This BS has got to stop: If the superdelegates go the other way, it is not "stolen"

[Tarc]

I want to vomit every time I see this ridiculous fucking meme. Those 796 have every right to vote one their own, and should not be cowed into voting for one or the other based on the result of the pledged delegate results.

The vast majority are elected officials, current and former, who were capable of making sound decisions on their own as members of Congress, the Senate, as Governors, as Mayors etc...

Do we demand that our elected officials take a poll of their constituents on every bill, every motion, every amendment, every earmark? No, we do not. Why do some feel that their role as superdelegates should now suddenly be beholden to the direct will of the voters?

I'm personally for Clinton, and if she went in to the convention with a lead, and the supers went Obama's way, then so be it. This is how the process has been for 30+ yeas, and all this crying and feet-stomping at the 11th hour is abso-fucking-lutely pathetic.

It'd be like a team losing the Super Bowl in overtime, and bitching about the "sudden death" rules if they never get a chance to get the ball.

Summation: suck it up. Stop embarrassing yourselves and your candidate.

[Red Zelda]

1. OK then

...if the Electoral College goes the "other way," is "it" stolen?

[Bicoastal]

4. That's not a fair comparison. Superdelegates haven't even voted yet. nt

[Maribelle]

28. For the most part the Electoral College is winner-takes-all state based.

If the Democratic primaries/caucuses were winner take all, Obama would be perhaps long gone.

[ieoeja]

48. Would be Hillary 1075 - Obama 928

And by current predictions at the end it would be:

1643 Hillary
1700 Obama

If the primaries were "winner take all" and assuming Hillary wins Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico and another smaller state (I forget which and have already left that website).

[Bicoastal]

2. EXACTLY--superdelegates have NOT VOTED yet.

All the media has been doing thus far is tallying who they've SAID they were thinking about voting for at the convention, not tallying their actual votes.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Absolutely true. The "big boys" changed the rules to avoid another McGovern.

Typically, those in power feel they know what's better for the people than the people themselves (and, sometimes that is true).

So, if we don't like the system, we should change it.

[WHAT]

15. party machinery, rust belt...,by-gone era...

maybe the increase in caucus participation is an unrecognized device to circumvent the lying, cheating, and thieving enabled by the gate keepers...not penetration of the old boys club, but circumlocution of it. (ironic?)

Trust in election integrity via the primaries would not prompt the same response. The game is changing maybe not in spite of but because of inertia, unresponsiveness, not just inability to respond?

data mining too obtuse and stupid for fine calibration ?

[IsItJustMe]

20. Actually, if you think about it, the Super Delegates makes sense if you think of them as an

emergency relief valve. What would happen for instance, if HRC won the majority of states' delegates, but two weeks before the the convention occurred something developed that made her unelectable (i.e. health, scandal, etc...). The super delegates could thus change the ultimate nomination and thus the election.

[cooolandrew]

45. Sorry not really that convinced on that.Illness would pull her ou t the race anyway.

[displacedtexan]

58. Or if the unthinkable happened, like in '68.

You're absolutely correct when you call them an emergency relief valve.

[Hill_YesWeWill]

5. I think that in the voting booth, yes, absolutely the super-delegates should vote their choice!

I agree 100% with that!

But, should their convention vote decide the nomination independant of the popular vote? No, no, no, abolutely not, that's not democratic,

In my opinion if it stays this close between the two candidates, I believe the super delegates convention votes should reflect the popular vote,

And, honestly I can't imagine we would let any other situation come about, it would really hurt our credibility as the party for the people.

No matter who wins the propular vote, That should be the candidate!

[Orangepeel]

6. I agree. Both candidates knew the rules.

(That's why I think it would be unfair to let Florida and Michigan vote, because the rules in place said they shouldn't be).

I also think that voters have the absolute right and responsibility to pressure the supervoters that they elected to office to vote the way they want.

[Maribelle]

27. Yes, about those rules. Why do Obama supporters now want the rules changed?

According to the rules, Super-delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose.

Both candidates knew the rules.

If you want to bang on about the rules, it is truly wise to at least appear consistent, and not at all wise to appear to have a forked tongue.

[pampango]

37. For the sake of consistency, all those who want to change the rules in the middle

of the contest should back off. The SDs are here for now and can do whatever they want.

