A WARNING to the Democratic Party about letting "Super Delegates" Decide the Nomination

[Krashkopf]

My "Big D" Democratic Roots only go back to 2004 (when it became necessary for G.D.I.s - God Damned Independents - like me, to "choose sides" in the battle of "Good v. Evil"). But my "little d" democratic roots were developed over a life-time (I am 49).

NOTHING will turn me OFF to the Democratic Party FASTER than allowing a small, elite, group of so-called "Super Delegates" to over-ride the will of WE, THE PEOPLE.

[displacedtexan]

1. Were you a member of the Independent Party?

Or just a non-party voter?

[Krashkopf]

4. Belonging to the Independent Party is an oxymoron . . .

don't you think?

I was "U" - unaffiliated until 2004.

[displacedtexan]

5. Just curious.

I haven't heard anything this year from the actual Independent Party members.

I was just wondering if they've got a candidate running for prez yet.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Go ahead; we'll win without your meaningless vote in red Colorado. n/t

[still_one]

6. Well I have been a Democrat for over 30 years, and I agree with the OP

I am in California, and my meaningless vote won't matter either, because if you haven't noticed it was THOSE meaningless red states that determined the election in 2000 and 2004

I love the attitude of only representing the people that will vote for me, lets see how far that gets us

If Super Delegates determine the nominee over the popular vote, just watch what happens

[LoZoccolo]

7. The only thing I ask is you don't bother the rest of us who are taking care of this country for you.

At least not on Democratic Underground. We have things to do so we'd appreciate if you don't waste our time.

[still_one]

9. YOU only speak for yourself, not anyone else on DU. What is this "WE"

you have a mouse in your pocket?

and being a Democrat or even voting Democratic is NOT YOURS to choose who can or cannot be part of it

"Your taking care of the country for me?" don't make me laugh

The IWR and Patriot Act sure did a good job of that

You don't like my opinion, PUT ME ON IGNORE

[LoZoccolo]

10. The Democratic Party is "we"; if you don't want to be a part of it then you are not "we".

Make up your mind though.

[still_one]

12. I don't have to guess who your candidate is in this race. If you think either

candidate can win the general election without the other's supporters, then continue your style of persuasion

[LoZoccolo]

15. It's Obama, but if that is overturned by the superdelegates I'll be a big boy.

I know, for instance, that throwing a splinterist tantrum will only work to get us President McCain, and still no end to the superdelegate system. If anything, it would move the Democratic Party even further right because that's where they'll think the electorate is if the Republicans win. They do not read my posts on DU to know that my one vote went this way or that because of some specific protest reason, and they don't read yours either.

I'm aware, for example, that there is an effective way to do things and an ineffective way, and that threatening to use the Republicans to wreak havoc on the general population for something that almost none of them can change is not going to win me any friends.

That's me: big boy.

[still_one]

16. I must say that I am surprised because Obama is my candidate also

Would you have a problem if the MI and FL delegates were seated as is, without a redo, and the nominee wins because of that?

That would present much more of a problem to me than the SD, since the DNC told the candidates NOT to run, and those who followed the DNC guidelines would be penalized

My original point though that neither candidate can win without the other candidates supporters I believe is true

I personally don't believe the SD will vote against the popular will of the people, though it would cause an issue for some, but if they seat the MI and FL delegates as is, that WOULD divide the party in my view

Obama's support is much more generalized than Hillarys, and to ignore the fact that non-Democrats who support Obama would be turned away if the nominee was determined by super delegates, would be very significant

[LoZoccolo]

17. I might not like it, but if they were seated as is then what could I do about it?

That whole MI/FL situation is the result of some brinksmanship between different party leaders which is unlikely to happen again, so any protest of mine is likely to be in vain. The only thing that became of that for me is that now I know that Howard Dean might be an effective motivator but a bad strategist, as I don't think he saw that he was outgunned, Florida and Michigan being as important as they are on the general election map.

[still_one]

18. I believe THAT will be a show stopper, so hopefully the nomination won't be won because of that

In my view that would cause many Obama supporters to sit out the presidential election if the nomination was won because of that
much more so then the SD

This is more of an issue than outgunned, this will be perceived as an issue of setting the rules, and ingorning those candidates that followed them

As I said, lets hope the nomination isn't determined by that

[SteelPenguin]

23. I thought turning Colorado blue this year was a possibility?

[LoZoccolo]

26. After I looked at the 2004 results, I realized it might be.

lol

[oasis]

3. My "Big D" Democratic roots go back to the late '60s. I trust the judgement of MY party.

:dem:

[dmallind]

8. There is no way the superdelegates WON'T decide the election

It's completely unrealistic to expect a competitive race between two popular well funded candidates to result in pledged delegate counts for one in excess of 2025.

I'm assuming you mean you'd be pissed if the SD's change the winner in pledged delegates but even that is problematic. What if the winner in pledged delegates is the loser in the popular vote? I've heard people answer "well this race is all about delegates so that deosn't matter" but the point is it IS all about delegates, but INCLUDING superdelegates, so you either think it's OK for delegates to override the popular vote or you don't - I think the position that it's OK for pledged delegates not to reflect popular vbote but NOT OK for superdelegates to not reflect the pledged delegates is rationally untenable. Fans of one voter one vote should go for popular votes, and fans of following the established rules should go for total delegate win.

[Indenturedebtor]

11. Yeah

If the Super Delegates decide this in the face of the pledged delegates I think it will be time to leave the US. I don't care if it's for Obama or for the DLC candidate. I'm freakin out if that happens.

[BigDDem]

21. Where will you be going?

I like Canada

[Cameron27]

13. Why didn't you petition the DNC

about the superdelegate rule prior to this election year? I doubt the party can change the rules this late in the game even if they wanted to.

[Cameron27]

14. dupe

[rug]

19. Duly noted.

:boring:

[niceypoo]

20. People read way too much into hypotheticals

[BigDDem]

22. What do you think of the Electoral College?

[Krashkopf]

25. I hate it. It is anti-democratic . . .

and it should be abolished.

[backscatter712]

24. I'm with you.

And quite frankly, there are millions of people who think like Krashkopf and I do.

If the superdelegates do something as undemocratic as overriding the will of the people as expressed through pledged delegates, I too will leave the party.

I don't care if it's "within the rules" - democratic elections are fucking sacred. Override this one, and you lose the Presidency.

It will create a clusterfuck that will make '68 look like a cakewalk.

If you don't like my decision, suck it. You want my vote, respect small-d democracy. I will not tolerate my voice being overridden in a smoke-filled room.