Slog - Comments on So Easy You Could Do It Yourself http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy A Slog tipper writes: So I was wondering since The Stranger has been the Caucus paper the past couple weeks, I was wondering if you could post on slog the contact info for the offices of the representatives who are the super delagates? Since their vote counts so much, and they are now apparently not backing the popular vote of Washington, I thought a friendly phone call to these representatives reminding them that their constituents back someone else, if they would re-consider changing their vote to match. Also, I think reminding them that the people who put them in office,... Copyright 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:25:45 -0800 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:07:13 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by blank12357 Although maybe their constituents don't back someone else, since caucuses only count the votes of activists. In Obama's case, many of them are independents, which results in the strange scenario of people demanding that the Dems pick their candidate, even though they aren't comitted to the party.

]]> blank12357 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936347 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936347 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:36:36 -0800 Comment by Brendan The tipster implies that it would be best for 100 percent of our Superdelegates to support Obama since Obama received more elected delegates than Clinton. This "winner take all" approach would dilute minority representation and make the process less democratic, not more. Though there are good and bad reasons for having Superdelegates--reasons beyond the scope of this post--encouraging all Superdelegates to back Obama is not an answer to the perceived problem.

]]> Brendan http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936351 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936351 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:37:25 -0800 Comment by Homo Will Fair enough, thanks for the post... and the sarcasm makes a perfect snack for the morning. Sorry for my lack of apparent thought.

]]> Homo Will http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936373 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936373 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:42:42 -0800 Comment by DOUG. Here's a better link.

]]> DOUG. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936421 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936421 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:51:54 -0800 Comment by arduous Just to let you know, the Obama campaign has asked it's supporters not to contact superdelegates:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-campaign-dont-contact.html

And yeah I'm a Clinton supporter, but I'm not writing this to sway you one way or another. I just thought it would be more fair for me to pass along the info and let you guys decide.

]]> arduous http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936423 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936423 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:52:48 -0800 Comment by Big Sven Well, fuck. Obama's got this thing locked up. But just to be clear...

Superdelegates have no responsibility to support "the popular vote". They have a responsibility to vote the way they think best, the same as you or I.

If it had been close in 2004 at the convention and the popular vote in WA had been for Kerry, but the supers wanted to vote for Dean, you guys would have been alllllll for their votes of conscience.

]]> Big Sven http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936555 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936555 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:16:26 -0800 Comment by Will in Seattle Why just contact the undecideds?

Nothing wrong with contacting those who, before our caucus, incorrectly chose to back Sen Clinton after massive party insider pressure to do so ...

That said, if you do phone anyone, please be polite, people ...

]]> Will in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936646 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936646 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:41:29 -0800 Comment by bookworm My question is this: Do super-delegates get to vote in their home states, and then AGAIN at the national convention? If so, it seems to me that they (as people who basically are uncommitted) could conceivably vote one way in the caucus/primary of a state, and then another way at the national convention, in a way a delegate cannot. Can someone explain to me how this isn't effectively giving them an extra vote? They basically get to vote as themselves, and then as delegates, with a level of personal discretion the delegates do not have (since they are committed, regular delegates effectively "carry" the vote of the folks they represent to the national).

]]> bookworm http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936663 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936663 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:46:40 -0800 Comment by RonK, Seattle As a Clinton supporter, I beg you to cease and desist (knowing you'll do just the opposite, alienating more SD's, and knowing that if you succeed in promoting this as a general principle, it will add SD votes to Hillary's column).

Again, I implore you to stop this nonsense. (Now you want to di it even more ... and you know you can't help yourselves, don't you?)

(BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)

]]> RonK, Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936830 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936830 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:39:22 -0800 Comment by elenchos Superdelegates have no responsibility to support "the popular vote". They have a responsibility to vote the way they think best, the same as you or I. And when they come up for re-election, I'll have no responsibility to volunteer my time, or donate to their campaign, or vote for them.]]> elenchos http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936948 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936948 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:16:57 -0800 Comment by Mrs. Y I do think it makes a strong statement that Patty & Maria choose Hillary Clinton. Washington State would have DEFINETLY benefited from a Clinton presidency because of the relationship our two Senators have with Senator Clinton.

Everyone can whine and cry about that fact but its reality people. That is the way politics works.

(Yes you can! be ignorant about how politics work. Just don't get disillusioned before the general election and not vote and stick us with John McCain for 4 years. And god forbid he dies in office and we end up w/ Vice President Huckabee taking over).

]]> Mrs. Y http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936975 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c936975 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:28:00 -0800 Comment by sugamama's daddy I really wish people would stop calling the caucuses a popular vote. Look at the post from Eli at 11:31AM today. The WA Dems state around 250,000 people participated in the caucus. With 3,700,000 registered voters in WA, and assuming 50% registered are Dems, the math equals out to 13.5% of registered voters. Hardly what you could call "popular". Even more fun math...if you take 68% of the 250,000 and divide that by the registered Dems, it equals out to 9.1%.

So all you Obamaphiles are wanting the Superdelegates to change their votes based on 9% of registered voters???

Astounding.

]]> sugamama's daddy http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c937544 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c937544 2008 Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:00:18 -0800 Comment by Andy @10 and anyone else threatening our representation in government with withholding your votes. Are you guys crazy? What are you going to do when Murray or Cantwell are up for re-election? Vote Republican? That's ridiculous. That's like voting for Ralph Nader because you're disillusioned with the American democratic process.

]]> Andy http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c938029 http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/02/easy#c938029 2008 Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:07:13 -0800