Likewise, the balance of primaries and caucuses, while one may think one is "better" than the other, was established long before the campaign began. Each candidate developed a strategy based on the reality of how each state made its selections. The use of delegates to determine the nominee rather than popular vote was established before the nomination process began. The sanctioning of Michigan and Florida was done and agreed to by all the candidates beforehand.

All these attempts to play with the rules should cease. The SDs are here for this election cycle at least and you can't now put controls on them. The primary/caucus balance, the use of delegates rather than popular vote, the sanctioning of Michigan and Florida are all rules that were agreed to before the primary campaigning ever began and, like the power of the SDs, you can't change it midstream. (Well you can change anything you want, but you run the risk of alienating a large portion of the party if you favor one candidate or the other by the way you play with the rules.)

[Guaranteed]

7. Well, as far as the superdelegates going the other way, you might

just see that.

They're not likely to go for Clinton in large numbers if she is behind come convention time.

[NastyRiffraff]

8. Well said!

Actually, I think the superdelegate idea needs to be revisited, but that's not going to happen for this cycle. The candidates knew the rules and implicitly signed up for them when they began their candidacies. They're perfectly free to try to get superdelegates' votes; most are uncommitted right now so they can both harvest that field.

I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, think of it as a tiebreaker. In our case (unlike the Republicans) that means both candidates are worthy, and the voters are enthusiastic.

[johnlal]

9. I guess the real question is

Why do we even have "Superdelegates"?
Why should their vote count for more than ours.
It's like Orwell's "Animal Farm": Some animals are more equal than other animals.
That. just. plain. sucks.

[OnionPatch]

47. Agree 100%

It's total BS and most people never even knew about this "super delegate" business until now. I would have called it BS before if I had known, but I thought our votes in the primaries actually counted for as much as everybody else's votes. Now we find out there is some crowd of party elites who get to decide? I call BS when I see it. It needs to be abolished, the sooner, the better. Or maybe we should name our party something besides the "democratic" party.

If superdelegates supercede the will of the rest of us, I, for one, will no longer consider myself a Democrat and I've been a Yellow Dog my entire life.

[Silent3]

10. There's no sense in having superdelegates...

...if they are only a rubber stamp for the apportionment of the regular delegates. But if we're going to keep superdelegates in the system, their power has to be used very carefully.

Valid reasons I can think of for superdelegates to go against the regular delegates:

• To bring delegate counts in line with the popular vote.
  
• To reclaim for the Democratic base influence lost to independents voting in democratic primaries.
  
• Compensating for the influence of a spoiler in a three-way race.
  
• Helping to compensate for things like MI and FL losing their delegates.
  
• Helping to recover from a scandal late in the primary race that badly damages the front-runner's ability to compete in November.
  

I'm not deliberately trying to skew the above in favor of Clinton -- I think these are good principles to go by all of the time, not just in this race. But for full disclosure of personal bias, I am a Clinton supporter.

[MindMatter]

11. Get off your high horse

You know perfectly well that the only purpose for the concept of superdelegates is for the party bosses to be able to overturn the will of the voters. Period. There is no other purpose. The party bosses think they know better. Simple as that.

There is nothing to debate about that. It is what it is.

What makes a more interesting discussion is what might happen (or what SHOULD happen) if the elected delegates reflect a clear decision and the party bosses overturn that.

That is looking like an increasingly likely scenario. Obama is on course to rack up 200-400 more elected delegates than Clinton.

If that happens and the party bosses intervene to give this to Clinton, I hope you will forgive those of us who object to that.

[Tarc]

12. No, you would not deserve forgiveness

It is a two-stage game; pledged delegates and superdelegates. That it hasn't ever really come into play before (other than a small blip for Mondale vs. Hart going in in '84) is no excuse for the constant ranting and raving that has been going on here for the past few weeks.

[MindMatter]

13. We have met the enemy, and it is us.

I am going to take a more charitable interpretation of the superdelegate business for now. I am going to give the Party the benefit of the doubt and allow that the purpose behind superdelegates is to resolve a deadlock situation, not to overturn a clear selection on the part of the public.

Proportional representation is a very democratic (small D) idea, and the Party should be praised for having the courage to use this system. That does create a real possibility of no candidates arriving with a 50% plus one majority when considering the elected delegates. In that case, there is some wisdom in giving some power to the "wise men (and women)" to resolve that situation.

But if a candidate arrives at the convention with more than 50% of the elected delegates, they damn well had better not overturn that. In that case, the bastards will have hell to pay.

Likewise if they end up seating the Michigan or Florida delegat4es after telling everybody not to campaign there.

[MindMatter]

14. PS. This is EXACTLY the kind of DLC/ Clinton bullshit ...

that makes so many of us truly despise the Clintons. With each passing day, they are making the wise choice more and more clear to us.

[Skwmom]

16. If Clinton wins the nomination via superdelegates she will lose in the

general election. I think so many will be pissed that they will vote McCain to ensure a Clinton loss.

[Tarc]

18. Then those are some pretty stupid people

If those who would be pissed if Clinton gets the nomination via superdelegates go to vote against their own self-interest and go for a McCain, then that is pretty damned stupid of them. That will put more Scalitos on the bench, continue the Bush doctrine unabated, and so on.

So yea, they can go ahead and get pissy because their candidate didn't win. Whoever it was that said "in a democracy, the voters get exactly the government that they deserve" must have had these sorts of people in mind.

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. And the same goes for Obama. Many will NEVER vote for him and just stay home.n/t

[pampango]

53. Yep, it applies both ways. Most of us will vote for the eventual nominee, but

there will be plenty who will be really alienated if this scenario plays out.

It may not be smart for them to stay home or vote for McCain or a third party, but we are all driven by emotion at times if we feel slighted or wronged. Others will do the same in order to "teach the party a lesson" or to "not take my vote for granted". We may regret what we did down the road, but an ugly nomination process could cost us in November.

[joshcryer]

17. Obama has stated he wants the superdelegates to go his way either way.

:shrug:

[Medusa]

19. So tell me, if it looked like the Superdelegates were going Obama's way

what would some of you be saying? Ahhh the hypocrisy is never ending around here

[Tarc]

29. Reading comprehension. Give it a whirl

I said in the original post,

I'm personally for Clinton, and if she went in to the convention with a lead, and the supers went Obama's way, then so be it.

[scheming daemons]

21. Dnt talk to us about "rules" while you're still advocating for MI and FL delegates to count...

...

Hypocrit

[adapa]

22. They wanted to change the rules because she was winning-

Bush proved to us a majority didn't matter, All you need is one more vote then your opponent. She was winning so they talked about changing the rules.

Typical, male behavior, I don't know why I'd expect anything else.:sarcasm:

[MindMatter]

23. Say what?

Maybe I misunderstand your post.

It is the Clinton / DLC camp that is trying to undermine the process by strong-arming the superdelegates and trying to seat the disqualified MI and FL delegations.

I don't care how you feel about Obama, but let's get the facts straight about who is in favor of the voters deciding and who is in favor of back room deals.

[adapa]

24. two issues, one about a squabble of place, the other about how the entire system is structured

Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to disrespect MI & FL democratic voters? then come back to them & ask them to vote democratic in the fall?---Do you *want* to win the General? Regardless this is an issue for Dean to deal with- I'm on two sides on this issue a hillary supporter & a NH voter-

But to whole sale throw out the delegate voting structure that has been in place for over 30 years because the outcome is not as people wished. That would be like- allowing the Patriots to change the rules in the fourth Qt.
What makes this double damning is the fact that the aggrieved candidate will be either black or female with close to half of the democratic popular vote. You can't change the structure of the rules half way through the game. The three of them will have to get together, Dean, Hillary & Barack & sort this out.

But I tell ya, if Hillary or Barack wins playing by the rules & get the rug yanked out from under because peoples sensibilities are offended, there will be a lot of pissed off voters.

[MindMatter]

26. Yes, MI and FL voters get screwed

But most of us get screwed in every Presidential primary because the outcome is usually determined before most of us ever get a chance to vote. This year is the first exception in a very long time.

MI and FL politicians tried to move up in order to give their voters a chance to be relevant. The process got really messed up. But it only makes matters worse to give those delegates to Clinton after Obama honored the rules and did not campaign there.

The main thing is to have real reform to get a primary system that works fairly for all. The best idea I have heard is rotating super-regionals. You divide the country into geographical quadrants and hold 4 "super Tuesdays". Each cycle one of the quadrants gets to go first. This treats all voters fairly and also makes it cheaper and easier for the candidates to campaign in every state because you don't have to bounce between CA and NY for example.

