Democratic Nom - Order Your Importance

[Lugnuts]

Can I get a list from everybody, say 1-5 in order of importance, of the factors you think should determine the Democratic nomination?

For example, here's my list (which I'm really still thinking about):

1. popular vote
2. pledged delegates
3. total delegates
4. total states won
5. superdelegates

Republicans and conservatives are encouraged to chime in... but if you don't mind, I'm looking for opinions from folks who have a legitimate interest in fairness of the process-- not the so called 'Limbaugh Republicans' who want to root for whatever will get Hillary in there, kwim?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Put that way:

pledged
popular
super
total del (which will have taken care of itself, by this point)
total states won

 

[Chi City 81]

I would flipflop 1 and 2. Otherwise, I agree.

 

[Lugnuts]

I guess the reason I ask is... I'm wondering what thought processes of the superdelegates will be as they go to choose the nominee.

 

[cranberry]

I guess the reason I ask is... I'm wondering what thought processes of the superdelegates will be as they go to choose the nominee.

It should be, Who's got the best chance of winning the swing states? That's all that matters.

 

[ink-stained wretch]

1. superdelegates (they know electibility)
2. popular vote (though volitile)
3. the rest is window dressing

 

[Ace]

1. popular vote
2. total delegates
3. pledged delegates
4. superdelegates
5. total states won

This whole thing is a mess.

 

[Chi City 81]

I guess the reason I ask is... I'm wondering what thought processes of the superdelegates will be as they go to choose the nominee.

It should be, Who's got the best chance of winning the swing states? That's all that matters.

Yes, that Ohio-Pennsylvania-Florida strategy has worked swimmingly of late.

 

[cranberry]

I guess the reason I ask is... I'm wondering what thought processes of the superdelegates will be as they go to choose the nominee.

It should be, Who's got the best chance of winning the swing states? That's all that matters.

Yes, that Ohio-Pennsylvania-Florida strategy has worked swimmingly of late.

Uh, what are you talking about? I'm sure it's a clever and pithy remark but I just don't get it? Want to try again?

 

[Yawn]

Can I get a list from everybody, say 1-5 in order of importance, of the factors you think should determine the Democratic nomination?

For example, here's my list (which I'm really still thinking about):

1. popular vote
2. pledged delegates
3. total delegates
4. total states won
5. superdelegates

Republicans and conservatives are encouraged to chime in... but if you don't mind, I'm looking for opinions from folks who have a legitimate interest in fairness of the process-- not the so called 'Limbaugh Republicans' who want to root for whatever will get Hillary in there, kwim?

Anything except 1, 3 and 4, you lose this election.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Total delegates won thru primary/caucus voting should be No. 1. Superdelegates are just a way to rig the selection process.

 

[Chi City 81]

I guess the reason I ask is... I'm wondering what thought processes of the superdelegates will be as they go to choose the nominee.

It should be, Who's got the best chance of winning the swing states? That's all that matters.

Yes, that Ohio-Pennsylvania-Florida strategy has worked swimmingly of late.

Uh, what are you talking about? I'm sure it's a clever and pithy remark but I just don't get it? Want to try again?

The strategy of focusing only on swing states helped cause eight years of GWB. Better?

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

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.

 

[Armchair_QB]

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, "**** what our voters think, we're nominating who WE want to run."

 

[Yawn]

And who runs the DNC?

Recipe for losing. Period.

 

[Pastor]

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, "**** what our voters think, we're nominating who WE want to run."

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 **** all about the popular vote, aka what the most people want.

 

[Ace]

And who runs the DNC?

Recipe for losing. Period.

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

Today's password is "socialized medicine."

 

[Chi City 81]

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, "**** what our voters think, we're nominating who WE want to run."

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 **** all about the popular vote, aka what the most people want.

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.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

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.

 

[cranberry]

I guess the reason I ask is... I'm wondering what thought processes of the superdelegates will be as they go to choose the nominee.

It should be, Who's got the best chance of winning the swing states? That's all that matters.

Yes, that Ohio-Pennsylvania-Florida strategy has worked swimmingly of late.

Uh, what are you talking about? I'm sure it's a clever and pithy remark but I just don't get it? Want to try again?

The strategy of focusing only on swing states helped cause eight years of GWB. Better?

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?