I am not a member of any organized cult; I am a Democrat.
If the primary vote totals (excluding FL/MI, assuming no do-over) and the pledged delegate totals disagree after the last primary, then I for one will feel sufficient discomfort with the delegate result that I won’t mind the superdelegates’ choosing the nominee as they wish. This is because, to me, the point of the delegates is to reflect the will of Democratic and potential Democratic voters.
However, I’m fine with mild deviations between caucuses and primaries (in the case of Texas and, perhaps, Washington state - never did find out how their beauty-contest primary came out), because caucus participants are more reliable voters in the fall. If this were a perfect world, I’d weight every primary/caucus voter’s impact by their likelihood of showing up at the polls and voting Dem in the fall, but I can’t, so the presence of some caucuses amongst a pile of primaries will act as a crude proxy for that.
So the combination of primary and caucus delegates is a good measure, IMHO, of voter preference, mixed with voter reliability.
Superdelegates have none of those properties. I’m OK with their ratifying the outcome of the primaries, or breaking a virtual tie at the end of the process. But I’m very much opposed to the possibility of their choosing as nominee a candidate that’s gotten both fewer votes and fewer pledged delegates than another candidate.
Not only would that not be small-d democratic, but it would potentially alienate primary voters and caucus participants who were drawn into participating or voting as Democrats this year for the first time - and there are apparently quite a few of those. We don’t want to lose them, and we can’t afford to lose them, by telling them their primary votes didn’t really matter, and can be overruled not by the votes of other caucus and primary participants, but by a group of party insiders.
I can’t think of a better way to tell those voters, “we don’t want you,” and since their ties to the Democrats are just forming and are not that strong, it’s pointless to tell them they should suck it up and vote Democratic. They’re still deciding whether being a Democrat is what they want to be.
Symbolism and portent. It had been so safe a Republican district that their last Speaker (Hastert) represented it - just like Tom DeLay’s district, now also gone blue.
Quite true about the lack of excuse for DrDeth disingenuously “calling me out” for something I’ve never said or implied. It was rude and it was wrong. Especially since I know he’s been paying attention to the fact that I’m the poster who always posts the announcement of every new superdelegate who comes out in support of Obama. I actually have no objection to the superdelegates whatsoever.
Again, quit ascribing positions to me that I simply do not take. I don’t bitch about superdelegates, I cheer about them.
And again, exactly true.
Frankly, I’m not the least bit concerned about the superdelegates in this process. I am entirely confident that when Barack Obama walks into the convention with a larger number of pledged delegates and more popular votes than Hillary Clinton, the supers won’t overturn the will of the people. I just don’t see it happening, regardless of the fact that the rules allow it to happen.
I have said, and I say again, if they were to do that, there would be a mass protest the likes of which have never been witnessed. The damage it would do to the Democratic party would be enormous, and I have no doubt that not a single elected Democrat, let alone Dr. Dean, will ever allow it to happen.
IIRC Wyoming had 5 uncommitted superdelegates before yesterday, including the Governor. I wonder if that’s changed.
So only the delegates you want count, the others are unfair and not the will of the pipples. Right. :rolleyes: “Pledged delegates” eh? How aboutif we only talk about elected delegates? Or delegates from important critical states in the upcoming general election?
Exactamundo. And actually Hillary has the edge in overall popular vote. And, the way that the Dems have assigned delegates to states (as opposed to purely by population) has also given Obama a large edge. But that’s OK, as it helps their candidate. :rolleyes:
So let us make this clear- to the Obama-ites, anything that helps their candidate is fair, the will of the people and above-board. :rolleyes: If it helps Hillary, it’s evil, unfair, will cause voters to leave in droves, “Rove-ite”, cheating and communistic. :dubious:
- My positions have actually been called both of these on this board by Obama-ites.
Erm, “pledged delegates” are the delegates decided by election.
Look, if you want to grumble & grouse about people (and apparently Shayna isn’t one of them) not liking the superdelegate system, have a ball. Just don’t misrepresent the views of posters here because you want a springboard towards complaining. If you can find where Shayna was complaining about pledged delegates, share away. If not, don’t imply that she only started supporting the idea of pledged delegates in the last 72 hours just because it makes it easier for you to gripe.
Why does Bildo keep wanting to fork Hillary?
These statements seem contradictory. Rather than inadvertently ascribe a position to you, and since it’s entirely possible I’ve missed a post or two in such a long thread, I’ll ask for clarification.
Any superdelegate who takes a position right now, does so in the absence of a clear winner, one who has the popular vote, and an insurmountable lead in delegates, etc. Why is that good? Why do you applaud it? I won’t assume a motive, just asking for one.
If superdelegates, whom the Democratic party has not hamstrung in any way as to how they vote, voted for a candidate with more of the popular vote, but less delegates, would that trouble you?
This makes sense (along with the rest of your explanation).
Nope. They can flip whenever they want up to the time they actually have to make it official at the convention. Tom Daschle IIRC his name correctlt was on The Daily Show this week and said that although he supported Obama he would without question flip to HC if it turned out that she was what the people clearly had chosen. He had no problem saying this and implied that it was the way that the majority of superdelegates thought. He said the rules where the rules and he could do as he pleased with regards to voting but he has chosen to go with the public vote but still publicly support his preferred candidate.
I get that. I’m asking Shayna why she applauds a superdelegate’s “commitment” now, when it is possible that this position will ultimately be counter to the people’s will (however we define it), when she would condemn such a declaration if it occurred at the convention. Or maybe I misunderstand her completely.
Actually, without Michigan, she doesn’t. Do you really want to count a 30K “edge”, when 320K+ of her total was gained in an “election” where hers was the only name on the ballot?
I think the fact that the superdelegates exist at all is a crock of bullshit that flies in the face of democracy and everything the Democratic party is supposed to stand for. The nimrod who came up with this ridiculous scheme in the '80s ought to be strung up by his thumbs. If the Democratic party didn’t want to rely on the will of the people to elect their own representative, and wanted to retain the power for themselves to pick the party’s nominee, then they should’ve just done away with the farce that is this expensive and potentially hurtful primary system, picked our candidate and been done with it.
But time machines don’t exist, so we’re stuck with what we’ve got. In which case the best we can do is try to take advantage of it in such a way that it will actually work to the benefit of the party in the long run. The superdelegates who are coming out now are doing so in an effort to be part of the system. To step up and campaign for their preferred candidate; give them access to their mailing lists, fundraise for them, and anything else they can do to help actually convince voters during the primary process to vote for their candidate. I happen to think this is a very good thing, as it gets more people interested and involved and can only be a benefit to the process as a whole.
BUT. . . at the end of the day, when it comes time for the convention, although they are certainly free to overturn the final voter tallies to tip the scale however they choose, I don’t for a moment believe that they will. I think they know what an utter disaster that would be, and the damage the party would sustain by such an action would take decades to repair. It will simply never happen.
I hope that cleared up any questions or concerns you may have had with regard to my stance.
ETA: on preview, just so tom knows, HI HONEY! And good answer! 
Her.
Daniel
Even with Michigan, Hillary doesn’t have the edge in popular vote. Note that the totals at RealClear Politics do not include Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine, which have not released their vote totals. Obama won three of those four, two by very healthy margins, enough to give him the lead in popular vote even if you count Michigan.
Also, the primary results for Texas are used, which Clinton narrowly won, and not the caucus results, which count for one-third, which Obama won.
Well, looks like politico.com was right after all.