Superdelegates....

[indigo]

So, suppose it's close between Obama and Clinton, and Obama is has the edge with normal delegates. (pledged delegates.) And then what if the superdelegates weigh in and make Clinton the nominee.

What do you think would be the political repercussions? I think it would be a very dangerous move for the Democratic party, because it could disenfranchise the majority of its voters.

Would a wise superdelegate go with what the majority of Deomcratic voters want?

[Kerry]

So, suppose it's close between Obama and Clinton, and Obama is has the edge with normal delegates. (pledged delegates.) And then what if the superdelegates weigh in and make Clinton the nominee.

What do you think would be the political repercussions? I think it would be a very dangerous move for the Democratic party, because it could disenfranchise the majority of its voters.

Would a wise superdelegate go with what the majority of Deomcratic voters want?

Most of the superdelegates I've heard interviewed have pledged to vote the same way as the majority of the state they represent.

I don't think there's EVER been a case where the superdelegates have swung the vote in the opposite direction of what the regular delegates have voted. I choose to bury my head in the sand and assume that won't happen here.

Did you know that one of the superdelegates became a superdelegate at the age of 17? How is that right?

[sarahrose]

I think it will be a huge huge issue if the Superdelegates end up picking the nom. According to CNN,even with the superdelgates, HRC is ahead by only 30 or so (I can't remember the actual number) which is quite the change since right after super tuesday where she was ahead by about 120.


If either candidate has the edge in the popular vote I'm betting the DNC steps in and puts pressure on the superdelegates to do the right thing. And I think that the right thing (and wise thing) would be to plege support to the candidate with the most pledged delegates.

What would be the point of all of us even voting if comes down to 800 people anyway? If that ended up happening I'm thinking alot of people are going to be very unhappy.

[Kerry]

What would be the point of all of us even voting if comes down to 800 people anyway? If that ended up happening I'm thinking alot of people are going to be very unhappy.

Sounds eerily familiar. 2000 presidential election, anyone?

[indigo]

Most of the superdelegates I've heard interviewed have pledged to vote the same way as the majority of the state they represent.

I don't think there's EVER been a case where the superdelegates have swung the vote in the opposite direction of what the regular delegates have voted. I choose to bury my head in the sand and assume that won't happen here.

Did you know that one of the superdelegates became a superdelegate at the age of 17? How is that right?

Wow, which one was only 17? That is crazy.

[Kerry]

Jason Rae, in Wisconsin. He's 21 now (so at least he's old enough to VOTE). According to the DNC rules, one can become a DNC member at the age of 14.

[bannanabette]

I don't think there's EVER been a case where the superdelegates have swung the vote in the opposite direction of what the regular delegates have voted.

But then again, superdelegates are a relatively new thing - they were created in 1982. There hasn't been anything like a close convention since then. And in 1984, 700 superdelegates pledged themselves to Walter Mondale before the first primary - so when Gary Hart went on to win 16 states, including California, and Mondale only won 10, at that point Mondale was still way ahead in delegates. (Of course Hart imploded so it never got to the point of seeing him at the convention, but numerically he probably couldn't have won even if he'd won the popular vote)

If it's a close race and they go in truly neck and neck, even if Obama is leading slightly, I think the superdelegates will swing to Hillary, and they will make the argument that she's the strongest candidate with the most political experience to run in the fall. Superdelegates were created with the express purpose of giving some power back to party insiders (after 1964 when there was outright revolt over candidates being picked almost entirely by the proverbial smoke filled back rooms) and whether or not I like it, voting for the young outsider against the ultimate party insider contravenes their purpose.

[indigo]

If it's a close race and they go in truly neck and neck, even if Obama is leading slightly, I think the superdelegates will swing to Hillary, and they will make the argument that she's the strongest candidate with the most political experience to run in the fall. Superdelegates were created with the express purpose of giving some power back to party insiders (after 1964 when there was outright revolt over candidates being picked almost entirely by the proverbial smoke filled back rooms) and whether or not I like it, voting for the young outsider against the ultimate party insider contravenes their purpose.

See, this is what I'm afraid of. And I think if it happens, there may be outright revolt again. Also, I think that, true or not, it will be construed as racist. In addition, according to most of the polls out there now, it will be counter-productive, since Obama seems like he has the better chance against McCain.

What do you think the political implications would be if this happened?

[Tracy]

If the super delegates went against how the majority of Americans have voted then I don't know that I'll be able to vote Dem. We got Bush because of that being allowed and I don't want another president jammed down my throat by a bunch of suits not listening to the wishes of the American voters.

Yes....I'll be really mad in case that isn't clear enough:p

[bannanabette]

But what if it were really really close, like only 100 delegates or less separating the two. Especially if Florida and Michigan are not seated? I think the leadership could argue that going with either one would mean ignoring the will of too many voters. Or they could argue that while Obama was leading by a little, that if you discount his votes among crossovers (which is dominating), that HRC is really the choice of the rank and file Democrats.

I don't think that they'd buck a huge Obama lead, but it's more than possible that if he even does have a lead, that it's miniscule.

See, as a political operative, I could totally see how to justify it if the difference was small.

[Tracy]

I guess I think that winning is winning. I also don't think that any votes, crossover or otherwise, should be discounted like they mean less. I don't think that's how it's suppose to work in the US.

As a side note, it could also be argued that her delegate numbers might be substantially smaller if there hadn't been closed primaries in New York, Arizona and California. Many Independents like myself were not even allowed to cast our votes.

[Vicky]

I also don't think that any votes, crossover or otherwise, should be discounted like they mean less. I don't think that's how it's suppose to work in the US.

because I live in a state where the Democratic Committee took it upon itself to buck the system. I certainly think that my vote should count, too. I know that isn't what you meant - it just seemed ironic to me.

[Tracy]

I don't think that your vote shouldn't count. Nor do I think that my vote shouldn't count. Your national Democratic Committee made a decision that your vote shouldn't be counted. I didn't. And I don't think it was right that they made that choice *for* you. Nor do I think my vote shouldn't count because I'm a registered Independent. I think they should be counted.

I do think that if your national committee knowingly made the choice to *buck* the system, knowing what the consequences were, then people should be protesting them and that process. I don't think that the they should be able to skirt the rules because they say so, though. As it is the people in those states paid the price for the Committee's decision. I don't think I've written anywhere that I think that's ok.

I guess don't see how what I said is ironic but, ok.

[Bickery]

Sounds eerily familiar. 2000 presidential election, anyone?


Yes. I've had the same thought many times.

[Hobbes]

I don't like the idea of superdelegates. Maybe _elected_ ones like senators and representatives, perhaps the governor (if he/she is Democrat :), but there are so many that are just party officials.

Will of the people?

If Obama was ahead by more than a couple percentage points, and the superdelegates swung it the other way...

My faith in this country's democracy, after the 2000 debacle and the ensuing 7 years, would be crushed.

So much so that I'd vote for Hillary, but would pull out of any and all volunteer work or financial help for the campaign. The way I feel today I'd even consider just sitting out the election... for the first time in 30 years. That's the way I feel now, but in the end I'd probably vote.

But support in time and money? No way.

If Obama won by a large margin, and the superdelegates swung it the other way, I'd leave the party. It's not a threat, it would be crushing and then I'd truly believe there is no difference between the parties. (especially after this week's FISA votes.. damn.. what happened to article 4 of the constitution?!?!)

If she wins fair and democratically, I'll support her financially and with some volunteer work.

[bannanabette]

especially after this week's FISA votes.. damn.. what happened to article 4 of the constitution?!?!)

I just posted about this in response to another thread, but I'm so proud of Obama voting no!

Did you read this Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html) about the Clinton campaign preparing to fight to seat Florida and Michigan delegates and trying to persuade superdelegates to discount caucus results? :meh:

[macaquinha]

I found a list of the superdelegates (http://graphics.boston.com/multimedia/politics/2008/superdelegate_list/superdeleg.pdf).
Just in case anyone wanted to harass them or something.... :p

[serialmom]

This election is really on a knife's edge.

I read the Boston Globe story that quoted Wolfson and it didn't surprise me. It made me sick, because if she gets the nom, so many voters will turn against the Dem party for once and for all. She will absolutely swing votes to McCain or third party candidates.

There's bad blood over 2000 and 2004, coupled with the DNC insisting on punishing Florida and Michigan. Other states moved their primaries and didn't get whacked the way FL and MI did, so why in the hell are they allowing this to become a bone of contention? Very stupid move by the DNC.

