wow. stinging.

Yea, it feels good to be free.

Maybe the rank and file Democrats aren't so bad after all. You guys know the Party wigs are maneuvered by the likes of Soros and that European Socialist bunch, right? Your "institution" doesn't look or operate like the Democrats of old, like FDR and JFK.

Wake up call, perhaps? Shake the bushes guys, see hwat falls out.

No HERO tag, subby?

GaryPDX

Hwy are you talking like that?

GaryPDX:

I hope you arent' implyig that the republican party works any differently. They have just as absurd and undemocratic of a nominating system.

EvelFarknievel: No HERO tag, subby?

GaryPDX

Hwy are you talking like that?

I'm skeptical of all politicians. I'm not a Dem or a Republican, I just find it interesting that hard core inbedded democrats are having a serious problem with this super delegate thing.

It might have something to do with back door power grabs by a certain NY senator

Oh, Chuck Schumer, is there nothing you won't stoop to!

GaryPDX: Maybe the rank and file Democrats aren't so bad after all. You guys know the Party wigs are maneuvered by the likes of Soros and that European Socialist bunch, right? Your "institution" doesn't look or operate like the Democrats of old, like FDR and JFK.

Most democratic voters do so only out of a complete and utter disgust for what the Republican party is. I'll gladly vote for anyone who opposes the unholy alliance between corporate fascists and theocrats.

I am confident that whoever gets the most pledged delegates as a result of the primaries would get support from the super-delegates and the nomination. After what Bush has done to this country the democratic party can't afford to split their party over something like this.

Part of the problem lies with the media. They see a possibly sensational story and they are making the most of it. They are contributing to making this into an issue way before it actually is one.

The "smoke-filled room" deal that needs to happen is pretty simple. Whoever wins the popular vote gets all the super-delegates. Anything else will be a disaster.

TheCid: Most democratic voters do so only out of a complete and utter disgust for what the Republican party is. I'll gladly vote for anyone who opposes the unholy alliance between corporate fascists and theocrats.

Yea, that's not a good combination either.

Here is something you can't understand.

How I could just....quit the Democratic Party.

CravenMorehead: Part of the problem lies with the media. They see a possibly sensational story and they are making the most of it. They are contributing to making this into an issue way before it actually is one.

True, media counting of superdelegates may skew voter perceptions, and is very confusing since the counts vary between news outlets.

CravenMorehead: I am confident that whoever gets the most pledged delegates as a result of the primaries would get support from the super-delegates and the nomination.

This.

The press loves to dig up these kind of articles to create an imaginary angst ripping apart the Dems. We all know that if there is a clear popular vote winner come the convention, most of the supers will swing that way.

CravenMorehead: Part of the problem lies with the media. They see a possibly sensational story and they are making the most of it. They are contributing to making this into an issue way before it actually is one.

I would rather that they do. The possibility of this happening should be exposed, out in the open, long before it actually comes to pass. People should know how their elected leaders are chosen, and after the 2000 election debacle, have good reason to be outraged when their choice is taken away and decided by more interested parties.

Occasionally, the media gets it right.

And Clinton insiders are discussing that making Obama the VP could somehow placate people. It will only make the door slam harder.

T-Servo: CravenMorehead: Part of the problem lies with the media. They see a possibly sensational story and they are making the most of it. They are contributing to making this into an issue way before it actually is one.

True, media counting of superdelegates may skew voter perceptions, and is very confusing since the counts vary between news outlets.

I try not to be a tinfoil hatter, but this seems to be deliberate manipulation of public opinion by presenting certain candidates as "front runners" not based upon actual counts of duly pledged delegates, but based upon statements of people who are allowed to change their support at will. It's akin to saying on November 3, "I've talked to several people who will vote tomorrow, and they said they were writing in Mickey Mouse. You heard it here first: Mickey Mouse is the next President of the United States!"

I'm skeptical of all politicians. I'm not a Dem or a Republican, I just find it interesting that hard core inbedded democrats are having a serious problem with this super delegate thing.


It isn't so much the existence of the Super Delegates than in the role they might play this time.

Typically the nomination is wrapped up long before the convention, so Super Delegates don't play any real role except going to the convention party and feeling special.

