Superdelegates, Back Off (NYT-Tad Devine)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html?ref=opinion

"Many party leaders felt that the delegates would actually be more representative of all Democratic voters if we had more elected officials on the convention floor to offset the more liberal impulses of party activists."

"They are a critical mass of uncommitted convention voters who can move in large numbers toward the candidate who receives the most votes in the party’s primaries and caucuses. Their votes can provide a margin of comfort and even victory to a nominee who wins a narrow race."

"The damage would be amplified if African-Americans or women, two of the party’s key constituencies, feel that a candidate who represents their most fervent hopes and aspirations is deprived of a nomination rightfully earned by majority support from voters."

"After listening to the voters, the superdelegates can do what the Democratic Party’s rules originally envisioned. They can ratify the results of the primaries and caucuses in all 50 states by moving as a bloc toward the candidate who has proved to be the strongest in the contest that matters — not the inside game of the delegate hunt, but the outside contest of ideas and inspiration, where hope can battle with experience and voters can make the right and best choice for our party and our future."

Now the Obama followers want to change the rules in the middle of the game.

There's nothing they won't do to win!

--p!

Wow. Just wow.

have always felt the power should rest directly in the hands of the people, even if an insurgency brings us the type of defeat we suffered when the party regulars were shunted to the side and George McGovern was nominated.

Nevertheless, the party can't go around changing rules mid-stream. If reforms need to be made, we can start to work on them after the election.

It looks as though neither Clinton nor Obama will achieve the required majority. In effect, both are in the odd position of having been rejected by the majority of the voters, while at the same time leading all others in the nomination process.

It's a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. I wish we had runoffs for such situations, and not only in primary elections, but general elections as well.

counts more than the average joe? Or am I understanding this wrong?

If that's the case, then I feel it's wrong too. Why should Al Gore's or Jimmy Carter's votes count more than mine? I trust them, but sometime it could be someone you don't trust - like Lieberman.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can Obama people Refrain from Ongoing DEVIOUS, SLIME
Tactics?

You are really insulting the intelligence of bloggers here,
and FOOLING NO ONE.

here is info on the role they play

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678

and who they are and who they are supporting

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html


They usually are not so important when there is a clear frontrunner, with it being so close delegate count wise, they are important

there will be hell to pay.

but he doesn't have the power to negotiate one. I cannot see either candidate stepping down or taking the VP when they are so close.

PA senator has already said he is voting for Hillary regardless of how his state votes.

I don't see how anyone can get 796 SD's to vote in one direction.

the edge but w/o them Obama has the edge. They don't have to all agree. I believe that if they don't support the people's choice the party will suffer in the general, esp if the people's choice is Obama. Most of his supporters want change and don't see that in Clinton.

As much as 'in addition to,' is my understanding.

oops

I don't see that anywhere - please advise.

All I see is the author asking that superdelegates behave as was originally anticipated, which would amplify the decision of The People.

They were designed so that party insiders could game the system and prevent another Jimmy Carter from emerging in '84. Mondale started with about 500 of the approx. 560 superdelegates.

After Mondale lost California in June of '84, he needed to make deals with another 40 superdelegates to lock up the nomination.

That system wasn't designed to do anything but to hand the nomination to Mondale, so he could lose 49 states.

But that's not what the author claims.

More to the point at hand, the author does not ask for a change in rules

The "Superdelegate" system was created in 1982 in response to the 1980 fight on the convention floor between Kennedy and Carter.

It's an entirely anti-democratic system and should rightfully be abolished. Now.

:thumbsup:

It still bothers me for changes to be made mid-process. But we are in such a mess right now, I'm not sure we shouldn't go ahead and make the changes.

:shrug:

Re-uniting the party is going to be difficult at best. Since neither candidate could get a majority, perhaps we should go with a compromise candidate.

their judgment for the judgment of the voters at the convention?

That's what happens with a "superdelegate" system in a close race. Candidate selection by "party elders" instead of by the people.

I will support eliminating superdelegates when every state agrees to hold closed primaries so that Republicans and other outsiders can no longer interfere in the process. The Democratic nominee should be picked by Democrats, in my opinion.

Mid-election is not the right time to be changing the rules.

And we need to address the role of the "free" press in all this as well.
The biased corporate press has far too much say in our debates.

Teddy Kennedy and other party insiders were pushing Dukakis in '88. What a farce he was, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hart won 26 primaries in '84, including California, Florida and Ohio, and unlike Mondale, actually led Reagan in some polls. Jackson won a few primaries too. Mondale had less pledged delegates than Hart and Jackson combined, but due to the new superdelegate system won the nomination. Mondale received almost every one of the 560 superdelegates.

