I will support Hillary Clinton if the SD's decide she is the best candidate.

I would not agree with their decision but I do agree that the 2 candidates are very close and it is a very difficult decision for the super delegates to make. While it is my opinion that the candidate that wins the most "pledged" delegates should be the nominee, I can see how many would think Hillary would be the stronger nominee. If they make the decision to go with Hillary, I will support Hillary. This is not an easy decision at this late time in the race. Others will vehemently disagree, I am sure?

however, I think overturning the will of the voters and caucuses to appoint Clinton will have very negative consequences for the General.

Clinton has very very high negatives on both ends of the spectrum and will NOT have enough time to counteract those negatives by the general.

hard to believe on this board, but she does have the "popular" vote on her side, along with the fact that she IS the strongest candidate for the GE.

But after PR, she may be in the lead in the popular vote?

left out.

HRC and her surrogates are acting like petulant children and they will NOT GET BY with CHEATING THEIR WAY into making HRC the Democratic Nominee.

They THINK that the American People are Stupid.

THINK AGAIN!?! :grr:

She is not winning the popular vote.

She leaves out four caucus states in her popular vote metric.

How convenient for her. Obama won those states by overwhelming margins.

Please think before you post her ridiculous propaganda, that is not rooted
in reality.

If you count the popular votes in the states that Hillary omits from her
creative accounting, Obama wins the popular vote.

Please, please stop these ridiculous talking points.

They make you look really naive, and your candidate looks desperate and delusional.

Sorry for you loss.

but yes if she legitimatly had the nomination i would consider voting for her

and further, your post does not address my point.

No matter which it is, an awful lot of people are going to have to remember that, and act accordingly.

and FOLLOW the rules. :nuke:

Weimar Germany during the Great Depression is hardly a by-word for action en bloc....

Regarding the delegates of Florida and Michigan, the actual application of the Party rules is going to be determined by the Rules Committee this weekend, and their decision will be the rules, and will be followed at the convention. No attempt at a floor challenge to it will succeed.

The only conceivable path to the nomination for Sen. Clinton would be a late shift to her by the cadre of professional delegates in overwhelming proportions. Leaving aside for a moment the extreme improbability of this ocurring, it is a fact that if it occurs, it would be quite within the rules of the Party. Indeed, it is the job of these people to over-rule a popular result, if they feel it to be one that would be a disasterous course for the Party: that is precisely what they were created to do in the first place.

Is your comment to be taken as indicating you would not support the Party's nominee, if the choice went against you? Since roughly half of the Party's rank and file has expressed at the ballot box or in caucus support for each of the two remaining candidates, is that a course you would be happy to see Party adherents you disagree with take, when the nominee you prefer is selected?

And that person will be Barack Obama.

...that the SD's would do this.

In fact, everything that we've heard--signals that the Superdelegates will NOT usurp the
will of the people.

They will go with the candidate who has earned the most pledged delegates, which is
how we determine the primary winner.

I've heard NOT ONE Superdelegate indicate that they will do as you describe. In fact, Pelosi
has come out very strong--against the Superdelegates engaging in this type of decision making--and
she's discussed the gaggle of Superdelegates who will come out, after the last state has voted, and
rally around the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

I understand what you are saying. However, there is no indication that such a scenario will
happen.

Have you heard of Superdelegates saying that they plan on selecting a candidate who is not
winning the most pledged delegates? Have you heard ANY Superdelegate saying that "popular
vote" is most important...more important than pledged delegates?

I've haven't, and I'd be interested in hearing if anyone else has.

SDs clearly haven't been finding this a difficult decision for months. Only about a quarter of the SDs haven't decided, and in the last few months the ones who have decided have overwhelmingly supported Obama. Furthermore, there are numerous credible reports that Obama has dozens of SD endorsements banked. Clearly most SDs don't think Hill will make a stronger nominee.

Super Delegates could, even should break to Clinton regardless of who is slightly ahead in pledged delegates IF there were enough powerful compelling reasons for them to do so. For example, if something had happened to the Obama campaign to cause a great many Democrats who had favored him earlier in the primary season to change their minds now, that would be a factor Super Delegates responsibly should weight. If that has happened at all it has not happened anywhere to the extent it would have required in order to make SD's change course now. For example, though polling remains tight, a majority of Democrats still favor Obama as the nominee.

I understand the independent role assigned SD's in the current system. Just like I understand the role caucuses have in the current system. I am willing to let this play out as designed, but I just don't see any strong enough reasons for Clinmton to win over the SD's she needs now, and SD endorsement trends continue to strongly support Obama. Within a week of the last primary I hope enough SD's will declare to make it obvious to all who our nominee will be.

Perhaps this will result in the formation of a viable 3rd party because "the liberal to moderate wing" of The Democratic party (DNC) is TIRED of being RULED by the "RIGHT WING ruling elite" (Clintonian DLC) of The Democratic Party.

If Clinton's Big Money Donors and other "entrenched power elites" OVERTURN the Pledged Delegate count THUS coronating HRC as The Democratic Nominee, I'm OUT OF THE PARTY. .... and I'm FAR FROM ALONE.

Not. This. Time. :grr: :nuke:

..and if Billary sleazes her way into the nomination a) we will lose the GE and b) the Democratic Party will shatter...

like did they really decide she was the best candidate or did they just succumb to arm twisting and threats from the clinton cabal. If they really think she is the most qualified candidate I will not oppose her publicly. I will withhold comment about her lies, her racially divisive tactics, her shameless toadying to the right wing, or even her fat ass.

If I found out the SD's wimped out because the clintons put the screws on them I'd have to think really hard about being so nice to her.

(and I mean that in the political sense, so calm down Agent Mike. :hi: )

You can't find a more committed DLC'er friend of Hillary than Maria Cantwell. Yet she has said that she, as a superdelegate who endorsed Hillary in the caucus, would not want to be the one who decided the election, against the will of the voters and pledged delegates.

The Clinton's are the epitome of the "not as bad", "third way", DLC inspired candidates that have taken a slightly liberal Democratic party to a pale imitation of the Republican party.

After 28 years of government run by political hacks my nose holding capabilities have been worn out.

Not close at all.

(I'm generalizing here) Black voters, younger voters, first time voters and independents who became Democrats to vote in the primaries.

But, if the Democratic Party wants to be a party of older white women, Kentuckians and West Virginians, go right ahead.

I'll just become an Independent.

As they most certainly have privately to his campaign. Chill.