When they DO play a role, it is supposed to be to either pick between multiple candidates that all have been racking up delegates but none of whom have a majority or to clinch the nomination for someone who is ahead in delegates but not ahead enough to have a majority (like Mondale over Gary Hart).



The fear this time, however, is that Obama will have more delegates, more states and more votes cast for him but that Hillary will win based on Super Delegate support. SO instead of cinching the nomination for someone who was winning anyway, they will be giving the victory to someone who was losing.

CravenMorehead: I am confident that whoever gets the most pledged delegates as a result of the primaries would get support from the super-delegates and the nomination.

I think this is likely if somone really pulls away with the pledged delegate totals.

But consider if Obama is ahead by say 50 but Clinton cries and tries to count MIchigan and Florida which would put her ahead slightly. What would Super Delegates do then? It is quite likely many would swing for Hillary based on back room deals and power connections.

Bill Frist: But consider if Obama is ahead by say 50 but Clinton cries and tries to count MIchigan and Florida which would put her ahead slightly. What would Super Delegates do then? It is quite likely many would swing for Hillary based on back room deals and power connections.

I'm pretty sure they'd laugh at her since there's no chance in hell those delegates are being counted.

Real leftists and progressives have left the Dems a looooong time ago.

CravenMorehead: I am confident that whoever gets the most pledged delegates as a result of the primaries would get support from the super-delegates and the nomination. After what Bush has done to this country the democratic party can't afford to split their party over something like this.

I think that Hillary does not care about anything other than getting the nomination. I believe she would destroy her own party rather than let this one chance at the white house slip away from her. I believe that Bill and Hillary will use every last iota of influence and every last dime they have to make sure that Hillary gets as many superdelegate votes as possible.

Part of the problem lies with the media. They see a possibly sensational story and they are making the most of it. They are contributing to making this into an issue way before it actually is one.

No. The 'problem' is that BOTH parties have allowed a group of 'professional politicans' to develop. We have party leaders who are so out of touch with their rank and file that they espouse ideals that have nothing in common with what the folks on the ground believe. Election after election after election they prove to us that they have nothing in common with people outside the beltway. Don't believe me? Think I'm jerking yer chain? Go try and get an appointment with your US representative. I know that I couldn't get in to see the guy without a substantial donation first. And almost none of my US representatives voting patterns represent my interests.


The "smoke-filled room" deal that needs to happen is pretty simple. Whoever wins the popular vote gets all the super-delegates. Anything else will be a disaster.

And what happens when you've got a race like this one? Hillary is many things, but I don't get that 'take one for the team' vibe from her. Her ego will not allow her to step aside for Obama. Especially not when she could pull off a win by manipulating the party machinery and getting a win out of the superdelagates. What will you do when this race comes down to the wire and Hillary wins it by fiat?

Tatsuma: Real leftists and progressives have left the Dems a looooong time ago.

That's ok. The real fiscal conservatives and strict constructionists left the Republicans a while back too.

CravenMorehead: I am confident that whoever gets the most pledged delegates as a result of the primaries would get support from the super-delegates and the nomination. After what Bush has done to this country the democratic party can't afford to split their party over something like this.

Therein lies the difference between the how "the party" thinks they are being perceived by the voters and the way the voters really see them. No one wants to be perceived as weak. The problem is they think if the super delegates vote against the party choice, then the party looks weak because they couldn't keep their people in line. To me, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Tatsuma: Real leftists and progressives have left the Dems a looooong time ago.

tell that to Russ Feingold. He's the last of a dying breed in the democratic party. And one of the few still deserving of respect.

Tatsuma: Real leftists and progressives have left the Dems a looooong time ago never had anything to do with the Democrats.

Ftfm

Soo... see you all at the first meeting of the new Constitutionalist Party?

/Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
//What's not to love?

"I am my own local precinct captain, and I hold a seat on the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee."

That's not high enough to achieve anything. We need, oh, say 20 senators to kick up a fuss.

SilentStrider: Tatsuma: Real leftists and progressives have left the Dems a looooong time ago.

tell that to Russ Feingold. He's the last of a dying breed in the democratic party. And one of the few still deserving of respect.

Yes! Feingold is the man. I really wish he'd stood. Of course he wouldn't win (he actually stands for something other than lobby groups), but he'd have my vote.

