What's the point of Super Delegates, if they exist to do nothing more than ratify Pledged Delegates?

[tritsofme]

If winning a nominal majority of pledged delegates is the only criteria that should be used in determining who becomes the nominee, why did our party create the concept of super delegates?

Wouldn't it be easier to only have pledged delegates and just decide the primary that way?

If you argue, as many Obamahans do, that super delegates cannot weigh any other election variables such as the overall popular vote or electibility issues, why are they around at all?

Why do the Obama people want to change the rules and say that SDs can only look at the results of the pledged delegate selection process?

That may be how it works in your world, but in my world, 2024 ≠ 1627.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Yeah lets move those goal posts one more time.. Maybe we can get them where we want em.. Geez.. n/t

[StevieM]

20. "Moving the goalposts" is just an Obama talking point, not to make an actually legitimate complaint,

but to sway voters in states that have yet to vote. Make them think that something sinister is going on so they better just vote for Obama.

For the record, we were first told that the goalposts were being moved back when it looked like Hillary would lose NH.

Steve

[Labors of Hercules]

24. "Moving the goalpost" is a lot nicer way of saying that Hillary is exaggerating her ass off.

to try to squeeze out some hope of victory.

[StevieM]

26. Then I'm sure you won't mind waiting until

May 31 when the DNC resolves Michigan and Florida, June 3 when all the states have voted and July 1 when all the superdelegates have announced. That will give Obama 2 months to prepare for the convention and then the convention itself to build steam heading into the Fall. And that way every Hillary supporter will know that she was given a fair opportunity.

Steve

[Labors of Hercules]

27. Of course I don't mind...

As long as the goalposts being moved doesn't affect the resolution of either of those 3 key issues.

But sadly, it does. In fact, it affects all three to varying degrees because it is spun in the media as technically accurate, but without the qualifiers that would make it so.

And these types of spin, better known as LIES OF OMISSION, are always rampant in politics, but ridiculously so in the Clinton campaign.

[onehandle]

2. Politics is hard.

:popcorn:

[Tellurian]

5. Nope, Voting is easy..

[Mezzo]

12. and more dems have voted for Hillary than Barack. It's that easy.

[Barack_America]

3. What's the point of the Democratic Party if it's going to back down to racism?

Isn't that the larger question?

Obama's skin color is the crux of this "electability" BS. We all know that.

[DemVet]

31. So, on the other hand, we should elect him because he's black? Was Geraldine right then?

Of course she was.

There is no denying that SOME voters are voting FOR Senator Obama because he is black.

[madfloridian]

4. Let's count the popular vote and electoral vote....and FL and MI

.

[tritsofme]

6. And if you are a super delegate, you can look all of those things.

Including pledged delegates, when you make your decision.

That is just the rules.

[madfloridian]

14. Yes, they can look at all of it.

They can also see who is rising above the fray and who is down in the mud.

[nebula]

7. I agree SDs are a bad idea

but the Clinton supporters never complained about the SD system in '92 and '96 elections,
did they?

Why are they suddenly whining about it now? Gee, I wonder!

[tritsofme]

8. I am not saying that SDs are necessarily a bad idea

nor am I complaining about the system, I am defending the system.

[nebula]

11. I think they are a terrible idea

so is the idea of the winner take all system in the GE, electronic voting, the idea of allowing only one day for voting, etc. Too many problems to name. Our national election system is a highly UNDEMOCRATIC one, in urgent need of drastic reform.

But efforts to change the rules will have to wait until this election cycle is over.

[napi21]

9. I heard a good explaination of their purpose last week. I think

it was Thom Hartmann, but I'm not positive of that.

The Super Delegates were created to create the ability of the PArty to correct a mistake that only comes to light late in the campaign process. The example that was used was "a situation like Elliott Spitzer". If Elliott had been the Dem candidate who received the required # of delegates and was the presumptive candidate, but his "games" were discovered and made public in say...late July, they believed they needed a method to fix things.

[Stardust]

13. Yep, it was Hartmann. They were created to ward off a potential disaster

should something really bad come out about the presumptive nominee. And that's why, I believe, HRC is holding out this long. She's hoping beyond hope that some skeleton will surface about Obama or he will commit some grievous error and his campaign will implode. A real vulture if you ask me.
Maybe the supers are in place for a legitimate reason, but not merely for Hillary's benefit.

[my3boyz]

10. As an Obama supporter I'm reluctant to admit this

but I think the Supers will stick with him because of his race (ironically). They don't want to risk destroying the party by risking the appearance of taking the nomination from the first viable black candidate that had the most delegates, states won and popular vote. They undestand that this would be viewed very negatively in the black community. They know they need a strong black turnout if they are going to blunt McCain's appeal with independents. His race probably hurts him in other areas but I think it will help him here.