Mondale went on to lose 49 states in the largest Electoral defeat in U.S. history. The Dem's in '84 also failed to recapture the Senate, despite many Repukes up for reelection.

Now some people here think that the superdelegates should find another Mondale type candidate and lose 49 or so states again.

Do we really want to go down that road again?

Why is this such a wonderful system?

I support Obama, but I don't think the system should be changed at this time.

I have never understood the Superdelegate system and have never agreed with it. It just never seemed too democratic to me. I respect politicians like Barbara Boxer who, as a superdelegate has stated that she will vote with her constituents.

I also reject the notion that all Obama supporters will do anything to win.

But those who live by the talking point shall be hoist on their own petard. (How's that for a cliche smash-up?) And I actually only favor a small set of superdelegates to break ties and settle disputes. Make the party mugwumps earn their keep!

It's the first time the Democratic party has been full of life since 1972. Even with all the jerks harshing the happy, it's the best thing that's happened politically in my adult life. Hillary, Obama ... this may be the first completely win-win political problem we've ever had.

--p!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story



"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled



"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled



It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister

named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.

Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was

growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and

interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her

state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

"There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's

behalf. "There were deep disagreements."

Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of

several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded

when their messy divorce files were unsealed.

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled



"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled


"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled




"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled



Sinclare..REZKO!!!

follow the rules.

:rofl:

on who the candidate is. Obama supporters are tired of politics as usual. Obama supporters want a change from the Bush/Clinton brand of politics. The rules can be changed. If the party machine awards the nomination to Clinton against the popular vote, there will be hell to pay. The party will suffer in the general election. The party machine better not take the Obama/Edwards/Kucinich supporters for granted.

sounds like Obama to me, good choice!

excerpt~

The party’s leaders and elected officials need to stop pledging themselves to either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama, the two remarkable candidates who are locked in an intense battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

If the superdelegates determine the party’s nominee before primary and caucus voters have rendered a clear verdict, Democrats risk losing the trust that we are building with voters today. The perception that the votes of ordinary people don’t count as much as those of the political insiders, who get to pick the nominee in some mythical back room, could hurt our party for decades to come.

MOre political BS by the Obama camp, swallowed in full by the minions and spread all over the media by the propaganda machine.

Is this Karl or Rush?

so he is sending his surrogotes out to divide the country further--to have a wave of panic about "America not allowing our people to choose our candidate."

The system has worked for centuries. But, Obama wants to win, so he is pulling a Bush: change the system so he can win.

The media and his surrogtes are out in full force.

Your denial of the obvious shows how easily the American people are led.

jumping in. The system is broken and needs to be fixed regardless if it might benefit someone. I do resent your comment that I have been led by someone's surrogates. I figured it out all by myself thank you. It isn't hard when I see that the popular vote favors Obama and the super-duper-delegates favor Clinton. Why do we have super-duper-delegates? If your answer is that they are more qualified to vote, I say bs.

I would hope that we all are working to defeat the republicans. If Sen Clinton wins the nomination because of the super-duper-delegates, or other back-room shenanigans, then a lot of Obama supporters will feel disenfranchised. One reason there are such large turnouts for Obama is that many people are tired of the Bush and Clinton politics.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/michigan_dems_back_in_running.html
Michigan Democrats are in a bind.

They wanted all eyes on Michigan by moving the presidential primary to Jan. 15 -- which turned out to be a bust, since only Sen. Hillary Clinton stayed on the ballot among the contenders. The national committee heaped on humiliation by stripping the state of delegates for breaking party rules.

Everyone from Sen. Carl Levin to Democratic chairman Mark Brewer assumed the party would get the delegates back in a goodwill gesture by the August convention.

Well, the eyes are back on Michigan -- but not for the reasons they wanted.


The historic contest between Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama is closer than most imagined. And if the disputed delegation is seated in a deadlocked convention, Michigan's pseudo-primary could be the tipping point for either contender.

end.
The article fleshes out this situation quite well.

Let the establishment friendly "Superdelegates" try to install Hillary if Obama wins the majority of delegates going into the convention.

:popcorn:

If they go against the popular vote, and she wins by the votes of a handful of elites, I am done with the Democratic party until 2010.

the nomination is his.

If both he and Hillary fail to win a majority, that means each had more people vote against them than for them.

Why should either be installed?

If Obama is leading in the delegate count, and the establishment friendly "Superdelegates" hand the nomination to Hillary, say "hello" to President McCain and Republican majorities in Congress.

The increasingly irrelevant Democratic Party will be torn to pieces living on FDR Nostalgia only.

Neither should be handed the nomination if they fail to win a majority.

"Leading," especially given the crazy mix of primaries and caucuses is not good enough.