SilentStrider: tell that to Russ Feingold

Interesting note about Feingold- he only won the senate seat after a vicious primary fight between two democratic favorites left everyone so jaded that Feingold was the unknown, compromise candidate.

And he was up against Bob Kasten (R), who stumbled around like a drunken baby molester.

/worked in the Wisconsin Senate when Feingold was elected from there

Bill Frist

I hope you arent' implyig that the republican party works any differently. They have just as absurd and undemocratic of a nominating system.

Actually it is worse, since it is winner-take-all. Like, um, the electoral college.


It gets lots worse when you check out how the so-called "third parties" come up with their nominations.

The real problem with the system, and I suspect many agree with me, is that I hate the person who might benefit from superdelegates.

If he wants democracy he should petition to abolish delegates entirely and go to a national cumulative vote. Otherwise the process is not democratic. Elected delegates in party primaries are not allocated on the "one man, one vote" principle. Not even "one registered party member, one vote." Don't forget about nonlinear allocations of delegates (winner take all, votes by district, bonus delegates for winning the state, etc.). The goal is to get a sense of the feeling of the people subject to various practical constraints and intentional biases.

Occam's Chainsaw: I try not to be a tinfoil hatter, but this seems to be deliberate manipulation of public opinion by presenting certain candidates as "front runners" not based upon actual counts of duly pledged delegates, but based upon statements of people who are allowed to change their support at will. It's akin to saying on November 3, "I've talked to several people who will vote tomorrow, and they said they were writing in Mickey Mouse. You heard it here first: Mickey Mouse is the next President of the United States!"

This. Of course I also think the superdelegates having such a big say in the first place is utter bullshiat.

But at least according to CNN's tallies, several hundred have indicated which candidate they support. So far they are breaking 2 to 1 for Hillary and it has skewed the results such that on CNN, Clinton is shown as the front runner even though Obama has won more of the delegates actually allocated by primary voting.

Front runner status automatically helps a candidate pick up votes. We see that every year when a candidate gets "momentum" from the early primaries. It's why they're so important. So it seems clear that these superdelegates are already skewing the primaries.

it's interesting that up until a couple weeks ago, shortly before super tuesday, CNN didn't list the superdelegates in its overall Dem delegate count, which put Obama in front... then out of nowhere they started adding them into their little bar graph and Hillary appeared to surge ahead. It does screw with voter's heads, things like "Oh, I thought Obama was in the lead now Hillary is maybe she's gotten her momentum back, maybe I'll vote for her after all."

I know that superdelegates are unfortunately a huge part of the nominating process but in a way i think it's irresponsible for CNN or any other credible news agency to mix them with almost no explanation in with the popular vote delegates, since the superdelegates don't vote until the convention anyway.

It's like if during the general election they put X person ahead from the very beginning because someone from the electoral college said they would vote for them... it's stupid and irresponsible.

CravenMorehead: I am confident that whoever gets the most pledged delegates as a result of the primaries would get support from the super-delegates and the nomination. After what Bush has done to this country the democratic party can't afford to split their party over something like this.

Why are you confident of this? Many, many of the superdelegates have already committed to a candidate, in public or private deals, or from longstanding allegiance, or whatever.

My district's Congresswoman, a Democrat and therefor a superdelegate, endorsed Clinton back in November. In return, she got a position and title with the Clinton organization. Even though my state broke 2:1 for Obama in the caucuses, I cannot imagine anything changing my Congresswoman's endorsement.

BuckTurgidson: I cannot imagine anything changing my Congresswoman's endorsement.



I would in no way endorse, this, of course.

35 comments and no "I wish I knew how to quit you" references? Pshop?

I have a feeling Hillary will win the popular vote, Obama the delegate votes, and the superdelegates will decide the race. If that's the case, I could easily make a case for either of them. However, if one leads both popular vote AND delegates, but gets screwed by superdelegates, we have a problem.

BuckTurgidson: I cannot imagine anything changing my Congresswoman's endorsement.

As much as I'd love to see a politician say "Gee, I guess I'm totally out of touch with you people after all", I wouldn't hold my breath.

If Hillary steals the nomination with the Super Delegates, she is going to screw the party for years.

