Superdelegates

[Farang]

I haven't seen any specific stories about this but I was watching cable tonight and Rep. Adam Smith was on talking about how he'd switch from Obama to Hillary if she won the national pledged delegates, however he wasn't willing to represent his district or his state and stand by those results (seems reasonable, he wants a clear winner soon from the national totals).

I know Howard Dean has commented a bit that he doesn't think a race to the convention is good for the party. Has anyone heard anything about the possible organization of a superdelegate voting bloc willing to do something as Rep. Smith suggested? Is it possible sometime in the next month or so we could see attempts at resolving this? It needs to be done sooner rather than later so the rules of the game are known beforehand, with the race a dead heat it can be fairly decided rather than politics getting in the way (i.e. both sides only arguing for what will give them the delegates).

 

[Pabster]

Super Delegates shall be interesting. Depending on how the elected delegates go, of course.

AFAIK there are over 220 of them still (as of yet) unpledged. You can bet a fierce battle will be waged for them.

 

[Lemon law]

Knowing nothing specific, it still seems superdelegates might organize to punish a democratic
candidate for playing dirty. A good clean campaign could very well help the dems as they both put similar ideas out while gigging the repubs. While the repubs get no press because McCain already has it rapped up.

But as soon as it gets dirty, it damages democratic party unity. Making super delegates into
a possible enforcement arm. To some extent we saw Kennedy endorse Obama already when Bill tried the race card.

Unlike delegates won by primaries and caucuses, super delegates are free to change their minds at any time. And by mid-March, enough added primaries may make the Obama Hillary contest clearer because super Tuesday was a basic draw.

 

[Pabster]

Super Tuesday Over; Superdelegates Enlisted

 

[Thump553]

Sueperdelegates are Democratic governors, members of Congress & the Senate and various other Dem bigwigs. The nature of the beast is that these people will resist "being organized." A more realistic expectation is that the vast majority of them will be bought with promises specific to them. They will remain coyly "neutral" manuevering to be the most valuable delegate, the one that puts a candidate over the top.

In other words this is the last vestige of the smoke-filled backroom.

This is the seemy underside of the Democratic Party organization. Obama has his work cut out for him, because Bill & Hillary Clinton are masters of this sort of backroom strong-arming. Frankly if Obama can navigate through this minefield it should put to rest once and for all any concerns about his "inexperience."

We could end up with a very interesting election, marked by universal record turnouts in the primaries followed by disinterest and low election turnout by both parties due to widespread disgust with their party's selection (or selection method) of the party's candidate. I don't think this will happen, but it is possible.

 

[TerryMathews]

I have to confess, I'm really getting a good laugh out of this, considering the Democratic rally cry of "Didn't win the popular vote!" after the 2000 election.

You would think in the eight years since, someone IE Dean would've had the foresight to say "Oh shit, we're going to end up with egg on our faces if we have two strong candidates" and get the rules changed.

 

[fskimospy]

I figure the superdelegates will back whoever wins the most pledged delegates. They aren't going to split the party by nominating the 'loser'.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I figure the superdelegates will back whoever wins the most pledged delegates. They aren't going to split the party by nominating the 'loser'.

I wouldn't be so sure. On Super Tuesday, Hardball had on a superdelegate for Clinton who said he wouldn't listen to what his state said, claiming he made a pledge and the people of New Jersey would understand that. This after some prodding of the issue by Matthews. I wouldn't expect them to be so honorable.

In his case NJ went for Clinton anyhow, but you see my point..

 

[BarneyFife]

This stuff is all a bunch of bullshit.

Just have primaries for the whole country sometime in March and whoever has the most votes win.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I figure the superdelegates will back whoever wins the most pledged delegates. They aren't going to split the party by nominating the 'loser'.

I wouldn't be so sure. On Super Tuesday, Hardball had on a superdelegate for Clinton who said he wouldn't listen to what his state said, claiming he made a pledge and the people of New Jersey would understand that. This after some prodding of the issue by Matthews. I wouldn't expect them to be so honorable.

In his case NJ went for Clinton anyhow, but you see my point..

Would Matthews (to be fair) ask John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy or Deval Patrick to listen to what their state said and switch to Clinton since she beat Obama in Massachusetts by 15%?
Somehow, I doubt he would.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I figure the superdelegates will back whoever wins the most pledged delegates. They aren't going to split the party by nominating the 'loser'.