This implies that IA and NH can't go first every time. Screw them. Screw NH's state constitution. They can either change their constitution or face the prospects of their delegates not getting seated. New Hampshire, you don't get to cut in line every time. Wait your turn just like everybody else. You can have your primary any time you want, but if you want your delegates to be able to vote at teh convention, you'll have to do it on the same schedule with everybody else.

[Maribelle]

30. 6.5 million Floridian households received Obama's campaign ads.

Are you trying to imply that Clinton campaigned in Florida and Obama did not?

That is a massive insult to the intelligence of the folks residing in 6.5 million Floridian households.


Do you think we could stop insulting their intelligence, please?

[Maribelle]

31. and also ...

Obama won by a similar percentage in certian targeted congressional districts that he won in California.

[adapa]

34. This tread is about SD's-Why don't you start another thread about FL & MI?

As I stated in my previous post-

If you start changing the rules mid way through a competition, there will be hell to pay. Now Dean can give a nod to deal with a specific issue, that's his precognitive as the DNC leader.

The whole sale changeing of rules mid way will disinfranchis a lot of democratic voters, the so called base of the democratic party. Is that a smart thing to do? MI & FL are already disenfranchised. As it stands now, according to ABC, Hillary has gotten more then half of the popular democratic vote.

That's a lot of people to disenfranchise & still win the general come nov.

[JVS]

25. We don't owe the SDs any loyalty. If they fuck up the ticket, they pay the price.

[Tarc]

32. Yep, you were pretty much the person I had in mind when posting this

A childish mindset, emblematic of the iPod generation that comprises Obama's base.

There's two stages to the race; pledged and super. A candidate needs to clear both hurdles to win the nomination.

[GalleryGod]

43. Turn in your Blue Book , you received a D+ (only because no spelling errors.)

Please learn the history and legislative intent of Super Delegates before you go running down the intellect and integrity of "Obama's Base" which now has over 300,000 donors SINCE Super Tuesday

I'm sorry to inform you, but, "Drop and Add" period for my classes has expired...you'll have to "go-Google" the info you'll need.

Too-Smart & Viciously Smarmy Patty Doyle and Maggie Williamson and all the other Major Domos of Hillaryland (their term) "Triangulated" that the IWR vote:puke: The Levin Amendment vote:mad: and nearly-insane Immigration Wall vote :wtf: would be like "Siege Guns" covering her butt on her Right Flank...but of course..

They neglected to account for Obama "coming out of the Nefud on her exposed LEFT"


Oh, and speaking of IWR vote & Levin Amendment and sending Sons,Father,Wives,and Daughters off to die...in which conflict(s) have YOU of the withering,pithy wit served?
Me? No problem...

My hero and mentor,Hal Moore, whom I'm sure the Super Delegates would not have enjoyed because neither did he get along nor go along with Westmoreland & McNamara.

GARRY OWEN, TEAM OBAMA

[Tarc]

44. Can I have the English version, please?

That gibberish is essentially unreadable.

[JVS]

55. And this means that the SDs don't need to think about the possible consequences of their decisions?

[Coexist]

33. my concern about the SD is that

they are being worked. hard. by both sides.

they are not making up their own minds by reading up on the issues, they are being pressured - please don't pretend they aren't.

that is my big beef with the SD making the decision.

if you truly think they are thinking this through on the issues, you are naive.

[Meshuga]

35. I also agree

Super delegates are what they are and they should vote their mind. If they end up helping the person with fewer pledged votes so be it. My candidate is the most likely to lose the super delegate battle but if it happens that way it is fair since it has been party rule from the beginning. The rule sucks, in my opinion, but that's the deal we currently have so I have no problems with the outcome being decided by the super delegates or how they vote. I hope my candidate wins the super delegate battle but if it doesn't happen I will suck it up.

[bpeale]

36. thank you Tarc. i just gave you heart #2 for this

[Tarc]

38. /swoon

Thanks. :)

[RoadRage]

39. Why do some feel that their role as superdelegates should now suddenly be beholden to the direct

will of the people?