[napi21]

I'm an Obama supporter too, but IMO sombody whith some influence

in the black community really needs to talk to Rev. Wright and get him to back out of the spotlight. Promise him something that's important to him, but his recent interviews and speaches have certainly NOT helped Barack at all! It's really starting to scare me. You're right, the Dem Party NEEDS the black community support, but there just aren't enough in that community to elect a candidate without the independent moderates to vote for him too.

[my3boyz]

22. No..

I meant they know the danger that if the take it away from Barack (even though he will have earned it as he says) then many blacks will not vote for Hillary because they will think Barack was treated unfairly. I think the super delegates are concious of how it would look to take it away from the first viable black man who was ahead in every measured way (pledged,popular vote and most states won). I think they realize that the black community would not understand it and that they could possibly turn on Dems so that Hillary would not win if they gave her the nomination.

[napi21]

18. I'm an Obama supporter too, but IMO sombody whith some influence

in the black community really needs to talk to Rev. Wright and get him to back out of the spotlight. Promise him something that's important to him, but his recent interviews and speaches have certainly NOT helped Barack at all! It's really starting to scare me. You're right, the Dem Party NEEDS the black community support, but there just aren't enough in that community to elect a candidate without the independent moderates to vote for him too.

[HooptieWagon]

15. Whats the point of Pledged delegates if the vote is negated by the SDs?

Hell, might as well abolish the primary altogether and decide the nominee in a smoke-filled back room.

[tritsofme]

16. That argument presupposes that pledged delegates reflect the will of voters.

If the popular vote and pledged delegate count diverge, there is valid reason for SDs to weigh their options on which candidate is best.

[HooptieWagon]

29. The pledged delegates reflect the will of those that voted or caucused.

That is how the primary is determined. If the PDs are usurped by the SDs, then millions of voters and caucus-goers will have been disenfranchised.

[Zodiak]

17. The reason we have superdelegates is, in part, because

...when pledged delegates are the only ones that are allowed, a number of elected officials do not get to go to convention. Establishing the superdelgate system pretty much ensures that every elected Democrat at the state level who wants to go gets to go.

That in addition to the fact that elected officials are great at writing their own elitist rules in reaction to an election loss in which they were clueless as to the reasons for said loss.

[FlyingSquirrel]

19. Then why not disallow Superdelegates from endorsing till it's over?

If their job is to make the final decision? None of them should be saying which way they're leaning.

Either that or ALL OF THEM should be.

And if all of them did, this would be over now. If another 115 of them out of 301 remaining endorsed Obama, then all he would need would be 45% of the remaining vote to win. That is a FACT.

So which is it? They should all retract their endorsements, and then decide for the country who's really gonna be the president - and the vote only plays a small role in their decision?

Or they all endorse now, and it's over?

[tritsofme]

21. It is the nature of the people who are SDs to act in their own interest.

And only they can individually determine what that is.

That means making their endorsement whenever they choose, and changing it as many times as they wish until they cast their ballot.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. they want you to stop thinking

[PseudoIntellect]

25. Right, because when it comes to who is more electable, Hillary is GUARANTEED to be the choice

of the superdelegates.

:sarcasm:

Obama people at first used the argument you point to as a speculative argument, but it's now turning into a realistic one based on what Dean and Pelosi have said. Just saying, it's based on hard evidence, whereas overturning the PDs is completely based on fantasy when you look at the trends in SDs.

[backscatter712]

28. "Wouldn't it be easier to only have pledged delegates and just decide the primary that way?"

Why, yes it would.

It would be fairer and better too.

Superdelegates should be abolished for the 2012 campaign.

But we're stuck with them today, so we might as well go by the rules, and push them to ratify the pledged delegates like they morally should.

[cali]

30. why do hillbots like to lie?

that makes as much sense as your moronic generalizatiion about Obama supporters.

I believe the SDs should factor in many things when deciding who to endorse. I'm an Obama supporter and I'm hardlly singular in my opinion. Furthermore it's nothing but bullshit to claim that "Obama people want to change the rules".

[Skwmom]

32. They might end up acting as a check on the Clintons insane do anything to win strategy,

But for the superdelegates I'm sure the Clintons would be out their plotting to steal pledged delegates.

[mckeown1128]

33. The purpose of having super delegates is to make sure the

elected and otherwise "important" people in the democratic party actually show up at the convention. Do your own homework. The "super delegate" statis was never to have a check on too much democracy in the party.

[mtnsnake]

34. K&R

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure that the Obama supporters would be grateful for the chance of having this go to the Super Delegates.

Anyway, it's amazing how many of the pundits are saying that the Super Delegates should simply decide the winner by whoever has the most popular votes in the event that neither one of them has enough pledged delegates to win the nomination (which is the case here). If that's the case, then why the Super Delegates' rule to begin with?