Letters to the Editor
-
The Superdelegates
Are there to correct problems. Like all the crossover votes going to Obama in some primaries coming from right wing Clinton haters just to beat Hillary. It's going to happen in Texas again maybe. A boatload of votes going to Obama all around the country from people who will be voting for the republican in the general.
-
Translation:
Dear Passionate True Believers,
We decide who gets the nod, not the blogosphere.
Fuck you,
-The "antiwar" Establishment
-
@Slackie
"- since when is the candidate that's doing better in the race somehow not the best candidate?"
Lots of people in '04 thought Edwards,not Kerry, was the best candidate.
Lots of people in 2000 though Dean, not Gore, was the best candidate.
Especially in hindsight.
-
Best Candidate
What people thought and how a democracy is suppose to work are not the same things.
-
Precommitment defeats the purpose of the superdelegate
The origin of the SuperDelegate in 1980 was the idea that vocal and militant interest groups were both selecting candidates and pushing policies that were consistent with what party activists priorities though, were at odds with the view of the broad electorate. The SuperDelegates were deliberate weighted to be elected Democratic officials, who it was hoped would have a better idea of non-activist voters' attitudes. It also allowed for at least some delegates to be in a position, post primaries, to deal with a scandal eruption that made a candidate effectively unelectable. The actual formal definition of a SuperDelegate in party rules is an "unpledged party leader."
The trouble of course is that both Clinton and Obama (but more heavily Clinton) have started to lobby the SuperDelegates to turn them from unpledged to pledged. The solution to this is to remind everyone of the rule and announce that no SuperDelegate can pledge their vote -- of course this will extract howls from the Clinton camp, who are currently ahead. But then .. Florida? Michigan? Life is so unfair to the Clintons, so this will be an pro-Obama whine won't it.
-
A Vote is a Vote
Not.W.E.S wrote: It's going to happen in Texas again maybe. A boatload of votes going to Obama all around the country from people who will be voting for the republican in the general."
Absurd.
Superdelegates don't have psychic powers, there is no way for them to know.
I know more Republicans around the country, including a number in Texas, who are voting for Obama as their choice (and often, the first time voting Democractic) -- and not as a spoiler. My lifelong Republican father and his girlfriend both switched parties to vote in the primary for Obama...
As for spoiler votes, if those people choose, in a democracy, to use their vote in that way, then that is their choice. A stupid one perhaps, thinking they are being strategic, but it's their vote, their choice, and a vote is a vote.
Given that the issue is up in the air, any Texans or others who from here on in think that they want to vote Dem as a spoiler should realize that their vote can and will count, and may be considered by superdelegates as a deciding factor.
It is not for superdelegates to second-guess who really meant their vote, and who didn't.
-
Committal proceedings
If the party wanted the superdelegates to merely ratify the voters' choice, the party wouldn't have superdelegates in the first place.
Of course it wouldn't. The whole point of the system that incorporates primaries, caucuses, and so-called superdelegates is to have both the grass roots party supporters and the party hierarchy included in selecting a candidate.
This is much better than the system in, say the British parliamentary system, where, as I understand it, only the superdelegates get to have a say in the election of a party leader, or only the members of the parliamentary party.
If the popular voting is inconclusive, it is important that wise heads rule in picking the candidate.
The #1 priority needs to be which leader is most likely to win the presidency in the general election against the Republican candidate--not which candidate has promised jobs to supporters within the party--and one just hopes that the superdelegates decide wisely if the standoff remains in place.
All this talk of which delegates are committed at this stage of the game is way too early. There is a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge, and there may have to be a lot of negotiation--for example over who would get to run for Vice President--before any decisions can be made. At this point even committed delegates can find all kinds of excuses to uncommit if they want to.
Right now the voters in many states have yet to express their opinions and a consensus may yet form before we get to the party convention.
-
@Chris Sinnard
Superdelegates were created in 1984.
Really, this is something that can not be HRC's, or Bill's, fault.
And if the Superdelegates go for HRC instead of Obama (which hardly seems likely at the moment), rules are rules. Right?
-
This Specific Primary Year
Can be used to redefine the superdelegate as follows. If neither candidate has 2,025 at the convention and one side of the party, barely ahead, is leading us on some half-assed pipe dream based on rhetoric only that has no chance in the general, then the superdelegates are to step in and administer reality.
-
How is this Different than 2000?
I would give more credence to all of the anti-Obama rhetoric if 1) Clinton had not just replaced her previous campaign manager for being insufficiently negative and 2) She were not now in the process of trying to draw attention away from the campaign's strategy toward superdelegates.
From my perspective, Senator Clinton is seriously underestimating the outrage that will be generated within the Democratic Party if she tries to mitigate popular election results with an elite group of political appointees.
Democrats who expended a lot of energy in 2000 arguing that popular votes, not supreme court appointees, should decide the outcome of an election will be hard pressed to support George W. Bush's strategy within their own party. Sure, superdelegates have existed for a while but as many party leaders have made very clear, they are ment to serve as an emergency brake, not as a way to overturn popular elections. Apparently, the Clintons and the Bushes are drawn to exactly the same brand of 'winner take all' politics. Both families have apparently been corrupted by their powerlust to the point of seeing institutions as loopholes for achieving their own objectives.
But America does not need Politbureau politics and hijacking democracy is bad form no matter who does it. Unless Clinton supporters are willing to argue that Bill Clinton asking Bill Richardson to support Hillary because "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?" represents superdelegates 'voting their conscience.'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/on_deadline_clinton
If superdelegates decide on the basis of personal connections to overturn popular electioral decisions it will be time for Democrats to reevaluate how democratic their party really is.
I would absolutely love for any intellectually honest Democrat in the Clinton camp to tell me how this is different from what we fought against in 2000?