So far, both Clinton and Obama have had more people vote against them than for them. Not much of a mandate no matter how you try to spin it.

I AM predicting what will happen if Obama is leading, and establishment friendly "Superdelegates" hand the nomination to Hillary.

I AM arguing AGAINST the undemocratic concept of Party Insiders thwarting the will of the electorate. Without special "Superdelegates", whoever had the lead going into the election WOULD have the MAJORITY of delegates.

Spin it how YOU want, "Superdelegates" ARE undemocratic, and favor incumbents and establishment candidates.

carries any weight in the party.

Why didn't Obama do something about this before the primaries started? I'm sure the National Committee would have given him a hearing.

Did he register a complaint with the DNC about the super delegates back when there was time for the rules to be changed?

It seems extremely opportunistic to demand a change of the rules mid-primary.

I hope he isn't pinning his hopes on a do-over if he he gets the nomination and then loses in November.

so I am not interested in speculating about the questions you pose.
I'll leave them for an Obama supporter.

I am also not a Hillary supporter.

I AM a liberal Democrat who cares about Americans who Work for a Living, and the future of our Party.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

both Obama and Hillary have been rejected by a majority of those who took part in the caucuses and voted in the primaries.

:shrug:

AFTER this election we need to get rid of caucuses and superdelegates both. We need to only operate with CLOSED primaries. Caucuses and superdelegates are both hurting the integrity of the Democratic party. I also believe that we should have a drawing to randomly choose which states get to go first each year. That way it is FAIR for every state to get a chance at the attention, the income, and the experience that going first in the nation allows. Either that or we should hold a one day 50 state primary and that be the end of it... with drastic campaign finance reform tacked on, of course.

is if they incorporated Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
Otherwise, the early Primaries with large fields are grossly unfair and hugely favor incumbents and Corporate funded candidates who WIN everything with a small percentage of the votes.

Early state (large field) Cuacuses are MUCH more democratic with the winner needing a clear majority.
After the field is narrowed to two, I could live with Primary elections.

I had the privilege of Caucusing in Minnesota (secret paper ballot, hand counted every round), and MUCH prefer that system. The people who show up at Caucuses are much more informed and motivated, which (IMO) blunts the influence of the MSM and 30 sec soundbyte TV (Idiot Box) commercials.

"The people who show up at Caucuses are much more informed and motivated." So you are saying that only the "informed and motivated" should get there votes counted? Why not just let the super-delegates decide? It could be argued that they are more "informed and motivated" than those showing up at the caucuses. Besides a lot of "informed and motivated" people can't make it to the caucuses.

When it comes to the general all the people get to vote. Why not let all the people vote in the primary?

When the republicans pull their dirty tricks to keep voters from voting they rationalize it by telling themselves that those, usually the poor, shouldn't even get to vote because they aren't "informed and motivated" like the republicans.

I do agree with IRV.

I have never seen anyone turned away from a Caucus.

Can I be a "Superdelegate" just by showing up?
You CAN have a voice at a Caucus by just showing up.
Your comparison of Caucusers to privileged "Superdelegates" is invald.

I've been to Caucus in Minnesota, and have voted in Primaries in other states.
At the Minnesota Democratic Caucus, individuals and groups had the privilege of adding (by standing and reading aloud) resolutions to a list that the delegates carried to the State convention.
I found this to be inspirational.

I prefer Caucuses, and find them MORE democratic.
Your mileage may vary.

Why restrict the selection of the candidate by limiting the selection only to those that can or wish to make it to a caucus? Why not use a primary where you typically get 10-20 times more participation?

If your answer is that those that make it to the caucus are more qualified, then I disagree emphatically. I think that method of determining who can vote is discriminatory. Besides all are eligible to vote in the general and they may feel more like participating if they helped pick their candidate.

Personally I like caucuses and have participated including the submission of resolutions, but I feel that a lot of people are left out of the process.

Just because one checks the box to make themselves a Democrat doesn't mean that they are any more loyal to the party than some Independent voters.

There are no membership cards in the Democratic Party (the GOP does in fact have them), there are no dues, and you don't have to put in a certain amount of volunteer hours to be a Democrat. I don't see why checking a box should entitle you to have a say more than someone that doesn't check the box.

republican and for the primary only get the ballot for your party. That eliminates the box. I feel that only Democrats should be voting in a Democratic primary. To save money both Democrat and republican primaries are contained on one ballot. That is what is causing the problem. Also it is too easy with the box to change affiliations.

after all, they've only been in effect since 1972-3? Toss the rules out for Obama..:eyes:

The states where votes for Clinton garnered her the most delegates, can have their votes usurped by a super delegate. That's the rule.