Comments on So Easy You Could Do It Yourself

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.

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.

Fair enough, thanks for the post... and the sarcasm makes a perfect snack for the morning. Sorry for my lack of apparent thought.

Here's a better link.

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.

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.

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 ...

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).

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!)

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.

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).

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.

@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.