KPCC Election 2008
March 2008 Archives
Which factors should decide the Democratic nominee?
With neither candidate having enough delegates to win without the superdelegates, the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns have made opposing arguments about what the factors used to determine the nominee should be, attempting to influence the superdelegates in their favor. The Obama campaign has argued that pledged delegates should be the most important factor, with Obama currently leading 1,406 to 1,249, according to the Associated Press. The Clinton campaign has recently argued that superdelegates should look at who has won the most big states, which they argue puts Hillary in the lead.
Other factors discussed have included the popular vote (Obama is currently ahead by 700,000 votes out of 26 million), number of states won (Obama currently leads 27 to 14), opinion polling, electability, momentum, and whether each superdelegate should vote their conscience as to which candidate they like personally. Clinton backer Evan Bayh recently pushed the idea that superdelegates should look at the number of electoral votes that the states each candidate has won will have in the general election, which would currently put Hillary ahead 219 to 202. There's also the question of whether the Michigan and Florida votes should be considered in these calculations, even though their elections were ruled invalid by the Democratic National Committee.
Which do you think the superdelegates should consider when making their decision about who the Democratic nominee should be? Which measurements are important to you? We'd love to hear your thoughts; vote in our poll, and tell us more about your thinking by posting a comment below!
Tools
- March 24, 2008 4:09 PM
- Comments (4)
A Delegate Situation
Way back in 2007, when states were jockeying to see who could hold the earliest and therefore most (it seemed at the time) influential primaries, both Michigan and Florida moved up their Democratic primaries (to 1/15/08 and 1/29/08, respectively).
These dates were earlier than was allowed by Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules. The DNC had warned both states that if they did this, their delegates would not be seated at the nominating convention in August 2008. The states chose to move their primaries anyway. In Michigan, the decision to move the primary was made by the state Democratic party. In Florida, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law moving the primary date.
Because the assumption was that the states' delegates would not be seated, many of the Democratic candidates did not actively campaign in Florida or Michigan. Several campaigns, including the Obama and Clinton camps, signed a pledge that they would not campaign in those states.
In Florida, all the candidates remained on the ballot. In Michigan, Obama was among several candidates who withdrew their names from the ballot; Clinton did not do so. Clinton won both primaries.
Fast-forward to today. There is a debate raging about what should be done regarding Florida and Michigan's delegates. (An interesting article on this from today's New York Times.) The most likely options appear to be:
- Don't seat the delegates at the convention, as was stipulated originally by the DNC when the states chose to move their primaries
- Split the delegates 50/50 between Clinton and Obama
- Hold in-person do-over elections
- Hold mail-in do-over elections
Any form of do-over elections would cost money, and there are also debates about who would pay for them.Beyond that, there are arguments aplenty about what would be most fair - to the candidates, to the voters in Florida and Michigan, to the other states who followed the DNC's rules, etc.
What do you think is, overall, the fairest way to address Florida and Michigan's delegates in the Democratic presidential race? Why?
Tools
- March 12, 2008 1:47 PM
- Comments (8)
Pick the Veep!
Senator John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination. Whom should he choose as his running mate?
What factors should McCain be considering? Who would best complement his "maverick" style of Republicanism? Post your comment below!Tools
- March 4, 2008 4:53 PM
- Comments (5)
