Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
I am aware of the events surrounding the McGovern nomination (and to a lesser extent Jimmy Carter) and how those events figured into the calculus of adding Superdelegates. I also know that a Sanders winning the popular vote/Hillary on SDs is not the most likely, or even a reasonably likely outcome (hence my mention of 'crossing my fingers' to indicate my wishful thinking).
|
I hate that I have a tendency towards mansplaining. I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
It is possible, but I agree it in large measure would depend on the unlikely scenario of committed SDs sticking with Hillary if she looks like a loser. The thing is that the entire concept of Superdelegates is pretty elitist and undemocratic in itself, such that getting SDs onboard is a viable strategy for an otherwise mediocre candidate.
|
Agreed on the concept of super delegates being a bit anti-democratic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
As to Scalia, I think Chuck Schumer would agree that any Obama nominee should be opposed. And it's not like Obama himself would ever vote against an SC nominee with whom he disagreed, or filibuster, or anything like that.
|
No arguments - let them filibuster away. I just think the idea that Obama is somehow required to refrain from nominating someone because he only has 330 days left in his presidency is a transparent piece of disingenuous bullshit. Elections have consequences - in 2012, he won a second term. And in 2014 the GOP gained (or maintained - I forget) majority control of the Senate.
They each have a role to play under the Constitution. They should each play their roles as they see fit. I think if the GOP stands on the preemptive "no" it will hurt them in November, but what do I know?