Shaggy_C: I have a feeling Hillary will win the popular vote, Obama the delegate votes, and the superdelegates will decide the race. If that's the case, I could easily make a case for either of them. However, if one leads both popular vote AND delegates, but gets screwed by superdelegates, we have a problem.

Hillary is the last, best hope for a McCain presidential campaign. I don't think McCain could beat Obama. On the other hand, a ham sammitch could beat Hillary in the general election.

Occam's Chainsaw: Soo... see you all at the first meeting of the new Constitutionalist Party?

/Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
//What's not to love?

Where do I sign up?

Whoever's got the edge in pledged delegates, which is what we're at least TOLD matters in this race, should get the superdelegates. We all left that "popular vote makes a difference" shiat back in grammar school.

Weaver95: Hillary is the last, best hope for a McCain presidential campaign. I don't think McCain could beat Obama. On the other hand, a ham sammitch could beat Hillary in the general election.


bears repeating.


Hillary claims she can take on the "Republican Attack Machine", but she can barely stand her own against someone in her own party who's leading a relatively clean campaign? Hillary will be the biggest political "What if...?" in history.

Clearly this article was written by a man, a member of the phallic regime who needs a penis in the white house to feel important.

BuckTurgidson: Why are you confident of this? Many, many of the superdelegates have already committed to a candidate, in public or private deals, or from longstanding allegiance, or whatever.

I'm confident that the democratic party will nominate the candidate that won the popular vote in the primary/caucus process.

Try to imagine that one of the candidates has a lead in pledged delegates going into the convention and the other wins the nomination due to super-delegates. You are going to piss off half of the democratic voters in this country and possibly lose the general election as a result of people just staying home in November.

I would love to see Obama elected but if Hillary has a lead in pledged delegates she should win the nomination. If Obama has the lead and Hillary wins due to super-delegates I will not vote in November. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of other people out there (on Hillary's side as well) that feel the same way. If that happens, say hello to President McCain.

Weaver95: Hillary is the last, best hope for a McCain presidential campaign. I don't think McCain could beat Obama.

McCain will stomp Obama. His hardass-take-no-prisoners campaigning will trump Obama's let's-bring-back-the-60's-complete-with-Kennedys attitude real quick. Remember, this is the party that got George W Bush two terms and McCain has been a media darling for years.

Especially, after McCain picks a popular conservative to be his VP. The GOP campaigning is gonna be brutal.

At least with Clinton, it will be competitive because she's a hardass and she knows how to play on this level. Obama doesn't.

The Clintons do fire up the Repub GOTV though, of course. The Repubs are torn between wanting Clinton for their GOTV and Obama because he would be easier to beat.

Shaggy_C: I have a feeling Hillary will win the popular vote, Obama the delegate votes, and the superdelegates will decide the race. If that's the case, I could easily make a case for either of them. However, if one leads both popular vote AND delegates, but gets screwed by superdelegates, we have a problem.

I dunno, as has been mentioned before, Obama has a lot more big wins than Hillary. Though she does have the wins in the more populated states...are any of the news sites monitoring popular vote, and do we know if it's even accurate considering the Caucus situation?

barneyfifesbullet: Weaver95: Hillary is the last, best hope for a McCain presidential campaign. I don't think McCain could beat Obama.

McCain will stomp Obama. His hardass-take-no-prisoners campaigning will trump Obama's let's-bring-back-the-60's-complete-with-Kennedys attitude real quick. Remember, this is the party that got George W Bush two terms and McCain has been a media darling for years.

Especially, after McCain picks a popular conservative to be his VP. The GOP campaigning is gonna be brutal.

At least with Clinton, it will be competitive because she's a hardass and she knows how to play on this level. Obama doesn't.

The Clintons do fire up the Repub GOTV though, of course. The Repubs are torn between wanting Clinton for their GOTV and Obama because he would be easier to beat.

Logic and Reason? We need not these things...

TheFoy: Logic and Reason? We need not these things...

Whatever.

I know some people are all gooey for Obama because "he gives a good speech".

Not very realistic. Gonna need a hell of a lot more than that.

What is the purpose of super delegates? Why should some chosen ones have more power than anyone else?

As of right now McCain will take Obama and Clinton. However, I do think Obama would have a better shot than Clinton simply because he does get the base fired up.