Is there anybody who STILL thinks the superdelegates are a good idea?

[Ken Burch]

This year, for the first time, there is the real possibility that those superdelegates could force the party, for the first time since LBJ forced us to lose by running a hawk on a prowar platform in '68, to nominate a candidate who goes into the convention having lost among elected delegates. We can assume such a candidate will be the weaker choice in the fall, as everyone in Chicago knew Humphrey would be.

Is there anyone who is comfortable with this?

Does any real good from the superdelegates imposing an less-electable candidate on us?

Is it not time to begin undoing the rollback of the McGovern reforms, and to admit at last the the problem in this party was never that there was TOO MUCH democracy, and too much of a say to the grassroots and the activists?

Is it not time to make this a DEMOCRATIC party again?

[jlake]

1. Of course they are a good idea.

Funny how we didn't hear all this complaining before.

[Ken Burch]

Not sure you did your candidate any favors with that photo.

It makes her look like some kind of interstellar empress from BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.

[jlake]

4. Thanks for the important comment. Always good to stay with the important issues.

:eyes:

And by the way. Queen Hillary looks FIERCE!
Dumbo ear Obama is just jealous 'cuz he can't pull off the interstellar emperor look.

[Ken Burch]

5. The picture was silly enough to deserve it. It looks like something a Freeper would post

As to your point: The reason no one has raised a major objection to the superdelegates before this is that this is the first time since they were introduced back in '84 that they've actually come into play. All the nomination contests prior to this were decided solely on the strength of the elected delegates.

The point remains: Isn't it a bit silly to assume that the choice of nominee needs to be RESCUED from the clutches of actual Democratic voters?

(This, btw, has been a concern of mine for years).

Is there any reason to assume that the "pros" really have any better idea of what makes a successful Democratic candidate than any of the rest of us?

After all, every successful Democratic nominee of the 20th century was somebody who the pros and the insiders NEVER would've chosen on their own:

1) A tweedy academic and one term-governor of New Jersey(Woodrow Wilson)
2) A polio victim(Franklin D. Roosevelt)
3) A lightweight Massachusetts Senator with severe chronic health issues(JFK)
4) A peanut farmer(You Know Who)
5) A sax player(You Also Know Who).

All chosen against the will of the insiders.

Who's to say who REALLY fits the mold?

[usregimechange]

15. "Dumbo ear Obama" Are you a KKK member?

[jlake]

18. WTF Do his dumbo ears have to do with the KKK?

[usregimechange]

24. If what you said wasn't racist it is still disrespectful and childish

[jlake]

25. Did you even read my post?

It was clearly in jest - as a response to a stupid comment about the way Hillary looks in my sigline.

[Ken Burch]

53. A post which was prompted by the fact that you refused to make an actual arguement

in FAVOR of the superdelegates. You simply assumed that we should bow to your lordly superiority. An elitist and Republican way to look at things, IMHO.

[jlake]

55. Dear God. Why are you even responding to a post that was not to you?

Gangbanging Clinton supporters again. Typical.

[Ken Burch]

I was responding because that post referred to my post.

Why do you have such contempt for democracy anyway? What good has it ever done for us to have UNdemocratic nomination practices in the past?

The good candidates we had would have survived a democratic process.

[angie_love]

78. Why'd you have to bring Obama into the mix? Dumbo ears? If we're talking about looks I wouldn't go

there if I were you. Hillary is not exactly a "looker".

[jlake]

91. Dear God. I was snarkily responding to a post about Hillary's looks.

[jgraz]

69. HOLY SHIT!! Hillary is a CYLON!!!1111

It all suddenly makes sense.

[usregimechange]

10. They are undemocratic and if they decide the election I may leave the party and so should the rest

of us.

[jlake]

12. What if they decide it in Obama's favor?

Doubt you'll complain - or leave the party.

[Ken Burch]

13. I'd feel deeply uncomfortable about it. And I know HRC supporters would use it

as an excuse for becoming Democrats for McCain. They deserted McGovern over far less.

[usregimechange]

14. Superdelegates are undemocratic no matter who they vote for

[jlake]

17. Personal attack, and dodging my question.

Would you complain or leave the party?

[usregimechange]

21. Both. How is a superdelegate who is not bound to a vote of the people democratic?

[jlake]

22. Who ever promised that our candidate would be selected democratically?

[islandmkl]

26. you may or may not know it....

YOU ARE A FUCKIN' REPUBLICAN!

