Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel, agree to have "uncommitted" given to

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 01:50 PM
Original message
Should Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel, agree to have "uncommitted" given to
Obama? Would that solve the problem? I doubt Hillary campaign would listen but I'd like to hear them support that option now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Clintons are practicing molehill politics; they don't want this
resolved, they just want another 'issue' imo. I say let the DNC inform them of the rules, and also inform them that they do not make the rules. This is getting beyond ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. They're hoping for a 'catastrophic event'...
Edited on Thu May-22-08 02:04 PM by stillcool47
Michigan and Florida just give the cover while they try to cook something up...

Clinton campaign on ropes

BY JOHN GUERRIERO
Published: May 08. 2008 6:00AM
Murray, who has supported Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1991, said these are tough times for people like him who are in the Clinton camp but want to unify the party.

"The sense is, absent some catastrophic event that would take place in this campaign, it's going to be very difficult to see a path to victory
for Hillary given what happened" Tuesday, Murray said.
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/NEWS02/805080437



Sun May 11, 2008
Analysis: Could Clinton land the VP nomination?

Several Clinton associates say there is still a ray of hope among some in her campaign: that a "catastrophic" revelation about Obama might make it possible for her to win the presidential nomination.
But barring that, Hillary and Bill Clinton recognize that her candidacy is being abandoned and rejected by superdelegates whom she once expected to win over and that, even if she were to win the popular vote in combined primary states, she will almost certainly be denied the nomination.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/10/bernstein.clinton/index.html?section=cnn_latest


CBSNews.com Reports: N.Y. Senator Now Faces Nearly Impossible Odds To Capturing Democratic Nomination
May 7, 2008

Clinton's Path To Victory Slipping Away
There is one scenario which does work for Clinton and that’s a massive movement of superdelegates leaving Obama and supporting her. The party leaders could do that, but it would take some unforeseen development in the race between now and the convention for them to do so. Obama, in some way, would have to be rendered so unelectable that the party rejects him at the convention. That’s not much to hang a hat on but it’s starting to look like her best option.

And even that might not be a viable option, said Joe Trippi. “Even if the catastrophic thing existed or happened, if she were perceived to have caused it, I think it would end her campaign too,”
Trippi said. I don’t think there’s any way now for her to gain the nomination. She’s at the point now where if she tries to make a case against Obama, it will actually speed up superdelegates joining his cause just to shut the campaign down.”

But Trippi notes that the Obama campaign and Democratic leaders are still likely to give Clinton the room she needs to go forward on her own terms, provided that she does so in a positive manner. “I think there’s lots of tolerance for her going on, running the table into the convention and having a presence there,” he said. “But if she actually tries to compete in the trenches for the nomination in a way that looks like it’s damaging the nominee … I don’t think there will be any tolerance for that at all.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/politics/main4078586.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I really feel that the nomination process needs to be changed for the next time around
I say this as an Obama supporter who is happy to take advantage of the rules as they exist, but there are some serious adjustments that need to be made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I agree, the primary rules need to be changed for the next time
around, but not at this moment, and especially not by the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yep. Can't complain about the rules after the game has started.
Particularly since her national chairman helped write the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Sure they should be reviewed and changed. But not in the middle of the freaking primary.
I know that's not what you're saying. But it just gets my dander up so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think they can assume that "uncommitted" means Obama
I caucused uncommitted and, if I were a delegate to the National Convention, I would still cast my vote as uncommitted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeraAgnes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. The uncommitted delegates make that choice....
alleged candidates have no input directly.....but, behind closed doors; well, who knows?

A vote for “uncommitted” is a vote to send delegates to the Democratic National Convention who are not committed or pledged to any candidate. Those delegates can vote for any candidate they choose at the Convention."


This comes from the "Official Michigan Site".


http://michigandems.com/Guide.pdf

Paid for by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee, 606 Townsend, Lansing, MI
48933, 517-371-5410 and not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. The only fair option at this point in the game...
... is to allocate the delegates and superdelegates of those two states according to the proportions of primary votes (not caucuses) in the other states.

That would be within a couple of points of being 50/50, I believe.


The votes in Florida and Michican cannot be counted "as is" because they are neither fair nor representative. Furthermore, there must be come kind of discouragement or punishment for them breaking the rules. And their self-Darwinism must not be allowed to screw up the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2rth2pwr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Sounds fair, but only if Hillary can lobby for their votes that they received in other primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hola Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-22-08 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. Not Kucinich
K was on the ballot, as was Hill. I think Gravel might have been on as well. So it's down to Biden, Dodd, Rich and Edwards - 3 of whom support Obama and 1 is neutral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC