over. There are 1054 Delegates yet to be selected. Obama needs 689 of them to win the nomination on the first ballot. Obama must win 70 percent of the remaining delegates. He has been winning just under 60 percent. Over all he has won about 52 percent.
There is only one way to win it before the convention and that is to get more special delegates to publicly commit. They are not committing although I would bet a number are for sale.
Selling delegate votes goes way back. In 1960 Abe Lincoln called in the press to hear his orders to his staff. When the press assembled, Abe told his staff to Not buy delegate votes in his name. The press was impressed and wrote glowing stories about Honest Abe.
When the press left his staff asked how Abe could expect them to get him the nomination if they could not buy any delegate votes. Abe told his staff, "I did not tell you not to buy delegate votes. I told you not to do it in my name."
So the Lincoln staff bought enough votes to get Abe the 1960 Republican nomination and Abe became known in the press as Honest Abe.
Keep the heat on Hillary. She needs to be taken down before the convention.
Vote for Obama if can in the remaining primaries.
Very true. In my college classes, I'll ask students questions about a variety of things. Few of them know anything about the Constitution. Most of them can't name a single Supreme Court Justice, either senator, their representative, or any of the state congressmen. Here in Texas, though, most of them think the Governor's first name is "Thatdamned" and his last name is "RickPerry."
Why can’t you just ask simple Yes/No or True/False questions? ;-)
Seems to me the joker in the deck is Silky Pony. Whoever he throws his delegates to will probably get a majority on the first ballot.
“Here in Texas, though, most of them think the Governor’s first name is “Thatdamned” and his last name is “RickPerry.”
You should give the students extra credit for an advanced response.
“In 1960 Abe Lincoln”
Was there a second Lincoln presidency that I did not hear about?
I meant 1860
Say Obama wins Ohio, Pa and TExas by the same margin he won Wisconsin. The additional 57 delegate votes that the Edwards has will still not be enough togive Obama the nomination on the first ballot.
We know Obama went to see Edwards. We can be pretty sure he asked for Obama's delegates. In fact it is likely that Obama presented his internal polls on the remaining states. He wanted to prove he was a shoe in and get Edwards 57 delegates. But we know Obama did not get them. What we know is Obama could not or would not meet the Silk Pony's price.
So I think Edwards wants to wait until either Obama or Hillary get within 57 delegates of the nomination and then trade his votes for the VP nomination.
If Edwards doesn’t get the VP nomination, it’s going to be pretty hard for him to remain a political figure. He won one senate term, and that’s it.
He’d have a tough time remaining in the public spotlight to give it another shot in four or eight years.
Do the superdelegates vote on the first ballot?
It was after McGoven won the nomination in 1972 and went down in defeat with the second biggest loss of the 20th century that Democrats changed the rules.
It was noted that McGovern energized the far left to get out and vote in the primaries. The far left was enough to give McGovern the nomination. But they were not enough to prevent a huge loss to Nixon in the general election.
McGoven only got about 39 percent of the votes in the fall. They wanted to prevent that from happening again and therefore changed the rules so 20 percent of the delegates were party officials .... mostly office holders.. such as house and senate members and state committee members. They felt elected officials and party bosses would not be persuaded by a candidate that looked like a winner to a highly motivated few but was really just a loser.
The polls in the spring and summer of 1972 showed Nixon in big trouble. McGovern looked like a huge winner. McGovern had a double digit lead in the polls. But when they counted the votes after the general election Nixon had 60.7 percent of the votes and McGovern about 38 percent. They thought all those young McGovern supporters were going to vote. They didn't.
The only bigger victory in the 20th century was Roosevelt in 1938.. FDR got 60.8 percent of the vote in 1938.
But after the McGovern loss, they wanted to make it easy for the party bosses to be able to prevent almost anyone from winning a contested nomination with out the party bosses support.That is when they changed the rules.
The question is are their enough McGovern era special delegates still around to understand what is going on with Obama. Despite what the media says, I can't see Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Kentucky going for Obama in the general election.
I think the nomination will be up to the super delegates. Neither Hillary or Obama can win enough delegates to win with out a substantial majority of super delegates. The media keeps telling us HIlary can't get enough delegates from the primary elections. They are not telling you Obama can't get them either.
If Obama wins the nomination, I don't think he can win the election. He will do as poorly as McGovern did in the industrial midwest. And with out the Spanish votes in Texas and Florida and with out the bubba votes in the industrial midwest Obama is toast.
I think he will not be the VP nominee. He is taking a long shot. I can't see either Obama or Hillary wining enough delegates to get the nomination before the convention.
I can't imagine the super delegates letting the silk pony get away with using his delegates to get the VP nomination.
I think Obama knows this as well. That is why the Pony did not get a deal with Obama. I think Obama offered the Pony a deal, but the Pony turned it down. He may have offered him something like secretary of the interior and the pony was not going for that.
I think the pony will soon be practicing law again.
Thanks. I didn’t think the SD’s voted on the first ballot, tha changes everything.
If Hillary tries to thwart the will of dem voters by manipulating the SD vote, she will tear the party apart and McCain will win handily in November.
I can’t count the number of times pubs have won simply because the dems fight with each other and conservatives find a way to unite before the election.
The supers are watching closely, because it has to be just close enough for them to allow the Clintons to steal it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.