[jlake]

27. Link? Why would you say that?

[usregimechange]

30. No, even many Republicans believe in democracy.

[jlake]

31. I don't know where you all are getting the ideas that democracy has anything

to do with the candidate the party chooses.... have you even studied history or the constitution?

[usregimechange]

37. Do you know a basic definition of democracy? Where is the choice of the people in a superdelegtes

vote in an election?

[jlake]

40. You do know that people having ANY say in the nominee is relatively new, right?

"Democracy" doesn't have anything to do with how a political party determines its nominee.

[usregimechange]

44. The hell it doesn't. What if the DNC committee simply decided for us it would be ok with you?

[jlake]

45. Until relatively recently, that is how it was done.

[usregimechange]

51. Christ and democracy being new makes it somehow unworthy of survival?

[Ken Burch]

39. Why the hell are you in the Democratic party if you don't believe in DEMOCRACY?

What is it about free choice and open debate that you so fear?

[jlake]

42. I don't understand why people confuse a political party with the constitution.

[usregimechange]

47. We expect that our political party would uphold constitutional and democratic principles

[jlake]

50. There are *NO* Constitutional principles for how the party selects its nominee

That is my whole point.

[usregimechange]

54. Nothing like voting? Elections? What party are you in again?

[jlake]

56. Please show me where the constitution addresses how a political party selects

its nominee.

[usregimechange]

67. It doesn't. It is a principle that everyone save you for some reason believes in

[Ken Burch]

57. Why are you defending undemocratic practices within the DEMOCRATIC party?

How can you be a non-Republican and say it is ok for our party to be undemocratic? Are you really that much of a right-wing elitist?

You have an obligation to explain your mindset here, as it is deeply disturbing to most progressive and democratic people.

[jlake]

60. Why don't you read some of the posts telling me I am being unconstitutional

I am trying to point out that the there are *NO* constitutional guidelines on how a political party selects its nominee.
I don't know why that is so hard for some to understand.

[Ken Burch]

68. You are showing absolute contempt for the idea that the people of the party

should have a say in how it is run, what it stands for and who it nominates. This is a reactionary attitude, and I find it very difficult to believe a person could have such a view and still have any progressive views on anything.

What, in your view, is so terrible about internal democracy, and what is so great about elitism?

[usregimechange]

73. Like someone needs to write it down for us to believe in it, friggin amazing

[jlake]

74. Then quit claiming it is a constitutional right.

[usregimechange]

71. I almost crapped myself!

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. STRAWMAN

You were the first to mention the constitution. The constitution has no bearing on the general principle of democratic votes, and those votes being overriden by a pre-selected political aristocracy.

Because you couldn't defend this violation of democratic, and Democratic, principles, you throw up a strawman saying the constitution does not prohibit it - which is entirely beside the point.

And you damn well know it.

[jlake]

89. 2 people mentioned it before me.... why don't you read the posts.

[usregimechange]

93. The constitution prohibiting it is completely irrelevant, the party should support democracy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

99. I did. Twice. Watching the post numbers. You were first.

EDIT:
Specifically, post #31. Nobody mentioned constitutionality before then.

Would you like ketchup with your crow?

[RaleighNCDUer]

82. Are you saying that there is no democracy outside the constitution?

The constitution lays out the principles that guide our republic. Democratic choices is how we enact those principles. Our history has been a continual drive to expand democracy, to expand the franchise, to make the republic for responsive to the citizens.

Interesting coincidence that the Democratic party adopts the superdelegate backward step away from the expanded franchise at the same time that the DLC is formed to save the Democratic party from itself.

[jlake]

86. I am saying the Constitution has NO Power over how a political party decides

its nominee. -- just like it doesn't have any power over how many or what political parties there are.

[usregimechange]

88. Oh, and since the Constitution doesn't direct the party, democracy isn't necessary or appopriate?

Is this DU? Where am I?

[usregimechange]

28. Did you really just ask that?

[jlake]

29. Where was it ever promised? The Democratic Party can set whatever rules they want.

[usregimechange]

32. I guess I always assumed that my party would support democracy, I guess I was wrong.

[jlake]

34. I think you're conflating the Democratic (Party) Primary with the General (Federal) Election.

[usregimechange]

38. No, I am expecting the the Democratic party would not support an un-democratic process

[jlake]

49. Dear God. Do you even know what the "Democratic Party" stands for vs. the "Republican Party"

The name does not come from the way that it selects its presidential nominee.
:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

58. Again..why do you think it doesn't MATTER if our nomination process is democratic or not?

Would you rather we were back in the smoke-filled room era?

[jlake]

61. It does matter to me. But it is NOT a right and has nothing to do with how our

party got its name.... despite what others seem to think.

[Ken Burch]

70. Why would you want it NOT to be a right?

Has suppressing democracy within our party ever served any good purpose?

[jlake]

72. You are so outrageous.

You are putting words into my mouth.
All that I have done is said.
It is NOT a right.
It is NOT a part of the constitution.
It is NOT the way things have always been done.
Those are FACTS not "Reactionary beliefs"

[Ken Burch]

79. If it isn't at present a right, we need to establish it as one.

This isn't just about this year's race. It's about who has the say in this party. There's no reason the hacks should get to overrule the voters.

And if you aren't undemocratic, it's been hard to tell that from the tone of your posts.

Do you think it has been a good thing for this party for internal democracy to have been limited in the past?

Is that ever a good thing in any political organization?

This are real issues, and, frankly, you've sounded very dismissive of them.

If you're not, and you actually favor democracy, I'm sorry for assuming otherwise. But if you reread your posts, I think you can understand why I'd reach the conclusions I did.

[usregimechange]

Christ you would have thought it would have been necessary!

[usregimechange]

84. I think it is an excellent question. Why would you not support democratic processes in you party?

[jlake]

85. I never said I didn't support them. I just pointed out some FACTS.

[RaleighNCDUer]

90. No, you threw out a strawman argument about constitutionality

because you were unwilling to admit that the superdelegate system is, fundamentally, un-democratic.

[usregimechange]

96. Bingo

[usregimechange]

64. No on is suggesting that Democratic (w a capital "D") is the same as democracy (w a lower case "d")

what I have said, at least five times now, is that the party has generally excepted the idea of democracy, has it not? Shit, do we need a rule to prevent an oligarchy. I didn't think their was a running debate about this in our party. What the God?!?!?!

[islandmkl]

48. that person writes, but does not read...the Constitution does not apply...

if the Party has 'other rules'. Who the hell does that sound like? Here is what is right and good and the foundation of our country...but we have these rules we will use BECAUSE WE ARE OPERATING COUNTER TO OUR VERY CORE PRINCIPLES. MF'in rules, my ass...only weak, dishonest, crooked people HIDE BEHIND RULES. They are afraid of democracy, they don't like to really consider everyone equal, they need some protection from the will of the mass. Forget I said they are Republicans, they're fuckin' closet Nazis 2008. Clipboard-carrying rules enforcers for now. Late-night door knockers later. Fuckin' sheep piss me off. Can you tell?

[jlake]

52. Please provide a link to where the Constitution discusses how parties select their nominee

[Ken Burch]

43. But what good ever comes of those rules being undemocratic?

And do you really think saying things like this HELPS your candidate?

What good has it ever done to turn this party over to the Beltway and the elitists?

[jlake]

46. This isn't about my candidate - it is about inconvenient facts.

All of a sudden Obama supporters don't like the rules and are making complains about it being an "undemocratic" process --- the DNC does NOT need to use a "democratic process" to determine its nominee.

[Ken Burch]

62. It isn't just about Obama. The superdelegates have always been a potential problem.

And there's no reason for you to be this hostile to internal democracy in the DEMOCRATIC party. It's creepy, disturbing and reactionary, actually.

Would you PLEASE explain yourself here?

[jlake]

65. Would you please explain to me why the superdelegats have suddenly become a major

issue and Obama is trying to coerce them into voting a certain way?

[Ken Burch]

75. They are an issue now because, for the first time, there is the real possibility

that they could force the party to nominate a candidate who had fewer ELECTED delegates than the other candidate(and, for the record, this COULD go either way).

The potential for this problem has always been there, it's just that this year is the first time the race has been close enough for the superdelegates to possibly actually decide the thing.

I'd be raising this issue no matter WHO the candidates were, because it's just not ever a good thing to overrule the will of the voters as expressed in the primaries. This is why we lost in '68, when we should have been able to hold the White House easily that year.

Does that clarify things for you?

[jlake]

77. No. If it was a concern, people should have brought it up sooner.

And I have to tell you that I think there is a greater chance of Hillary leading with pledged delegates and the superdelegates handing the nomination to Obama than vice versa.

[Ken Burch]

80. That would be better for the party if it were the case.

But no one can assume such an outcome, as the candidates are now clearly equal in support.

[jlake]

81. I am just pointing out that I am "defending an undemocratic system"

when I feel that it will work AGAINST the candidate I am supporting.
Whatever issues need to be resolved, and rights granted need to be determined BEFORE THE RACE STARTS.

[Ken Burch]

83. In theory that's fine. And it's probably too late to change it for this year.

But it often takes situations like this to focus attention on the issue. It simply didn't occur to a lot of people, before Super Tuesday, that there might be this kind of a situation this year. You can't put it down to opportunism. It's just the way people gained awareness of this, that's all.

[usregimechange]

98. Well, we can agree on that much.

[Ken Burch]

103. Which would also be a problem. Don't assume I wouldn't be uncomfortable with that.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

36. Well, the party's name kinda IMPLIES that, dude.

And why would you ever want a candidate imposed undemocratically? The "pros" don't know any more about choosing a candidate than anybody else, considering their track record.

[usregimechange]

41. Because liberty is less important than winning apparently.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Your set of assumptions is unwarranted

I know it's great fun to be outraged, but aren't there enough real things without having to invent outrageous scenarios?

You assume that 1) Obama wins pledged delegates, and 2) that Hillary wins the nomination.

The opposite scenario is equally likely. Most Democratic pols kind of want the Clintons out of the way... more room at the top for the ambitious. I will not be surprised if Obama ends up with more Super Delegates, and I won't be surprised if Hillary ends up with a narrow edge in pledged delegates.

[Ken Burch]

11. For the record, I would also argue that the opposite scenario would be trouble.

There just isn't any good that comes from this whole notion that "the grown ups" get to come in and decide because "they know best". Electoral history shows that they bloody well DON'T.

And it really weirds me out that, if he hadn't endorsed McCain, Joe Lieberman would be in Denver as a superdelegate and the man ISN'T EVEN A FREAKIN' DEMOCRAT anymore! Is there any excuse for something like that?

[busymom]

3. Does anyone think that FL and MI delegates shouldn't be seated?

Hmmmm. Have we heard enough "waaaah's" and "maybe she'll cry over it"s in reference to the idea of seating the MI and FL delegates? Now we're supposed to change the rules about the superdelegates?

[Ken Burch]

8. I suggest they be seated, but be required to vote uncommitted on the first ballot.

n/t.

[usregimechange]

19. Not MI, names of most candidates were not on the ballot because of DNCs decision, if they seat them

it would be unfair.

[Yossariant]

33. WRONG. They decided, on their own, to remove their names to pander to the early states. LINK:

Democratic candidates John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden have withdrawn their names from the ballot to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, which were unhappy Michigan was challenging their leadoff status on the primary calendar.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. That's just spin. MI broke the rules. In response to that, most of the

candidates withdrew their names in solidarity with the national party.

Hillary, of course, is not a member of the national party - she's a member of the DLC, which holds itself above the national party, as is evidenced by her statement that "the rules of the DNC are not the rules of my campaign."

That's half-way to pulling a Lieberman.

[Yossariant]

97. Balls. If that were the case, they'd have withdrawn their names from Florida.

They tried to pander to the early states. It blew up in his face. And now he whines and whines and ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

101. I don't know why they didn't withdraw their names from florida.

But they did pledge not to campaign there. Hillary did campaign there.

Rules are for little people.

[pampango]

105. The deadline to withdraw from the Florida ballot had already passed. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. Thanks. I figured there was a sound rationale for it. nt

[Yossariant]

109. LOL! Link to Hillary campaigning in Florida. Obama broke his word the day after he gave it. LINK:.

Published: September 30, 2007

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then...
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

He never had any intention of keeping his word.

And I didn't even mention the campaign ads he deceitfully ran in Florida. The reason his camp so opposes seating the delegation is because the DNC sanction for lying is that he cannot get any Florida delegates.

[RaleighNCDUer]

112. "Impromptu news conference" = bullshit.

A news conference is when a candidate contacts the press, tells them where to be, and has a formal set statement to deliver to the press.

What this was, he walked outside, and the press was there. He answered their questions. That was NOT a news conference. The very fact that it was identified as 'impromptu' shows that neither he nor his campaign planned it. Therefore, he was not campaigning.

But you don't really give a fuck about the truth, do you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

92. I think both states should have a 'do-over' with all the candidates on

the ballot, and all their delegates seated.

As it is, with most the candidates not competing because they were following the rules, to seat the Hillary-heavy results is a travesty of democracy - but with Penn running her campaign, what would you expect?

[Adsos Letter]

6. Does anyone still think the electoral college is a good idea?

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

7. Well, the DLC does. Without it, they'd have no reason to exist.

And so does the GOP. It's the only thing that holds their "Confederate Coalition" together.