Exactly whos will is it suppose to be for? Their own personal will because they've been buddies with Bill & Hillary Clinton for 20 years - longer the Obama has even been in politics? THAT should be the reason they decide who to vote, even if the state they represent had 70% of their voters go for Obama? Right.. what's wrong with that? Nothing, if you're a Hillary supporter.

As for the line about "This has been the prrocess for 30+ years".. please point out ONE instance where the general population has pushed for one candidate, and the Super Delegates elected another one?

It doesn't matter. The only way Hillary Clinton can win the General Election is if she wins her Primary with the popular vote and the delegates. If she does not, there is no way in HELL Obama Supporters will even hold their noses long enough to vote for her in November.. so it will not matter. Remember, as Clinton supporters are quick to point out- Obama supporters aren't mostly democrats. They're Independents and Republicans as well. They like OBAMA. They have no reason to try and get a "dem" into the white house.. Hillary isn't neccessarily their 2nd choice.

So either Hillary wins fair & square (and not just by the technical "Bushco" rules where you can lose the popular vote but still win. She needs to win by society's rules, or she gives the elction to the republicans.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. Absolutely Right. And It's A Perfectly Fine Process Too. Makes Sense Actually.

There's nothing wrong with the main party stakeholders having some vested interest, along with the public's of course, as to who the next nominee should be.

[AlertLurker]

41. If it comes down to superdelegates, won't Obama lose?

I had always assumed that HRC, as the more entrenched DLC Senate veteran, would win if the nominee was to be selected, rather than elected. Am I living in Never-neverland?

[cooolandrew]

42. Never was this close for 30 years so no-one noticed, 1 superdelegate cand over-write 10,000 votes...

...Randi Rhodes " it is totally patronising to disqualify our votes and say they know better" Especiallly with money donated and the hard work people did campaigning. I am fine with Tedvoting democratically for Hillary as long as they are all voting with citizens. He can say he is being democratic but still is with Barack.

[backscatter712]

46. Sorry, I don't buy it.

I'll never buy into the thinking that says "The peasants might vote the wrong way, so we in the nobility have to correct them." Superdelegates are anti-democratic. Period. If you're for letting the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegates, you're for overthrowing a democratic election. In which case, what the fuck are you doing here?

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. They weren't anti-democratic until 2008. Go figure.

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. dupe

[in_cog_ni_to]

52. dupe

[stillcool]

54. It has been this way for 30+ years...

and I have no problem with whoever is selected either. I am used to it. I think some people are unnecessarily worried that when the voice of the people is usurped by super-delegates, some of the little people might get upset. I agree...Americans need to suck it up.

[cd3dem]

56. they were elected for their decision making skills...

if the republicans crossed over and voted for Hillary in the remainder of the caucuses and primariesand Hillary came out ahead... would the Obama people still say the super-delegates needed to vote for the one with the most votes?

really! I live in a state where Hillary had a 7 point lead in polls on the day before the caucus and it went 2/1 for Obama because the supporters of Hillary do not come out for caucuses... older voters and people afraid of the system... young voters are used to crowds and do not care if they get in a traffic jam or have to walk several blocks to get to a caucus and then fight the crowds... our voters were disenfranchised by the caucus system... the local police department told our Caucus Chair that it was the WORST traffic problem in the cities history!

but Obama drinkers only want to push their shit on everyone else!

[dionysus]

57. hoookay tuff guy...

:rofl:

[snooper2]

59. it's COUNTER to DEMOCRACY mr. obvious DLC'er

And that's the OPPOSITE of what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for...

That's the fucking issue

[Jim Lane]

61. All of the superdelegates were elected by someone

I don't think it's a clear-cut issue. It's not as if the superdelegates achieved that status by birth or marriage or whatever. All of them have constituents to whom they're answerable.

I lean toward thinking that giving a convention vote to major elected officials (Governors and members of Congress) is a good idea, but including all DNC members is a mistake, because the latter aren't nearly so accountable to the public.

[Jim Lane]

60. Minor historical correction -- not "30+ years"

The 1984 election was the first one in which superdelegates were seated as delegates.

From the Wikipedia article on :

"After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party implemented changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

"These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic ticket. In response, the superdelegate rule was instituted after the 1980 election. Its purpose was to accord a greater role to active politicians."

[Major Hogwash]

62. Stolen isn't the correct term - shanghaied is more accurate.

Because they will "cause them to do it by force or by deception".

The DLC trademark.