Superdelegates

[rjh]

Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries

Obama has been arguing for months that the superdelegates would be overturning the will of the voters if they don't nominate the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates. He has a 164-delegate lead in that category. Clinton, meanwhile, has argued that superdelegates should exercise independent judgment.

Obama doesn't seem to care that the will of the voters in FL & MI is being overturned just because those states voted earlier than "authorized".

 

[local 12 proud]

So then its your opinion it should be decided by 100 super delegates who wins the democratic nominee?

Your party is A...GDCFUKK
that couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

So then its your opinion it should be decided by 100 super delegates who wins the democratic nominee?

Your party is A...GDCFUKK
that couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Then......."12"......,if your opinion means the GOP is YOUR party, .....then a Lot of people might doubt your sanity !!!

As for Superdelegates, (a system that I did NOT create), ..."They may" be the reason that I have not YET, waived the "white flag" to you, as far as HC is concerned.

 

[local 12 proud]

Bears, hope ya get what you wish for old timer! 😀

 

[delldude]

I still say the sooper dooper's court fate going agin' the will of their constituents.

 

[rjh]

So then its your opinion it should be decided by 100 super delegates who wins the democratic nominee?

Your party is A...GDCFUKK
that couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.

No, I think the use of superdelegates at all is ridiculous. BUt I also think that not allowing the voters from 2 states to have a say in the nomination is just as ridiculous, if not more so.

 

[delldude]

More

“It was just heartbreaking,†said Mrs. Larson, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota and, more to the point, a superdelegate who had initially pledged herself to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. This was last Saturday, after the former first daughter learned that Mrs. Larson would be shifting her allegiance to Senator Barack Obama.

“She is a delightful young woman who loves her mother very much,†Mrs. Larson said. “She was really pushing me. She kept asking me why I was doing this. She just kept asking, ‘Why? Why?’ â€

It is a question many in the Clinton camp are asking these days, sometimes in conversations far less civil than that one. After nearly two decades building relationships with a generation of Democrats, Mrs. Clinton has recently suffered a steady erosion of support for her presidential campaign from the party stalwarts who once formed the basis of her perceived juggernaut of “inevitability.â€
Some of it is just business, practical politicians putting aside ties to the Clintons to follow the will of the voters in their states or making a calculation about who seems best positioned to win.

But there is something more wrenching at work as well, a reckoning of whether the Clintons, on balance, have been good or bad for the party.

 

[USAir757]

Then......."12"......,if your opinion means the GOP is YOUR party, .....then a Lot of people might doubt your sanity !!!

Do we need to remind you that almost half of this country are loyal republicans?

No, I think the use of superdelegates at all is ridiculous. BUt I also think that not allowing the voters from 2 states to have a say in the nomination is just as ridiculous, if not more so.

Nobody even cared about Florida or Michigan at the time of the elections. The democratic leaders in each state chose in favor of the early election with the full knowledge that the delegates would not be seated. Many democrats chose not to even vote, knowing that their vote would not count. It only started to matter when suddenly Hillary desperately needed the delegates.... so if there is anyone to blame here, it is the democratic leaders in the two states in question.

Howard Dean is right on this one.... wow, never thought I'd say THAT!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Not only that. It was understood at that time that those votes would not count. How can you go back on that? Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan... so, in essence, you would only be counting Hillary's (which is why most people are advocating the counting of those states, despite the states' clear "rule breaking.")

 

[Veritas]

No, I think the use of superdelegates at all is ridiculous.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Superdelegates were created in 1982 by a special committee of the Democratic Party to avoid disastrous electoral defeats when the party gurus deemed the wrong man had been nominated.

The party had suffered a debacle just two years earlier, when incumbent Jimmy Carter lost the electoral and popular votes to Ronald Reagan by huge amounts, while also losing 12 Senate seats and 34 in the House.

The party leadership was aroused by that historic defeat, and mindful of an earlier one in 1972, when George McGovern lost decisively to incumbent Richard M. Nixon even in the face of the then-emerging Watergate scandal.

So, lapsing into the classic Maginot Line defense -- confronting the lessons of the most recent lost wars -- it was decided that a group of party stalwarts, comprising elected officials and activists now numbering 795, should have a heavy hand to influence the nomination decision.

They were not purposed to override the popular will, as expressed through the primaries and caucuses, but to monitor them and make corrections if necessary and possible.

Cartago Delenda Est:

Superdelegates exist in the Democratic party for one purpose: to invalidate the popular vote when disaster looms. Most of the media has ignored this as campaign activists from across the spectrum have demanded that superdelegates honor the decision of their constituents. If the party wanted that, superdelegates wouldn’t exist at all. They would simply have pledged delegates attending their August convention, and the constituencies would have their votes recorded accordingly.

