To anyone hoping for a Super Delegate coup: Do you think it's Democratic?

[RiverStone]

I quote an excerpt from The Nation (1/2008):

...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.

full post here:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=266130

I can't fathom the end game for Hillary Clinton. I'm wondering, in the mad rush to try and salvage a win when Obama already has a lock on the majority of pledged delegates, is anybody in her camp really pondering what a coup by Super Delegates would look like?

Democrats have felt the deep and lasting sting of a stolen election. Imagine the reaction if 1/2 or more of the electorate felt a nomination was stolen from within our own party! It would be unprecedented in scope and would tear the party apart for a generation.

Of course, people can call me out on being biased because I am an Obama supporter; yet I ask, how can anybody justify the very notion of a Super Delegate coup as Democratic at all?

[GarbagemanLB]

1. What exactly is the point of having a primary if the pledged delegate leader isn't the winner?

[rug]

2. Superdelegates' choices are entirely their own. It's not a coup, it's the rules.

[RiverStone]

5. OK, do you see "the rules" as Democratic? n/t

[rug]

6. No. And that includes the same rules that give disproportionate weight to Alaska, Idaho and Wyoming.

[Cleita]

3. I have never felt the way we select Presidents is democratic.

This is no different. If we were truly democratic, we would be selecting our Presidents by popular vote with run-off voting.

[TwilightGardener]

4. The end game for her is very simple: hope he dies, becomes incapacitated, or ruined

by scandal or proves to be too "black" to risk the general election to him. That's it in a nutshell. What a terrible, dark, ghoulish campaign she's waging now.

[Taxmyth]

7. Caucuses are not democratic and excluding MI and FL is not democratic

I don't see your complaints about THEM?

[RiverStone]

8. I'm I'll for a redo in MI/FLA

But counting the votes as is would be total joke - the results were not based on anything real.

And as far as caucuses go, do you think anybody in the Clinton campaign would be complaining about them if she were ahead in delegates?

The party will not let the SuperD's decide this against the will of the pledged D's. It will never happen.

[antigop]

10. Caucuses are not democratic -- and in TX people get to vote TWICE

Once in the primary and then in the precinct convention/caucus.

The Texas two-step needs to go.

<edit to add> And I have NEVER supported Hillary. I am anti-DLC.

[Bake]

14. They love the rules, of course, when they favor their side!

It's when they don't favor their side, they get upset.

Bake

[taught_me_patience]

9. It really depends on the circumstance

If Obama makes a huge gaffe and his poll numbers sink and Hillary puts together a string of blowout victories, then I would support a superdelegate "coup". However, the way things stand with Obama ahead in pledged delegates, national polling, and money raised, then there would be no way that I could support superdelegates overturning the pledged delegate count. If they do, then I guarantee that I will not vote this election. I will never call myself a democrat again. There will be literal race riots in the streets of Denver.

[RiverStone]

12. Some would you say your over reacting....

If they do, then I guarantee that I will not vote this election. I will never call myself a democrat again. There will be literal race riots in the streets of Denver.

Not me.

I think the scenerio you describe would be as bad or worse. We would lose millions of young voters who would walk away from the party in disgust (plenty of old ones to) and we would not only lose the GE, but very possibly our majority on The Hill.

I'd still work for Dems at the local and state level - but nationally - it would be a major clusterfuck that would last for years.

[kenny blankenship]

11. is anybody in her camp really pondering what a coup by Super Delegates would look like

They don't care. That's the one thing that has emerged with shining clarity. The Republicans aren't the only ones who believe implicitly in monarchy.

Now this coup you speak of, it would be The End --full stop-- of the Democratic Party. But as far as many Clinton supporters are concerned the Democratic Party begins and ends with Hillary Clinton. They just want the super delegates to GIFT the nomination outright to Hillary. They started with no excuse at all (give it to her because she's better!) despite the fact that Hillary consistently polls worse than Obama vs. McCain; then they shifted to if-come schemes that assume that Hillary will end up somehow with "more popular votes" forgetting that some states don't even provide figures for that, and also that the rules created for choosing delegates were written by people who understand the concept of popular voting and created a mechanism of proportional representation instead; and very soon they'll be back to "JUST GIVE IT TO HER -- BECAUSE SHE'S HILLARY !!!"

The SDs will not want to destroy their own futures though, and the coup plot will go nowhere.

Do they think that a coup is Democratic? I could ask whether you mean small-d democratic or capital-D Democratic, but either way principles behind those terms would have to be spelled out.

And it's become obvious that, for them, the only principle of the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton herself as Monarch. Everything else is an insincere rationale acting as a figleaf for a Royalist impulse.

[RiverStone]

13. Sadly, I agree...

It is really amazing that you/I/we speak of fellow party folk - the same folk that hate Shrub & Co. with the same passion as I - it is sad that the divide among our own folks has grown so vast.

This type of arrogant power grabbing was formally reserved for corporate pigs and the puke who feed them. Now we speak of Hillary as the self-anointed one who's ONLY end game is to win; people be damned.

I never thought it could get this bad among friends.

The good news, if she makes a graceful exit the week after May 6th, many would forgive and move on. I believe we could heal and be ready to fight the pukes this fall. In fact, I think we will win handily!

But if Hillary wants to take it kicking and fighting to the convention floor, all bets are off. My optimism would be severely challenged if that happened.

[Taxmyth]

15. The longer the race continues

The tougher Senator Obama will be to beat in the GE. Or he gets knocked out completely. I seriously doubt it would get to a floor fight.