I wouldn't be so sure. On Super Tuesday, Hardball had on a superdelegate for Clinton who said he wouldn't listen to what his state said, claiming he made a pledge and the people of New Jersey would understand that. This after some prodding of the issue by Matthews. I wouldn't expect them to be so honorable.

In his case NJ went for Clinton anyhow, but you see my point..

Would Matthews (to be fair) ask John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy or Deval Patrick to listen to what their state said and switch to Clinton since she beat Obama in Massachusetts by 15%?
Somehow, I doubt he would.

That is a very fair complaint. I'd like to say Kerry and Kennedy are big shots in the party, above the whims of a particular state. I think there is something to be said for their status as national leaders. But when it comes down to it they are both senators from Massachusetts who should back up who the voters have chosen, as much as I disagree with that choice.

But I believe they, as all superdelegates, are allowed to pull an Adam Smith. That is, they may refuse their state if their position is to support the national leader in voted delegates. However this is only honorable if the position is taken before the results are in (as in Smith's case).

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Thump553
In other words this is the last vestige of the smoke-filled backroom.

QFT. As I said earlier, Super Delegates have a purpose. That purpose is to protect the incumbents, the Establishment, from surprise.

 

[Farang]

The spin will begin.. Obama looks to be expecting a popular vote win while Clinton goes for the superdelegates.

Obama himself weighed in Friday, telling reporters that voters should determine who superdelegates support, even as his campaign actively courted them.

"My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates, and the most voters in the country, then it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters," he said. "I think that should be the guiding approach to determining who will be the nominee."

Clinton, speaking to reporters on Saturday, argued that superdelegates should make up their own minds and pointedly noted that Obama has the endorsements of superdelegates John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, both senators from Massachusetts, a state whose primary Clinton won.

"Superdelegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment," she said. "If Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is to the contrary of what the definition of superdelegates has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...n_el_pr/superdelegates

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Farang
I haven't seen any specific stories about this but........

I've seen a lot of discussion regarding the Superdelegates ("SDs").

I find it another interesting, and positive, aspect to this rather wierd election. There seems a lot more interest in the election "details" and things such as superdelegates. The voter intrerest and 'education" is all good IMO.

As far as the SDs, I've seen various theories on how they may vote etc:

1. Vote like their state or district voted.

2. Vote like the national popular vote.

3. Vote their conscience (e.g., vote for who they believe makes the best Pres, or who they believe has the best chance of beating the Repubs etc).

4. Bring a motion on the floor of the Dem national convention to completely disregard the SDs (i.e., their vote doesn't count).

Personally, I think the SDs would be crazy to overturn the popular vote. While I'm sure these SDs (polititions) are enjoying all the attention, I suspect that they really wanna see a clear winner so that they are not under pressure at the national convention.

Fern

 

[Thump553]

You make some valid points, Fern, especially regarding the super delegates that are elected. Especially if they are coming up for election this November, it is in their best interests to vote for a candidate who gives them a better chance of long coattails to ride on.

OTOH, a substantial chunk of the superdelegates are DNC members and other "party activists." This is the sort I worry about the most. Maybe they will be altruistic enough to put the public will over their own self interests, but I wouldn't count on it.

Incicentally, someone (PJ?) mentioned on this forum last week that the GOP doesn't have superdelegates. This is not true, they just don't have as many and they call them "unpledged delegates." Wikipedia

I still think the superdelegate/unpledged delegate system stinks to high heaven. The main purpose is probably to avoid McGovern/McCarthy type nominations.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Thump553
-snip-

OTOH, a substantial chunk of the superdelegates are DNC members and other "party activists." This is the sort I worry about the most. Maybe they will be altruistic enough to put the public will over their own self interests, but I wouldn't count on it.
Agreed

Incicentally, someone (PJ?) mentioned on this forum last week that the GOP doesn't have superdelegates. This is not true, they just don't have as many and they call them "unpledged delegates." Wikipedia
Yeah, I've heard them referred to as "RNC delegates" or something too. But yeah, there's not as many of them, and given McCain's lead they aren't in play/can't affect anything.

I still think the superdelegate/unpledged delegate system stinks to high heaven. The main purpose is probably to avoid McGovern/McCarthy type nominations.
That's exactly what I've heard, they were created after McGovern beat out Ted Kennedy for the nomination and then lost by a landslide in the general election.

Fern

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I still think the superdelegate/unpledged delegate system stinks to high heaven. The main purpose is probably to avoid McGovern/McCarthy type nominations.

QFT.

The only purpose of "super delegates" is to protect the establishment. From a big surprise.

Those in power protect themselves, and "super delegates" are a perfect example.