The DNC deliberately created the college of superdelegates and made them 20% of the convention for a purpose. They wanted to block a narrow victory by a train wreck of a candidate who would lose the White House in a landslide. The debacle of George McGovern prompted it, and Jimmy Carter’s disastrous loss to Ronald Reagan provided the final impetus for such a structure. And in this race, regardless of the rest of the vote, superdelegates will have to provide the nominee with the margin of victory, since neither Hillary nor Obama can mathematically win enough pledged delegates to sew up the nomination.

After last night’s debate, the superdelegates have to ask themselves whether they are rubber stamps or whether they serve a purpose.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Do we need to remind you that almost half of this country are loyal republicans?



Nobody even cared about Florida or Michigan at the time of the elections. The democratic leaders in each state chose in favor of the early election with the full knowledge that the delegates would not be seated. Many democrats chose not to even vote, knowing that their vote would not count. It only started to matter when suddenly Hillary desperately needed the delegates.... so if there is anyone to blame here, it is the democratic leaders in the two states in question.

Howard Dean is right on this one.... wow, never thought I'd say THAT!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So that must mean that MORE than 50% of the US voting population, are NOT ****ing repubs.


Now looking at the history of the US Senate, ...."MORE" than 50% of the time, "INDEPENDANT" Senators vote with the Democrats !..(Even Joe Lieberman).

757,..........I WONDER WHY THAT IS ??
Do YOU KNOW ???

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Bears, hope ya get what you wish for old timer! 😀

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

...."12"...., What I Ideally wanted was a Democratic majority, in all three branches, led by

1. Joe Biden
or
2. Chris Dodd....for Potus

As for Johnny Mac,...I DO like the man...really, but it's just his political party that...SUCKS
(You know what I mean,right ??................The CAPITALISM at ANY COST...thing)(Those DIRTY MF's) !!!!

 

[delldude]

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer:


Cartago Delenda Est:

Superdelegates exist in the Democratic party for one purpose: to invalidate the popular vote when disaster looms. Most of the media has ignored this as campaign activists from across the spectrum have demanded that superdelegates honor the decision of their constituents. If the party wanted that, superdelegates wouldn’t exist at all. They would simply have pledged delegates attending their August convention, and the constituencies would have their votes recorded accordingly.

And now they have a self inflicted disaster of their own.....Obama wasn't supposed to do this good against the Heir Apparent....however, America and the Democratic Party have shown they're very tired of the Clintstones and their BS.

But there is something more wrenching at work as well, a reckoning of whether the Clintons, on balance, have been good or bad for the party. It has the feel of a very personal testing of loyalties to a former president who once always seemed to be adding to the “Friends of Bill†list, and to a sitting senator who, if not so driven as her husband to win over everyone, used her fame to help elect other Democrats.But one person’s “disloyalty†is, to another set of eyes, well-deserved “comeuppance.†And there is no shortage of powerful Democrats who are quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street, with little regard for the sacrifices they have made for a couple whose own political needs seem to their critics always to come first.

“There is a lot of Clinton fatigue in the party and in the country today, and many people are reacting to that,†said Tom Daschle, a former Democratic leader in the Senate, who is supporting Mr. Obama.

The super's have to face possible voter backlash if they go against their constituents.....voters have been showing very good memories in the last few years.Super's are keenly aware of this.

 

[USAir757]

So that must mean that MORE than 50% of the US voting population, are NOT ****ing repubs.

True, just as more than 50% of the US voting population are not democrats either. Wasn't it something like 47%/46% in the last election? What's your point again?

Now looking at the history of the US Senate, ...."MORE" than 50% of the time, "INDEPENDANT" Senators vote with the Democrats !..(Even Joe Lieberman).

Where is your source on that statistic?

...."12"...., What I Ideally wanted was a Democratic majority, in all three branches

Yes, and I want a toilet made out of solid gold.... but that doesn't make much sense either. Though you probably will get your wish after the next election - just not with the guys you wanted. I like Joe Biden, I think he's a good guy. Though, he can't seem to get anything out of the primaries, which displays that voters think he is rather unelectable.

As for Johnny Mac,...I DO like the man...really, but it's just his political party that...SUCKS
(You know what I mean,right ??................The CAPITALISM at ANY COST...thing)(Those DIRTY MF's) !!!!

Absolutely... this country was founded on the principles of capitalism. Are you suggesting an alternative? There are plenty of countries around the world that have other systems - socialism, communism, other fixed market systems - OH BUT WAIT - you can't speak against your government in those countries, let alone call the leader a monkey. So what is it exactly that you want?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

But NOT...Capitalism................... AT "ANY" COST !!!!!!!!!