Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Things to consider after 'Mini' Super-Tuesday

Unless you have been in a cave since last night you know that Hillary won Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island in yesterday’s primary contests.

A couple of observations:

  • Total vote counts in each state were roughly 2-1 in favor of Democrats over republicans (Kemp’s Note: Which gives me hope for November, regardless of our nominee…)
  • Texas was essentially a tie (In the primary voting, the caucuses have yet to be determined)
  • Barack Obama leads in pledged delegates by approximately 150

Now these observations raise questions:

  • What does the difference in the number of total votes for each party mean for the General Election
  • Are there really that many more Democrats in each of these states compared to Republicans? Or was the Republican turnout artificially low because McCain essentially had it locked up? (Which means they will come out in force in November...)
  • What was the factor, specifically in Texas and Ohio that caused the dynamic to switch from Obama to Clinton? And can this factor be repeated by one or defeated by the other?
  • If Obama maintains his pledged delegate lead, what does that mean for the convention.

Ok, now the last observation and question raise an interesting question. Which was touched on by most news organizations, and that is the issue of the Super-Delegates.

The Obama camp (and the average person) are stating that the Super-Delegates (let’s call them ‘SD’s) should cast their votes in support of the candidate who comes into the convention with the majority of pledged delegates.

The Clinton camp is stating that the SD’s should vote independently of the pledged delegate counts in favor of whom they feel is most qualified.

Of course each candidate is going to favor the position most beneficial to them personally. However let’s think back to another situation where a select group of people decided an election independent of the popular vote: the 2000 Presidential Election.

Should the SD’s at the convention decide to vote for the candidate who has the least number of pledged delegates they will be no different than when the Supreme Court handed the election to George Bush. And we all know how well that has worked out!

Also, what of the electorate? The people, whose votes were recorded, counted and reflected in the pledged delegate count. Think of the outrage, the effect that disenfranchising their vote will have come November. They voted for a candidate and they all expect that a majority rule should apply. Should this majority be ‘slapped’ in the face by the SD’s at the convention I shudder to think of the repercussions?

Personally, I believe that the SD’s should line up and support the pledged delegate majority candidate. However, should the SD’s vote alter the popular vote and elect the lesser candidate then the party needs to put the control back in the hands of the voters and get rid of the SD’s.

We have worked long and hard to get to this point and to have this screwed up by ‘patronage’ delegates will set the party and the country back by decades.

But hey, this is just my opinion…

2 comments:

Mike Belgrove said...

I woke up this morning to see a fellow Highbrid Nation writer reporting that Hillary has won the Ohio and Texas primaries and how this is getting bad. And like him I feel like this battle between Obama and Hillary has went on too long and now they are in danger of hurting the party by allowing McCain to take shots at them while they are dealing with each other. Howard Dean should step in and say “Look, Obama is going to be the canidate and Hillary you can be his running mate if you choose”…I know I know that would never happen but a guy can dream right?

Lefty1129 said...

Here's a question, can we make the Super Delegates wear capes with their affiliation?? Just wondering.