Superdelegates.....

[FlyingSquirrel]

The purpose of superdelegates is to be able to save the party in June, July or August from some kind of unforseen revelation about one of our candidates, which, if it had happened earlier in the process, would likely have changed the outcome of primaries and caucuses that occurred earlier.

It's to give us a chance to avoid nominating a damaged candidate who would almost certainly lose in the GE.

It's a good idea. I like it. I support it.

I don't think either Clinton or Obama has crossed the threshold and become "damaged goods", any more than the "Swift Boat" attacks on Kerry, had they occurred earlier, would have made him "damaged goods" worthy of the superdelegates overturning the popular vote (if they could have).

I think it takes a lot more - something the candidate personally did or said (not someone else) and deeply disturbing to the average person (not just the average person of the opposition party).

Just wonderin' who agrees with me.

[Colobo]

1. Bad idea.

[FlyingSquirrel]

3. Ok. Let's say for the sake of argument that tomorrow we discover

that Obama's a serial rapist or something equally despised by the average person. The proof is not completely irrefutable, but it's very convincing. You personally are convinced by the evidence. He's out on bail and still has the chance to beat back the charges. Even so, he's now damaged to the point where he'll likely be tarnished for life.

Still wouldn't want the Supers to be there, having the opportunity to choose Hillary as our candidate?

You gotta step back and take off your Obama blinders for this poll. I wonder how many will be able to do so. The correct option in my opinion is clearly #2.

[Mz Pip]

6. Let's for the sake of argument

come up with any number of highly unlikely senarios. Hypotheticals are of little use here.

[FlyingSquirrel]

9. Hypotheticals are the reason they created Superdelegates

so far as I can tell.

Would it be possible, without superdelegates, for the pledged delegates to change their votes based on future developments? What if they did, wouldn't many of the people who had voted in the primaries and caucuses be surprised and upset to see their votes overturned? Or wouldn't they at the very least think, "Well, it's good that they overturned our votes, now that we know Candidate #1 is a rapist, but if they could do that why did we bother voting in the first place?"

Isn't it better to let people know right up front that there are some delegates who are there ready to step in and change things if need be? That the people's votes will still be counted, but if something happens that they couldn't have foreseen, and the vote totals are close enough, we have a safety measure in place?

[Mz Pip]

11. In concept, in the case of some extreme

hypothetical I suspect that the party, the courts and MSM would take care of said candidate.

Thing is, we are nowhere near anything like that and we have people who want the superdelegates to step in and overturn the pledged delegates and popular vote because they like their candidate better. I don't think that is what this should be about.

[mythyc]

14. i had that same exact thought when i thought about this question

adding to the first point that a strong enough statement of the will of the people would ideally make a shamed or fallen candidate bow out for the greater good.

[stillcool]

10. I like how you associate...

Obama with a serial rapist. Was that a Freudian slip, or was that intentional? If any candidate (except Hillary) broke the law, they would be in jail.

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. Oh brother.

If Hillary'd been ahead I would have said, "What if it's discovered she had 3 husbands and killed them all" maybe. You're missing the point on purpose. I support Obama and don't think the Supers have any cause to overturn the popular vote at this time. I just think that people who want to do away with them altogether are not seeing the value of having them around.

[jlake]

2. They are a very good idea.

Neither one of our candidates is currently damaged enough to have their win overturned.

[Mz Pip]

4. Bad idea

The voice of the people should be heard. SOmetimes they don't always pick a winner and I doubt superdelegates have some psychic ability to forsee the future.

Superdelegates may be more political than the average voter but that doesn't necessarily make them right.

[FlyingSquirrel]

5. I'm not talking about the future though..

The supers don't need to be able to see the future. If something were revealed about the leading candidate that clearly made them damaged goods in November and clearly would have changed the popular vote and delegate totals had it come out earlier, I think it's nice to know we have a system in place to deal with that possible situation.

I don't think we're anywhere near being in that situation now.

[Mz Pip]

7. 1968

the powers that were in the Democratic Party annointed Hubert Humphrey to be the candidate although he hadn't won a primary. He lost anyway.

In 1972 George McGovern won and the Democratic establishment turned their backs on him and without any support from the powers that were, he lost.

No guarrantees that party operatives are any better at choosing a candidate than the people.

[PseudoIntellect]

8. I support Obama and I chose #2

because of the possibility of a "serial rapist" case or something of that sort.

[donheld]

13. I cannot fathom a situation where the Super delegates could be used without

major damage done to the confidence of the voters.

[quakerboy]

15. As some partys have previously noted

Even the Pledged delegates are not set in stone. Some of Edwards and Clintons delegates just jumped boat to Obama this last week. There are months to go before many of these things are finalized to the bulk of the national delegates specific identities. And even once those are chosen, they are able to vote their conscience. Only tradition holds them in place, as I understand it.