Bullet1987
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:31 AM
Original message |
The Superdelegate System Needs to be Trashed |
|
I'm going to be pessimistic and say Obama won't get his storybook ending to the campaign unless the flood happens tomarrow. Here it is almost 11:30 on the east coast and only 2 SDs have endorsed Obama. I've come to the conclusion that the system that enables Superdelegates needs to be scrapped or their numbers severely decreased...because this is a waste of time and their timidness and unwillingness to endorse is dragging this on longer than it should.
The Democratic Party never envisioned a scenario like the one that has played out this year, and their flawed nomination system has been exposed. The SDs were never supposed to CHOSE a candidate to put over the top (at least that's not what it should appear like). They were simply there to reaffirm the victor. Now that the SDs have to actually make a powerful decision and DO THEIR JOBS...they're acting like scared children. I'm serious, if the Party doesn't do something after this election cycle...then they really are dumb as ****.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |
1. The fact that they can exercise discretion is like letting the House of Lords decide an election -- |
|
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 10:34 AM by MookieWilson
right now, in Maryland - which Obama won by a good margin - Clinton has the majority of the pledged Superdelegates.
In Massachusettes, which Clinton won solidly, Obama has the majority of pledged Superdelegates.
THIS PROCESS MAKES NO SENSE.
And having a primary in Puerto Rico - which does not vote in November - is also stupid.
|
leftofcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:35 AM
Original message |
The system needs an overhaul that is for sure |
SparkyMac
(288 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
11. I would never think of them as Lords..... |
|
The ones they remind me of work in another kind of house :-)
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
19. It takes money to get in both! |
NJmaverick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't know, I think Rush Limbaugh's tampering with the process |
|
is exactly why we need SDs. They have the ability of countering this and future GOP misdeeds.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. R's have crossed over and voted for both candidates. nt |
NJmaverick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Motive has a lot to do with it |
|
Most of the R's that voted for Hillary, will never vote for her in the GE, while many of the Rs that voted Obama may do so again.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. Must be great to be omniscient! nt |
NJmaverick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. Just looking at the polls and listening to interviews |
|
it's really not hard, to see what is going on. That is unless someone doesn't really want to know the reality of the situation.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
17. Er, you realize that they actually ask them that in exit polls. |
|
They often ask voters if they plan on voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate for President in November. Hillary solidly wins voters planning on voting Republican.
|
bobbert
(548 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
24. Exactly, the SDs are here to keep other parties from picking the nominee |
|
Also, they are necessary if there is a close race between 3 candidates and nobody can get the 1/2 + 1 vote. There are a lot of them, but not enough that they will cause a disturbance in a rightly contested primary. Had an 'operation chaos' been conducted where Huckabee ended up with a ton of delegates, we would be very happy to have the Superdelegates help our presumptive nominee get their 1/2 + 1
|
PoliticalAmazon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
27. I disagree. They are here to ensure that the party Elites will be able.... |
|
to override the votes of We the Peeps' voters and istall a candidate that the party Elites want.
This completely eunuchs rank-and-file voters, and holds the party completely unaccountable to its voters.
|
Doityourself
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message |
4. "2 SDs have endorsed Obama" |
|
On Morning Joe earlier, Willie said there have 5 today. Of course, I haven't verified it.
|
suston96
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message |
7. The entire primary system needs to be trashed - or at least revised - big time..... |
|
1/2 a vote? What a disgrace, especially for a so called Democratic Party.
|
mohc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:41 AM
Response to Original message |
8. What I would like to see |
|
Keep the Superdelegates, but change the voting for President and Vice President nominations to initially exclude them. Pledged delegates should be locked into their choices, and if a candidate has a majority of pledged delegates going into the convention, they will be guaranteed a win on the first ballot. If no candidate has a majority of pledged delegates, a second ballot will be held which includes the Superdelegates, with the pledged delegates still locked into position. After the second ballot all the delegates would be up for grabs. This would basically make it so Superdelegates are only needed when there are 3 or more strong candidates. With a more typical two candidate race, one will almost certainly get the majority of pledged delegates and the Superdelegates would not be needed. The same voting system would be used for Vice President as President, which would allow a candidate with a pledged delegate majority to hand select their VP.
|
RiverStone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message |
10. Agreed - crazy to give a handful of folks the power to keep everybody... |
|
...else waiting. Eliminate 3/4 of them at the least.
There is NO excuse for their reluctance to get of their ass and endorse.
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
30. In MD and MA the pledged delegates are going against voters. nt |
MaineDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message |
12. I don't think it should be totally trashed |
|
I would eliminate the elected officials as SDs. I think the state members of the DNC deserve to be delegates because it's basically their event. They should be unpledged. They have the Party's interest at heart much more so than the Governors, Senators, and members of Congress who may have to face re-election and have their vote be more political than strategic.
|
rug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:56 AM
Response to Original message |
13. Superdelegates should have no role. |
|
In this year's case, neither one has won the election on delegates alone. So, the superdelegates decide the winner. And there is no standard by which they must decide and no check on their decision.
Either go back to the smoke-filled rooms and let them decide up front or eliminate them and let the voters decide. Obviously the latter is preferred.
|
Kokonoe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message |
14. The system gives every candidate all the leeway that is needed. |
|
Its up to our nominee how to use it.
|
Beregond2
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:58 AM
Response to Original message |
|
If they aren't going to do their job, why have them? They could have put an end to this mess in February, and should have, but they are too nutless to do anything until it is too late to matter, so who needs them?
|
harun
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:59 AM
Response to Original message |
16. I agree with Pelosi's position on this, cut the # of Super's at least by half |
|
That would be the smallest amount to cut.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 10:59 AM
Response to Original message |
18. Cut supers entirely. Make it entirely pledged delegates. |
anonymous171
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:22 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Correct. It prolongs the primary because people can still win by tearing down their opponents. |
Politics_Guy25
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
23. Yeah-you're not the only one frusturated Bullet1987-I'm with you-n.t |
|
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 12:28 PM by RMP2008
|
julialnyc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Obama has 3 SD's so far and Hillary has 1 |
|
Edited on Mon Jun-02-08 12:27 PM by julialnyc
|
Imagevision
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:26 PM
Response to Original message |
22. Yes well, but dealing with the here and now, after Obama is elected we can make some serious changes |
SoCalDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:33 PM
Response to Original message |
25. They want a STATE to put him over the top.. |
|
Even though their votes are counted separately, they want SD or MT to actually have their delegates be the ones who allow him to reach the new total..That takes some heat away from them.. Obama's team wants to make it less painful to HRC's campaign. There are probably MANY SDs who are ready and have been ready for a while, but I think the Obama campaign has reined them in, so that the states' delegates got the press. We have all known for a while, that SDs would be the "deciders", but having them dribble in, makes it more palatable.
|
PoliticalAmazon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:42 PM
Response to Original message |
26. ITA!! WITH AN EXPONENT! SD system is just insurance that the.... |
|
party Elites will always decide who is the party's candidate. This completely takes the power out of We the Peeps' voters.
|
Prophet 451
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message |
28. Scrap at least half of them |
|
I can see an arguement for retaining supers if their numbers were confined to the elected Democrats in Congress (who have their own careers to prevent them acting crazy) and perhaps a couple of Democratic luminaries (say, surviving former Dem presidents) but the unelected ones, like most of the party insiders, need to go.
|
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jun-02-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Oddly enough, I think MI and FL may just be the best case to keep Superdelegates. n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:31 PM
Response to Original message |