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):
Clinton – 169
Obama – 66
Edwards – 47
"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.
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.
clintons CHEAT
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. :)
So the fix is in. I am not suprised. If Hillary ‘wins’ this way, however, Obama supporters will stay home in droves. This may have an effect on down ballot races, ya think?
If Obama is ahead in the regular delegate count after Feb. 5, Super Tueday, he should call for Super Delegates to be released and to pledge to vote for what was chosen by the people in their state.
but will they return to the party of Lincoln?
In your scenario, I see Fred Thompson picking Mitt Romney as Vice President (just as George H.W. Bush was to Ronald Reagan) which will give Romney 4-8 years to prove his conservative bona fides to the GOP, and help fund the general election campaign.The only problem with that is by being chosen for VP in the Reagan administration, GHWB was falsely blanketed with the appearance of conservatism, which he only later disproved as President. I'm not saying that Romney would do the same, but perhaps he would make a better Secretary of Commerce.
They should either stay home or support a third party.
Wait till the Barry Obama supporters get wind of this one.
I mean, what’s the point? It looks like its in the bag for the Hildabeast.
I don't think so. The DemocRATic Party is a conglomeration of many special interest groups, each of them acting like two year olds. The losers will throw temper tantrums just like two year olds. I expect there to be lots of infighting. It'll be like 2000 all over again. Hussein gets the popular vote while Hitlery gets the nomination. If that happens, make some popcorn and watch the fireworks!
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.