President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 14, 2008 10:21 AM UTC

Clinton Could be Nominated...

  • 31 Comments
  • by: Go Blue

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Looking at the numbers of where the campaigns stand and what options are left, it’s now apparent what route Hillary Clinton plans to take.

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

Did anyone else read that and have a flashback of 2000?

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson.

“I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,” Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

“We don’t make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,” Wolfson said. “And we don’t make distinctions when it comes to elected officials” who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

“We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,” he added.

And what of those who think this route is undemocratic?

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate — and the party — would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

If Clinton subverts the majority of voters in the Democratic Party and strikes a backroom deal with party big whigs (here’s looking at you DeGette) to win the nomination, her negatives will not only increase but she will also hand the keys to the White House to John McCain.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

31 thoughts on “Clinton Could be Nominated…”

  1. But if Obama is a clear winner amoung the elected delegates and Clinton buys the nomination through deals with the super delegates – then I think she would legitimately lose support of a large chunk of the party.

    Scorched earth tactics when us primary voters like both candidates tend to actually hurt the person taking that approach. She then loses the empassioned crowds I saw at the caucuses – both sides.

    I am hopeful that most of the super delegates will tell Hillary that this is not something they will be party to.

    1. Just playing devil’s advocate here.

      There must have been some reason, for better or worse, that the SD concept was put into rules.

      I do agree that many, many voters will be turned off by this because they don’t understand that’s the way the rules cookie crumbles. All those young, enthusiastic pro-BO voters will walk away and perhaps never return.  

      1. The super-delegates were put there to prevent brokered conventions.  If no candidate were to win a majority of votes, the super-delegates could push one candidate to victory.

        I suppose if there was a serious problem with a leading but not solidly-elected candidate, they could also be used to override a narrow decision to nominate a corrupt candidate.

        But I don’t think it was envisioned that the super-delegates would be used to manipulate the general results beyond those cases.  Possibly, since it does by design give party insiders an edge.

        I do think there will be a lot of disillusioned Obama supporters if his primary lead is overridden by the party elite, but rules are rules and if the party wants to shoot itself in the headfoot, then that’s what happens – we correct it during the next party re-org cycle.

        1. Ironically, wearing a Mike Miles tee shirt as I type……

          If the superdelegates are leaning to Hillary, the message to Obama might be “You haven’t played the game long enough, you upstart.”  

          While HC may not have been in elected office for decades, she’s been more involved in the party, directly and indirectly, for many more years.  

      2. Obviously this diary was written to wind readers up a bit.  I mean if it were being fair it doesn’t matter if the delegate count or polls of party members were still inside a ‘margin of error’.  If Obama or Clinton is ahead by some small amount, like 2%, 3%, clearly that’s what the superdelegates are for.  Break that statistical tie, hopefully in a way that will be good for the party as a whole.

        On the other hand I would be upset if Clinton gets the nomination and it was either clear from pledged delegates and/or polls that Obama was the favorite of the party.  If, for example, Obama had 1,729 (55%+) of the 3,253 pledged delegates and did not get the nomination.  Or vice versa.  Alternatively if Obama or Clinton were clearly supported by a majority of Democrats in polls after the last contest, like 58% to 42%, a 15%+ spread, it would be clear to me that no matter the delegate count that’s the candidate we as a party ought to go with for strategic reasons even if democratic ones do not matter.

        Right now in the pledged delegate count Obama is ahead by just 5%, 1,128 to 1009, (119/2137 = 5.5% margin), but there are quite a few contests to go and it could narrow or widen.  Right now it would be an edge case for me, somewhere between clearly the superdelegates should decide it and it clearly should be his.  

        But I do think that Clinton’s campaign is not very smart to have people saying things that can be taken this way.  We need to be united and energized to win.

        Matthew

      3. All the enthusiastic new voters who have swelled the ranks at all of our caucuses and primaries will decide that it was a huge waste of time and we’ll lose them for another 2 or 3 decades.  It may be the only possible way we lose the election.

  2. Remember a few weeks ago when Dave T and others were so pumped on the possibility of a brokered convention?

    But of course now if that happens, it would be undemocratic.