Many voters already view Clinton as an opportunist with a huge sense of entitlement. There's well-founded opinion that more than any other Democrat, she is beholden to the DLC model of keeping corporations and fat cat donors happy and fuck everyone else; pretending to fight for change that will instead be triangulated into mush. With that in mind, if Edwards endorses her, he's dead to me.

I understand why some people say they'll vote for Obama against McCain, but will vote McCain if Hillary opposes him. I really feel them but it's very counter productive, given McCain's words and vague promises (more war, I don't know squat about the economy, I didn't vote on the FISA amendment and won't oppose White House lawlessness, so fuck the constitution, and after being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton, I won't stand up against torture. Come on!), but people are that mistrustful of the Clintons. They're disliked on all sides and not for the right reasons.

[serialmom]

Thank you for posting this.

[serialmom]

Have you contacted your Congress people and super dels in your state? Tell them how you feel.

[Hobbes]

here's another: http://www.superdelegates.org


There is another I found a while back that was the BEST I've seen so far, but silly me... forgot to bookmark it.

And I can't remember where I found it. It was great

[candeo]

Have you contacted your Congress people and super dels in your state? Tell them how you feel.

They're getting phone calls and emails from everyone under the sun right now, and you might as well join in. Let them know how you feel. Most of them (the non-politicians) are just regular janes and joes who are involved in the party at a fairly local level, they're not bigwigs with cigars.

You should be able to find out who they are through your state committee.

[Hobbes]

FOUND IT:

This is a list of delegates by state, who they are and who they've endorsed (if they did) and how their congressional district voted.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Superdelegate_Transparency_Project

[Kerry]

Other states moved their primaries and didn't get whacked the way FL and MI did, so why in the hell are they allowing this to become a bone of contention? Very stupid move by the DNC.

I think *just* changing primary date is not the issue - I believe the issue was moving it ahead of Super Tuesday. MI and FL are the only states that did that.

[Hobbes]

Kerry's right. A lot of states were clamoring to move their primaries up. My state of California was one of them.

The DNC said "fine, but you can NOT move it before Feb. 5" (that's why we got this Tsunami Tuesday.. they all moved to feb 5 :).

The DNC wanted four diverse states (IO, NH, SC, NV) to hold theirs first and then others after. They made the rules. They got _ALL_ the presidential candidates to sign pledges to refrain from campaigning in any state that broke the rules. Clinton signed the pledge. All the state Democratic parties followed the rules EXCEPT MI and FL and they moved theirs up before Feb 5.

Interestingly, the Clinton campaign and supporters FOUGHT hard to make these rules. They wanted a tsunami tuesday because they thought it'd help their candidate (it helps early frontrunners with money and establishment support, which Clinton certainly had). But now that that didn't work out for them...

As per the rules, their delegates were stripped.

I think the primary system sucks. But, as my dad would say "Them there are the rules. You agree do them, you live by them"

[kathy caribe]

I don't like the idea of superdelegates. Maybe _elected_ ones like senators and representatives, perhaps the governor (if he/she is Democrat :), but there are so many that are just party officials.

Will of the people?

If Obama was ahead by more than a couple percentage points, and the superdelegates swung it the other way...

My faith in this country's democracy, after the 2000 debacle and the ensuing 7 years, would be crushed.

So much so that I'd vote for Hillary, but would pull out of any and all volunteer work or financial help for the campaign. The way I feel today I'd even consider just sitting out the election... for the first time in 30 years. That's the way I feel now, but in the end I'd probably vote.

But support in time and money? No way.

If Obama won by a large margin, and the superdelegates swung it the other way, I'd leave the party. It's not a threat, it would be crushing and then I'd truly believe there is no difference between the parties. (especially after this week's FISA votes.. damn.. what happened to article 4 of the constitution?!?!)

If she wins fair and democratically, I'll support her financially and with some volunteer work.

It was very symbolic and probably a useless gesture, but we pulled out of the US due to the stolen elections of Bush and Co. I just couldn't continue to add to an economy in support of such fraud, but more importantly, I did not want to personally support the war machine. So we left the country.

[mirage1]

...

If Obama was ahead by more than a couple percentage points, and the superdelegates swung it the other way...

My faith in this country's democracy, after the 2000 debacle and the ensuing 7 years, would be crushed.

So much so that I'd vote for Hillary, but would pull out of any and all volunteer work or financial help for the campaign. ....You know, I'd like to agree...but the cost of people like us taking a hands-off approach is too great for me to fathom.