Democratic Nom - Order Your Importance

Speech-giving ability
Charisma
Cult of personality
Level of eloquence of rips on GOP

Oh, you mean actual factors, not what voters themselves are looking for?

OK then . . . in order:

Popular vote
pledged delegates
total states won.

The number of superdelegates only matters as showing how the party leaders and rank-and-file feel about the candidate, and should only be used to supplement the popular vote leader's tally. Hell, superdelegates shouldn't exist, but the Dems apparently want to cover themselves in case the popular vote doesn't work out, and keep the possibility of back-door deals in the nomination process.

 

In other words, the DNC is saying, "Fuck what our voters think, we're nominating who WE want to run."

 

And who runs the DNC?

Recipe for losing. Period.

 

Oh please. The Republicans have the same damn system. It just so happens that of all the losers that ran for the GOP nominee, McCain was able to secure the nominee through winning the most states.

Remember, the GOP has winner take all states. That means the GOP gives fuck all about the popular vote, aka what the most people want.

 

Welcome, Comrade. I didn't realize you were a Democrat.

Today's password is "socialized medicine."

 

If you think about it, winner-take-all more closely emulates what will happen in the general. I don't have an issue with it.

 

I'm sure someone who follows the process much more closely (and who likely leans Dem) can explain this whole Superdelegate thing better.

But yeah, it looks like an attempt for the Dems to cover themselves in any of the following situations:

- A close delegate count, brought about by their proportioning delegates won instead of having all states be "winner take all"
- An undesirable candidate gaining the popular nomination

I would guess they'll say they just want to make sure there's a clear winner, since they don't do winner take all. But the possibility of backdoor deals is there. Which is what keeps the Hillary Clinton campaign afloat and somewhat hopeful at this time.

As for the merits of winner take all: I don't like it, but it is the system we use. It opens the door for a candidate to take the biggest states and ride them to the nomination.

 

Nice try at revisionism but I was alive and paying attention for the last two elections. There were plenty of reasons the Democrats lost but paying too much attention to swing states wasn't one of them.

Now do you really think it's better for Democrats to focus on popular vote than on swing states? Al Gore would be finishing off his second term and the country would have saved a trillion dollars and a few thousand soldiers' lives if that was a winning strategy, right?

 

Not necessarily a Comrade, but if you want to watch your comrades self-destruct, well, they seem to know the formula. Maybe you need to change the password to get to the formula.
Wait, the local McCain chairman called and told me to tell you not to.

 

I agree that it emulates the general election. The problem is that general election does not care who most people prefer.

AQB was arguing that the Dems don't care about who the people vote for. I was merely pointing out that he is wrong, as the delegates reflect a popular vote, and that the GOP cares nothing at all for the will of the people.

 

Well, to be honest, I'd rather our folks self-destruct before they get in office than screw up everything while in office (like someone I could name but won't).

 

Nice attempt at a straw man, but that's not at all what I was saying.

The Democrats should be focusing on winning as many states as possible, and Obama has the money and the broad donor base to pull that off. Hillary is disliked if not loathed by at least 40-45 percent of the country, which is why that strategy can't and won't work for her.

Also, Florida is not a swing state. It's solidly Republican, and has trended that way for at least a decade. Neither Dem candidate will win it.

And the DLC's swing-state strategy was a huge mistake, no matter what you seem to think. I have eight years of perhaps the most inept administration in U.S. history on my side.