That's about it.

[Adsos Letter]

9. yup...a bad idea to begin with...and it needs to go.

[Yossariant]

16. In 1968, only 13 states even had primaries.

So what that has to do with today's superdelgates is zero, except that Obama's supporters are doing this constant whine because Hillary has more superdelgates.

He got 8 today. She got 16.

WAAAAHHH! Her has more. :nopity:

[Ken Burch]

35. I realize that. The reason I mentioned it was the great discrepancy

that year between the primary states(where the progressive peace candidates swept the board)and the non-primary states(which were the only ones that sent delegations that were prowar and pro-Johnson). The nonprimary states(and the primary state of Pennsylvania, where the party defied the overwheming majority for peace in the primary and sent a prowar delegation to the convention)said "fuck off" to the popular will and cause the Democratic defeat.

Is there any actual defense anyone can make for the superdelegates? If they impose one candidate against the will of the majority of the voters(as expressed by the elected delegate totals)can this possibly be a good thing? WhoEVER that candidate is?

Isn't it time for the party to STOP punishing activists for '72? The fact is, any candidate imposed that year instead of McGovern would have done just as badly as he did. The Nixon China trip guaranteed a landslide Democratic loss no matter who we nominated.

[Yossariant]

63. If a candidate gets a majorityof pledged delegates, the superdelegates

have no role.

If no candidate gets a majority of delegates, then they do play a role.

There are many who would disagree that "the will of the majority of the voters" IS "expressed by the elected delegate totals."

Many may not be too sure that the governors, senators and representatives in their states should vote for a candidate who lost their states.

Others might think that the overall popular vote reflects the will of the people.

[johnnydrama]

102. what do you mean no role

last time i checked there were around 3200 pledged delegates and 800 super delegates. a Majority of pledged delegates would be 1600+1. Nowhere close to the 2000 needed to win.

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. IOW, the machine is valued more than the people.

So great to have Tammany Hall back.

[islandmkl]

20. One man, one vote...

any defense of a process that circumvents this is anti-democratic at its core. To take the real power of the party out of the hands of the members begs only one question: WHY? You want to be a fuckin' sheep and follow the leader REGARDLESS OF THE WISHES OF THE RANK AND FILE...get your ass over to the GOP where you belong. This Super-Delegate bullshit was foisted upon the party when it looked like the entrenched Democratic power structure was going to lose control. You want to know why our party is so easily ineffective? Because of members who are neutered from the start, who have no process to buck 'the system'. We end up with 'leaders' like Harry and Nancy who have taken less than one year to basically tell us to 'screw yourselves, we're doing it our way'. Maybe we need a little 1968 Convention action, however that would play out today. The people in the streets of Chicago didn't kill the party, the assholes in the Convention Center did. And they haven't stopped.

[islandmkl]

23. one more thing....counting Super-Delegates right now to show your candidate is 'ahead'...

is so fuckin' counter-Democratic as to be laughable. People engaged in this, from either side, aren't democratic Democrats...they just don't like to think of themselves as Republicans.

[Yossariant]

66. Obama fan?

[Egnever]

59. I do

I doubt they will go against the candidate with the most earned delegates. They could but they wont.

Meanwhile they do force candidates to look a little harder at local issues or at least the super delegates issues.

These people aren't stupid they know what would happen if they flip this one.

[andyrowe]

76. Bookmark This NOW!!! So we can see which ones change

their mind when Obama is getting the majority of superdelegates. Should be the morning after Obama's coup in my state.

[usregimechange]

100. Do bookmark it because no matter who wins superdelegates should be abolished

[hill08]

104. just seat Michigan and Florida. That will be real democracy

[cooolandrew]

108. strewth

[awaysidetraveler]

106. Well, you've convinced me that the superdelegates are undemocratic.

How'd we ever get into this mess with superdelegates anyway?

[cooolandrew]

107. Democracy is one man (or woman)one vote. Superdelegates are a potential veto on that.

[gulliver]

110. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks now. Rules are rules.

I have no problem with superdelegates for the duration of this primary.

I don't know that the superdelegates would push for Obama, so I don't think they would necessarily force a less electable candidate on us. My understanding is that Hillary is ahead in superdelegates, and that, I believe, is the sole source of discomfort with the concept.

There really does need to be some kind of failsafe where the people who vote in the elections but not the primaries have some representation. So if a Congressman who won 500,000 Democratic votes to win his seat gets to be a superdelegate on equal footing with a primary delegate who only got 14,000, I don't see any problem with that at all.