    If Obama doesn’t win enough delegates to secure the nomination before the convention, then guess what.  You’re going to have to let the system play out the way it was designed.  If there’s no overwhelming consensus (in delegates, don’t throw a state count at me…you’re smarter than that), the supers essentially get to decide the nomination.  Hope and optimism is nice…but sometimes the reality of politics rules the day.

    For such a hopeful and optimistic crowd, you Obama supporters sure like to scare people into doing what you want.  “Hillary will hand the election to McCain” and “Hillary is being undemocratic” are mighty audacious statements.  But they sure aren’t very hopeful…

    1. when you say

      If Obama doesn’t win enough delegates to secure the nomination before the convention, then guess what.  You’re going to have to let the system play out the way it was designed

      but then you want to change the rules midstream when it comes to MI and FL

      What about Florida and MI not getting to be a part of this “democracy.”

      If you think this old style politics of party big whigs snubbing the majority of voters is acceptable, than Hillary is your candidate, but as I said I believe it will be that fatal flaw we’ve heard about.

      You obviosuly didn’t read the delegate numbers I talked about and what seems most likely to happen which has caused this turn of events (Hillary seeking a new path to nomination instead of receiving the popular vote through pledged delegates).

      And as for being “hopeful” and making “audacious statements,” I’ll agree wuth you since I am both and I believe our party is better than this. We don’t need party elders promising cabinent positions to buy off elections. That’s not what’s best for our party, and certainly not what’s best for our country.

      I’m not trying to scare anyone, since in Colorado we’ve already voted. I’m only pointing out what’s happening, and what I think will ultimately happen if the Clinton’s go this route.  

      1. Those in the “those are the rules, live with it” camp are foolish to assume there will be no consequences if Obama wins the pledged delegates and then Clinton manouvers to take the nomination through superdelegates.  The party usually folds back together, makes nice and supports the nominee after they are selected, but in this situation it will definitely not be the case.

        Clinton is already weaker than Obama vs. McCain, and will become an even weaker candidate when many potential supporters (Obama people) will have such a bad taste in their mouth they will walk away and refuse to support her.  

        A weak candidate with high negatives who will have lukewarm support at best from her own party who will inspire Republicans to do everything they can to trounce her.  

        Yeah, that’s just what the Democratic party needs.  I guess it’ll be only another 4 or 8 years and then we’ll get another crack at it.

      2. and you know it.  It may be one of many Clinton supporters’ ideas…but I did not say it.

        Holding a new election or caucus is entirely within the rules and I mention it right after you quote me.  There is nothing inconsistent about that.

  3. When did you guys get so concerned about “democracy?”  If I recall, you weren’t too concerned when BHO won more delegates than HRC in Nevada even after losing the popular vote (caucus).  In fact, either you or DTR(h) was actually proud and proclaimed “this is a race for delegates so BHO wins Nevada” (or something like that).

    What about Florida and MI not getting to be a part of this “democracy.” Shouldn’t BHO be on the front lines calling for new elections in both states if he (and you) so desperately want “democracy” to determine he nominee?

    I of course say these things somewhat sarcastically…but at the same time, a little consistency would be nice…

    1. I have said throughout that the rules we have are good and no rules are perfect – so we follow the rules. The super delegates have their votes and I think they are a good thing – at a minimum the ones who are congresspeople, governors, etc.

      Same with how NV was counted and that MI/FL don’t count – that is how it was set up in advance.

      With all that said, I will be “uncomfortable” if one candidate has a 5% or more lead in the pledged delegates and the superdelegates throw it the other way. It will feel wrong to too many people.

      As to having a brokered convention – I hadn’t realized how much of the general election campaign would have to be held off in that case. So I hope that once OH/TX/PN all vote, if there is a clear winner, that enough super delegates join in to give us a clear winner.

      We’ll have to wait a couple of weeks…

  4. Why shouldn’t party bigwigs and officeholders have a little extra clout?  They’re the ones who have to deal most directly with the nominee, and run on the ticket with them.

    The superdelegates who have already made their committments should keep them–and will.  The others will likely be guided by the sentiment in their state coupled with an honest assessment of each candidate’s chances in November.  Seems about right to me.  

    Besides, if you want an exercise in un-democratic electioneering, take a look at the average caucus.

    1. I have never seen a caucus process where democracy has been subverted; to the contrary, minor candidates’ supporters get the opportunity to express support for their second choice when their candidate fails to gain any delegates.

