Skip to comments.The Tyranny of Super-Delegates (will Super Delegates save Hillary?)
Posted on 01/05/2008 11:24:42 AM PST by doug from upland
The Tyranny of Super-Delegates
Barack Obama's stirring victory in Iowa was also a good night for our democracy. The turnout broke records and young people who were mobilized and organized participated in unprecedented numbers. And now that Iowans have spoken the first citizens in the nation to do so here's the Democratic delegate count for the top three candidates (2,025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination):
"Huh?" you say. "vanden Heuvel, you made a MAJOR typo."
In fact, those numbers are correct: the third-place finishing Sen. Hillary Clinton now has over twice as many delegates as Sen. Obama, and more than three times as many delegates as the second-place candidate, Sen. John Edwards. Why? Because the Democratic Party uses an antiquated and anti-democratic nominating system that includes 842 "super-delegates" un-pledged party leaders not chosen by the voters, free to support the candidate of their choice, and who comprise more than forty percent of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Many have already announced the candidate they will support.
In a clear attempt to protect the party establishment, this undemocratic infrastructure was created following George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972. It was designed to prevent a nominee who was "out of sync with the rest of the party," Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer told MSNBC. Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck called it a "sort of safety valve."
In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so. Twenty years later, when the word "change" is being bandied about, isn't it time for the Democratic Party to give real meaning to the word? Strengthen our democracy by reforming the super-delegate system so that the people, not the party establishment, choose their candidate.
Imagine the shit that will hit the fan if the Super Delegates carry Hillary to a narrow win.
Wow! I didn’t know this! In the coming months we could witnes a meltdown and civil war within the Democrat Party!
I’ll have my camera ready!
LotsTons of Obama supporters will sit out the election rather than voting for The Evil One.
They will not go into civil war. If anything, they will breathlessly admire Hillary’s Stalinist coup.
I had totally forgotten about this
( For us, this is great fun. Oh the weeping and gnashing of teeth, the bitterness, the anger)
I can't wait 'til the convention.
Doug, have you figured out how the Democrats will be able to blame President Bush for this one?
Doug, please excuse my ignorance but:
What the heck is a “super” delegate and what is their purpose?
Does the GOP have “super” delegates too?
Far be it from the Dems & Hillary to support this type of selection which subverts the popular vote and the will of the people! Aren’t these the same ass-clowns who cried for the abolition of the Electoral College after the election of 2000?
As bad as another Clinton in office would be, the Democrats that are left [pun intended] are much worse, now that Biden and Dodd are no longer running.
interesting. Wonder what Obama’s supporters think of this?
Some of these people are just newly engaging in politics and the Hilda beast stifles them.
How on earth do people NOT know this??
Its been common knowledge for 35 years.
In 1988, Reverend Jesse Jackson challenged the notion that these appointed delegates be permitted to vote for the candidate of their choosing rather than the winner of the state's caucus or primary. He was right to do so.
He may have been "right" in some sense, but not in the sense of that old document "The Constitution."
The way in which individual States choose their electors is up to them, and political parties fall outside of the Constitution altogether.
Nothing whatsoever will come of any outcome except that the democrat party will select a candidate. - And the people of America have no legal standing in how they do that.
Then again, they don't have to vote for hillary. - but they will
I mentioned this in a couple of threads already. Dick Morris talked about it months ago. Unless Obama is able to consistently beat her by large enough margins that people get really pissed if he isn’t nominated, she will get the nomination. And since I’d like to see Thompson/Watts, I don’t want Obama nominated. You know if we put a black guy on the ticket against Obama that’s all we’ll hear “it’s only cuz he’s black” not on his merits, which would suck.
They are elected Dem officials. They have the right to support the candidate of their choice, no matter what the voters in their state want. Hillary has a majority of them. Republicans don’t have this system.
Here is an article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/
Most people don’t know it.
Thanks Doug, but didn’t you have a link without a photo of “The Corslime”. :0)
The best possible outcome for us at the end of the primary season, on the RAT side:
Obambi ends up with a clear majority of all the primary votes cast and the Beast gets the nomination because of the Super Delegates.
She would head into the general election with a stolen primary election under her belt!
The left would be pissed at her and the right would have yet one more warning that they better not let the Beast be the Prez.
party hats and whistles also.
Hillary will definitely get the nomination, and yes, it may be only because of super-delegates. Imagine that, when the Democrats’ own mantra of “selected, not elected” is turned back on them! Hillary will have lost the popular vote for the nomination, but will be put into the nomination by “The Powers That Be.” How fitting.
