Why Nominate Someone Who Has Less Than Half the Party Supporting Them?
Submitted by Nick Kelly on May 11, 2008 - 11:36pm.
Barack Obama | DNC | Magic Number | Superdelegates
I just posted a diary over at MyDD asking whether people think its a good idea for the Democratic Party to nominate someone with less than half the support of the Democratic Party.
2024.5 delegates needed to nominate. That's the Obama line. It's also the current DNC line, I think. Most everyone in the Republican owned media is spouting the same line. The trouble is, that's significantly less than half the delegates that States and Territories will send to the Democratic National Convention. So, I'm wondering why anyone thinks it's such a great idea, and I hope those of you who do can clear this up for me.
I've been a Democrat for a very long time, and thus far I don't believe I've ever seen such a risky idea being pushed so hard by so many of my fellow Democrats.
As I recall (and I may be wrong about this), way back at the 1960 Democratic National Convention, John Kennedy just barely won the party nomination at the end of the third roll call when Wyoming cast its votes for him. In other words, after a very hard and prolonged fight on the floor of the convention, he was nominated by the slimmest of party majorities, just barely more than half the delegates sent to the convention. He agreed to put Lyndon Johnson on the ticket to appeal to southern Democrats and unify the party. That November, these two awesome Democratic Party candidates together managed to eke out the slimmest general election victory in history against a Republican that few Democrats thought fit to be President. And some Republicans still maintain that they won it only because Richard Daley got a fair number of dead people to vote for the brilliant, charming young Irish Catholic war hero from Massachusetts with the beautiful young wife and family. Now, just imagine how many more dead people Mayor Daley (and other mayors all around the USA) might have needed to get to vote for JFK if the Democratic Party had stupidly nominated JFK with only about 45% of its delegates voting for him at the Convention.
That was a long time ago, but I don't think that's any reason to ignore the similarities with today. Barack Obama's challenge is similar to what JFK faced.
So, please, Obama supporters, I want to know why its such a great idea for the Party to ordain the nomination of your candidate when he attains the support of only 2024.5 delegates? If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be very nervous about his chances in November unless and until he could win the firm and unwavering support of at least 2209 Democratic delegates.
There's also a poll over there. Please recommend, vote and comment. Thanks.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15259 and
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15190 and
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15352
With all of that against him, I cannot imagine any rational group agreeing to nominate him with fewer than half of its members supporting him. I would love to hear any rational argument as to why Obama allows everyone to think he deserves the nomination if he gets only 2024.5 delegates.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
most politicians aren't rational thinkers. They follow the "trends" and latest fashionable popularity contests.
IF they were rational, they would actually think this through and SEE that O's major support came from red states the dems can't win, and many, many, thousands of temporary for a day Dems who voted AGAINST Hillary, NOT for Obama. Plus the caucus states garnered through O's campaign of thuggish arm twisting. His support comes from a relatively narrow band of the population.
An actual count of true dem voters would most likley reveal she has received well over 50% of the primary votes - probably somewhere between 55/60 %. Why isn't this made more public? Oh, forgot. I know already. The fix is in.
We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.
I hate to burst your bubble, but NEITHER candidate will get the nomination without the majority of the seated delegates. That could be 2025, 2209, or somewhere in-between depending on how they handle Michigan and Florida.
The nomination, by definition, requires a majority of those seated. So I don't think your argument holds water, or, at least could be applied to Clinton until the actual vote is held in August.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
only 99 delegates. It would be 1,000 if they seated only 1,999 delegates. My contention is that such a "seated" majority does not represent support by the majority of the party. That is also true of 2,024.5 delegates, seated or unseated. 2,024.5 delegates is not the majority of the delegates that will be sent to Denver by all states and territories. That number is 2,209. Support by any number smaller than 2,209 delegates represents support by less than half of the Party.
If you or anyone else can explain to me why it would be intelligent for the Democratic party to nominate Hillary with fewer than 2,209 delegates supporting her, I'll be astonished. The same thing goes for nominating Obama with fewer than 2,209 delegates supporting him.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
However, we will have to live with the decision of the Credentials Committee, the DNC, and/or the convention itself.
If the national convention works the way Colorado works, there will be a report from the Credentials Committee which the full convention must approve. The battle may be fought there.
But there's a Catch-22. It's highly likely that the convention will approve (or disapprove) of the Credentials Committee report WITHOUT the Florida and Michigan delegations.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Why Nominate Someone Who Has Less Than Half the Party Supporting Them?
Why is it a good idea to run a nominee who is backed by less than half of the party? Rules, credentials, etc. don't answer the question.
It seems to me that it's inherently a very bad idea.
That's the reason I'm asking the question. I want more people to wonder and talk about whether it's a good idea or not.
If we can get enough Democrats to realize that its inherently a very bad idea, then we may be able to get the "magic number" upped to 2,209 where it really should be (at a minimum). If instead, all we do is let the process run its course and "live with" the outcome, we could see Obama proclaimed the nominee with only 2024.5 delegate votes. That would not bode well for either a pleasant convention, or a winning Democratic ticket in November.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
that Obama cannot win the GE. The media has declared him the winner and given every reason for Hillary's remaining in the race except for the possiblity that she can win. They say, well, barring some big scandal--LIKE WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE SEVERAL!! I have hope in the relentless, frenzied efforts by the Obamaniacs to get her to quit. They say it's for party unity, but of course it's resulting in just the opposite. These people must be worried about something--more huge working-class voting patterns for Hillary, even more scandals, the supers coming to their senses, etc. And then there's the attitudes of so many black people that call in to Washington Journal--and lately, there's been a lot. You'd think they'd be upbeat and jubilant. But most are defensive, anxious, and/or despondent. Almost every one of these calls is shrilly apologetic of Obama and critical of Hillary. One woman even took the attack to McCain and upbraided him for crashing planes (and thus costing the taxpayers money) and for having a grandfather and great-grandfather who owned slaves(!) These BO supporters don't sound very certain at all that he's got it all wrapped up, even when they say so. Now,I can understand black folk being paranoid about being treated wrongly, as I'm sure we all can. And, of course, the BOer press and his endorsers are letting them worry away. But there's definitely a sense of whistling past the graveyard (no racism intended).
I remembered something else Steve McMahon said that irked me. He claimed that what really got BO's campaign going was the endorsements of Ted and Caroline Kennedy and their assertion that he's the new JFK. Well, duhh, didn't BO go from that to loses in MA and CA, where Caroline campaigned with Michelle? And it doesn't look like WV's going to convince anyone that BO is electable, does it? Is part of the Obamaniac syndrome the tendency to just blather away with nonsense?
(And, drat, one of my tires had to be repaired, so I won't make it to the Hillary rally in Logan, WV! But, just because my tire went flat doesn't mean her campaign has! I hope this goes to the convention floor if need be, and I dare Jack's little brother to complain about it!)
He won't, Ayers and Rezco will destroy him.
O! is toast after WV votes.