      1. It was anything but wheelchair-accessible, I’m pretty sure not everyone signed in, I’m pretty sure we counted some people from other precincts during the counting process, 90% of the Hillary caucusers left before the Convention delegate selection was over, there was almost not a US Senate preference poll, there ended up being a US Senate preference poll between “Udall, that other guy, and uncommitted”.  My friend with kids didn’t go because she couldn’t find a babysitter.  People didn’t go because they had to work.  People didn’t go because they were out of town.  People didn’t go because they were house-bound.

        So even minus the really problematic procedural glitches (none of which I thought came from sinister motives, but all of which certainly could have), the caucus was intrinsically exclusive.

        1. While I don’t disagree that the caucus process limits access due to its time schedule, that’s not “electioneering”, which is defined as persuading people to vote for a candidate.

          The electioneering protest to caucuses assumes that the caucus-goer already has a good idea about the candidates.  The caucus process isn’t designed around that idea, though; it’s predicated on the idea that caucus-goers don’t necessarily know about all the candidates.  A caucus can be a good way for lesser-known candidates to get their message out around the media blitz, and it’s a great way to introduce voters to more local candidates.

          Sorry to hear about the wheelchair problem; I know our caucus had a shortage of parking and I’m at a loss to figure out how to accommodate more people in our county than the school parking lot can hold.  Maybe when the Ameristar hotel is completed…

    1. Evening is family time in most cultures, Latinos are not unique in this.  I know it is in mine and while my boyfriend is not white I’m about as pale as sour cream.  I think that more of a problem for Latinos in caucuses is not knowing how they work.

      And you’re wrong about women.  Women made up more than half of the caucus I attended and got many more than half of the delegates, I am one of two males out of seven from our precinct.  That isn’t proof, but I think this is true on average statewide.

      There is also some good from caucuses.  I think they get voters more connected to the process, actually involved rather than passively sitting by.  They also seem to provide an avenue to candidates who are well organized, but cash poor.

      I am not blind to their problems, but I would very much like to see if we can fix the problems rather than eliminating them.

      Matthew

    2. There were women, elderly, disabled (vet) at mine.  But mine was Republican so maybe that’s just a statement of support.

      Also, one woman brought her kids.  We all got a kick out them trying to vote.

      Seemed to me that the only ones who weren’t there are the ones who didn’t want to be there.  Those who cared found a way despite of their situation

      1. The Obama campaign called people like little me and asked if I needed a babysitter, a ride to the caucus, or any other assistance in getting there.  My neighbor brought her 2 very young kids with her as well.  

        Not attending caucus is a cop out.  There are always ways to get there if you want to make it happen.

          1. If you really wanted to go, couldn’t you ask your work for a few hours off ?  If you ask a few weeks in advance, what’s the beef ?

            Again, I think it really depends on someone’s desire to go – if there is a will there is a way.

  6. The Democratic Party process isn’t meant to be democratic.  It’s meant to balance various interests.

    Plus, it is Obama who objects to including the votes from Florida, even over the objections of the NAACP.

    I agree that the primary vote in Michigan should be left out, as the state’s Democratic leadership made the decision to break the rules.

    In Florida, however, it is the Republicans who control the state and decided to move up the primary.  From a logistics and money perspective, it’s not really feasible for the Democrats to suddenly switch to a caucus system or hold a separate primary.  Or maybe it is, I don’t know.  The NAACP has made me think twice about whether their delegates should be included.

    1. It is not Obama who objects to including the FL votes.  It is the elected body of the DNC, representing the interests of Democrats around the country who object to the violation of party rules.

      And the NAACP’s statement (or, rather, the statement of it’s head, Julian Bond, acting in his official capacity) is a joke on its very face.  The only way that statement makes sense is if you look at the partisan leanings of the person who made it; otherwise it’s completely illogical.

  7. experienced pols and many of them will have their names on the ballot below the presidential nominee. They will be looking to that nominee to energize the base to get out volunteers and money for their races as well.  This is the coattail effect. So they don’t want a drag at the top of the ballot.

    All of these point to Obama.  He’ll win the delegate race, the super delegate race, re-make the electoral map and win the presidency.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

55 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!