Now, consider the GOP side of the equation. The Democrat nominee will be likely known starting next month, even with the super-delegate issue in play. Even if not, we already know that the nominee will be one of two people. But the likely scenario on the Republican side, with the way things are going — the ultra condensed primaries along with the early, overstuffed Super Tuesday, and two candidates whose strategy is to win late (Thompson & Giuliani), two candidates who will be kept alive by early wins (Huckabee & McCain) and two candidates who will have enough money and ego to stay in until the bitter end (Romney & Paul), we have the very real, very likely possibility of a brokered convention. It is unlikely any candidate will run away with the nomination, and the delegates will split fairly evenly across anywhere from 3 to 5 candidates. This leaves the final victor completely up in the air until the GOP Convention in early September. So the Democrat nominee will be known, and already is narrowed down to one of two people right now, but the GOP nominee will be a total mystery until just two months before the election. This means the Republicans will have all summer and into the fall to define the Democrat nominee negatively, but the Democrats won’t have a clear target to shoot for until the very end.
And who will come out ahead in the end at a brokered convention? No one can know for sure. It could be Newt Gingrich for all we know. However, my guess is it will be Fred Thompson. The reason is simple: Fred may not be many people’s first choice. e may not even be anybody’s first choice. But he is everybody’s second choice. Fred is the only candidate in the Republican field who is acceptable to everyone. And that is what a brokered convention produces. Go down the entire presidential list, and every candidate has their own faction, and a lot of opposition from every one else. Until you get to Fred. There is no strong opposition from constituency to him. And so after an inability for anyone to get their first choice passed, and needing to choose someone, the delegates will unite around the one guy they all can accept: Fred Thompson.
Hillary will have been utterly destroyed by September and Fred will emerge from the convention clean and seeming fresh and new. The Democrats won’t have a chance in November.
Apparently, most people don't know anything except what the media tells them.
I wonder if America is lost ...
Gary Hart probably would have beaten Mondale if not for the superdelegates....no I don’t think anything will come of it...
Now who do you suppose holds the key to their continuing in their positions? THAT's WHY Hillary knows she has the nomination. She holds the purse.
Sounds like it should be illegal to me.
I am shocked.
Hillary was the FIRST clown to call for ablishing the Electoral College. Our forefathers did it for one reason...to stop “block” voting...the very tactic that Hillary has built up...
That may be true of the party faithful, but as for the “new voters expecting change”, they may ask Obama to go indie and run a third party campaign.
Not illegal. The party makes up its own rules.
At the “stirring victory” link it said Hillary spent $17 million in Iowa—to come in third. I thought she had about $100 million, and she blew almost one-fifth of it on a big, fat, humiliating loss. At her burn rate, there’s not going to be much left to bribe her superdelegates to stay onboard.
I must admit I’m enjoying this, hoping the era of Clinton is over.
The GOP does not have a super delegate system.
It’s real dirty and very reflective of that party as I see it.
I would think the Democrat part voters would scream if they all understood that is how it is.
Why bother having the people vote if they are going to do that?
A Hillary! nomination "selected, not elected?"
If Obama sweeps through primaries, but Hillary takes it at the convention with Super Delegates, black voters will be angry as hell. May there be civil war in their party that tears them apart.
Only an admirer of Clinton would ever make such a statement as you have.
And don’t you think that a brokered convention will be immensely more information heavy than the scripted ones we have seen for the last few elections? The Republicans spend 2-3 days talking about their ideas with more people watching because its a contest. The last Republican convention was a big bounce for Bush, a brokered convention could be Awesome.
Whatever it takes for a tyrant, eh?
Hey Doug, I know she’s got a lot on them, but do you find it interesting she was beaten in Iowa by two guys whose FBI files were never touched by Craig Livingstone?
I am betting that even if she comes in third in all of the primaries, she will be the nominee using these super delegates.
As to appearances....she could give a whoop; she wants the nomination.
We are going to see some stunning criminality in this election round, that is for sure.
It would be sweet to see Soros and his type overtly overthrow the Democratic Party. It’s been building for a long time.
Don't leave out plain, blatant THREATENING.
MORE ON SUPERDELEGATES - http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
Look for info to be leaked when it is necessary.
The GOP does not have a super delegate system.I am aware, and if you re-read the scenario I laid out again, you will see that it does not include one for the GOP. My scenario envisions the likely event of Republicans come out of the Primaries with all candidates remaining in the race until at least Super-Tuesday, and no candidate reaching 50% of the total delegates. What happens next is at the convention, every delegate must cast a ballot for the candidate they are pledged to. But after that, they are free agents. In a sense, all delegates become "Super Delegates" It becomes something like the Democrat's Iowa Caucus, where everyone starts trading horses. This process heavily favors 2nd choices, which means it would heavily favor Fred Thompson, and disfavor Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee in particular.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t know. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.