Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Please consider this...super delegates.
Hillary has made the decision to take the nomination out of the hands of voters and put them into the hands of super-delegates. We know this because she continues to campaign despite Obama haing an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.
As a Pennsylvanian I had hope our primary might mean something this year, but it clearly does not. The few supers that might use a big Clinton win here as an excuse to endore her mean very little in the big picture.
There is no need to wait on a FL and MI decision. You can take whatever scenario you think most likely and it will still come down to the 340 undeclared supers listed here:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html
Can we assume they are willing to overturn the winner in pledged delegates or are they just bad at math? (The only ones excused from this question are those whose states have not held their primaries and whose decision will be based on it's results.)
Have they decided to not decide until the convention?
Does the popular vote matter and if so, how do they feel about and factor in caucuses?
<b>Where is the reporting on this?</b>
Hillary had a 90+ super-delegate lead at beginning of February. It's now in the 30s. This is well known. Some of the press releases probably give the reasons for their endorsement. But, I would like to see more analysis on this. These people are going to determine the nominee for the Democratic National Party.
Maybe the networks would give them the attention they deserve if we scheduled a Super-Delegate Primary following the debates.
Comments (9)
Hillary has made the decision to take the nomination out of the hands of voters and put them into the hands of super-delegates. We know this because she continues to campaign despite Obama haing an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates.
Uh, no, the DNC decided that when they established superdelegates in 1976. (78?)
Obama's "lead" isn't insurmountable as long as there are enough delegates at play to make up the difference between candidates.
According to your logic, whoever has a simple majority at some random point in time should get the nomination.
No one has "won" until their name is announced at the convention. The process allows for full and proper vetting of candidates, and the superdelegates are there to keep the majority of caucus/primary voters from nominating someone who won't win the general election.
March 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your Pennsylvania vote will only mean something if Hillary concedes before?
March 17, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what you are looking for with that comment. Are you implying that Hillary can still make up the pledged delegate count?
March 17, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
imustbedreaming - I am quite aware that the DNC established super-delegates some time ago.
Obviously, they are part of the process. My point was that the only way Hillary wins is if they overturn the lead Obama has in pledged delegates (awarded by caucus and primary voters). So, yes it is Clinton's decision to allow this to happen.
It is perfectly reasonable to argue the merits of this. Are you arguing that you do not want more transparency and analysis into who and how this nomination will be decided?
The need to operate behind closed doors and in secrecy is one of my concerns with Hillary. I saw it as one of the mistakes with HillaryCare and I've had quite enough of it after 8 years of Bush/Cheney.
March 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Baggins, You seem to be inadvertantly supporting the notion that Senators Kennedy and Kerry should follow the will of the good people of Massatoosits and thus redirect their support.
March 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily. I do think super-delegates have too much power in the process, but I also see the value that they add. I feel the same about caucuses. It needs to be reviewed so changes can be recommended for future.
But, they are part of this nomination and my feeling is that super-delegates should feel free to endorse whichever candidate they think is best. I even think it is wise to do so early in an attempt to influence voters. But, I want them to come under more scrutiny as to the reason for their vote. This becomes even more important once it is clear that one of the candidates will win the majority of pledged delegates. As party leaders I expect them to take the general election and voter disenfranchisement into consideration. If they have strong arguments for overturning the pledged delegate counts than it should satisfy the electorate, but I haven't seen anything remotely convincing at this point.
I'd like to see this thing end before it gets uglier. I'd like to know how the unpledged supers stand, wouldn't you?
March 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that Massatwoshits(fixed your spelling) has open primaries, the will of the Democratic voters there is not as clear as in states with closed primaries.
I've voted in Republican primaries more than once, for strategic reasons, intending to benefit Democratic candidates in general elections.
The Republicans in MA have no illusions that the Commonwealth will go R in this year's elections, and they've already indicated their support for Mitt Romney in the past.
Why wouldn't some of them have opted to vote in the Democratic primary for the same reasons?
March 17, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You caught me. You would think that someone who attended the Harvard Law school would be able to pronounce the state's name.
March 17, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is perfectly reasonable to argue the merits of this. Are you arguing that you do not want more transparency and analysis into who and how this nomination will be decided?
Not at all. But every single superdelegate has the option to change their mind, regardless of who they've endorsed. We've seen that already, and with the Wright incident and the Ferraro incident, the supers are watching with piercing eyes right now. Every single super is still up for grabs, no matter what they say publicly. So the nomination is still in debate, regardless of either campaign's spin on who's got who pledged for whom.
Frankly I say let it play out until the convention.
March 18, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment