(no subject)
So this article is disheartening.With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules.
Seating Florida and Michigan is shady, especially when Hillary discounted Michigan before it happened, and she was the only Democrat on the ballot in Michigan. Moreover, these two primaries had lower voter turnout due to the relative meaninglessness of voting without delegates, and none of the candidates campaigned in them.
Then there's this:The delegate math set up a new front in the battle for the party’s presidential nomination, one based on competing views of how the party leaders and elected officials whose vote will determine the outcome should make their decisions.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the delegates should make their decision based on who they thought would be the stronger candidate and president. Mr. Obama argues that they should follow the will of the Democratic Party as expressed in the primary and caucuses - meaning the candidate with the most delegates from the voting.
Notwithstanding the Florida and Michigan primaries, allowing the superdelegates to choose the candidate based not on popular opinion just promotes cronyism. I understand these superdelegates know politics better than many, and many definitely know Washington inside better, but that does not make them any more suitable than a large portion of the voting public to choose a candidate. John and Jane Q. Wonk should not have their votes count for less when they likely know just as much of substance as a superdelegate.
I understand Hillary's frustration, but that does not excuse backhanded political tactics. Is this really what we want in our next president? Another co-opt of the popular vote and shady methods?
Seating Florida and Michigan is shady, especially when Hillary discounted Michigan before it happened, and she was the only Democrat on the ballot in Michigan. Moreover, these two primaries had lower voter turnout due to the relative meaninglessness of voting without delegates, and none of the candidates campaigned in them.
Then there's this:The delegate math set up a new front in the battle for the party’s presidential nomination, one based on competing views of how the party leaders and elected officials whose vote will determine the outcome should make their decisions.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the delegates should make their decision based on who they thought would be the stronger candidate and president. Mr. Obama argues that they should follow the will of the Democratic Party as expressed in the primary and caucuses - meaning the candidate with the most delegates from the voting.
Notwithstanding the Florida and Michigan primaries, allowing the superdelegates to choose the candidate based not on popular opinion just promotes cronyism. I understand these superdelegates know politics better than many, and many definitely know Washington inside better, but that does not make them any more suitable than a large portion of the voting public to choose a candidate. John and Jane Q. Wonk should not have their votes count for less when they likely know just as much of substance as a superdelegate.
I understand Hillary's frustration, but that does not excuse backhanded political tactics. Is this really what we want in our next president? Another co-opt of the popular vote and shady methods?