Who Are The Superdelegates? »
Posted by: JamesMarcus 3 months, 3 weeks agoBarring a huge late turnaround, the deciding votes for the Democratic nomination will come from the approximately 800 "superdelegates," automatically seated and free to vote as they please. Who are these powerful insiders? Why are they there? The story goes back 40 years, to the bloody debacle of the 1968 convention and subsequent loss to Richard Nixon.
Read Full Story at truthdig.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 99
-
0%
MilesAway3 months, 3 weeks ago
"Super delegate" will be choosing Democratic nominee, but Supreme Court will, as usual, chooses Republican president... LOL.
Reply-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS3 months, 3 weeks ago
Right one one but I'm not sure of the other. Of course that has happened a couple of times. Screwed up any way one looks at it. The people no longer have a say in which candidate will be, or get the nomination and little to none on who gets elected.
Reply -
0%
Locky123 months, 3 weeks ago
"As usual"? Get over it, already. Bush would have won Florida anyway.
What a party. Obama could have won every state by a landslide and the "Super delegates" could still decide to give John Kerry another go at it.
Oh yeah, Michigan and Florida, just shut up. You don't get a voice.
Nice party.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 3 weeks ago
LOCKY:
"Obama could have won every state by a landslide and the "Super delegates" could still decide to give John Kerry another go at it."
Firstly, a Democratic candidate needs 2025 delegate votes to win the Democratic Party nomination. The number of superdelegates in play is FAR short of that mark.
Secondly, while the idea of superdelegates may seem unsavory at first, it does have its usefulness. Superdelegates can ensure that the candidate supported by most registered Democrats gets the nomination, despite the influence of Republicans and Independents in Open Primaries. This blunting sabotaging efforts, like Limbaugh's so-called "Operation Chaos."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 3 weeks ago
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05...
"There were anecdotal reports of big turnout in Republican precincts in Indiana – with, presumably, Republican voters asking for Democratic presidential ballots. 11% of the voters in Indiana tonight were Republican-- and they went for Clinton over Obama 52% to 46%."
Of course, it would also be possible to close all primary elections, but I think disenfranchising Independents would be a graver injustice.
Thirdly, the nomination process represents INTRAPARTY BUSINESS. As you're obviously not a member of the party, your opinion doesn't matter anyway. Democrats are free to choose their nominee any way they see fit.
Fourthly, after the neocons' collective disgust at McCain's nomination (Independents and Crossover voters flocking to McCain), it sounds like you would have liked similar rules to prevent McCain from winning the nomination.
LOL.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 3 weeks ago
And fifthly, your partisan hypocrisy prevents you for acknowledging the fact that Republicans have superdelegates too. They just call them by a different name, "automatic delegates."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/storie...
"Reed had collected sufficient position to appeal the decision of the convention's rules committee to give all 165 members of the Republican National Committee automatic delegate slots at the 2004 convention. To Reed, that will begin a slippery slope toward the Democratic Party's installations of more than 500 super-delegates."
In BOTH the Democratic Party and Republican Party, the number of Superdelegate votes or Automatic Delegate votes is INSUFFICIENT to win the party's nomination. However, it does give party leaders leverage to counter efforts by the opposing party to sabotage or influence the primary elections.
Reply -
0%
slate3 months, 3 weeks ago
Who said the Rs haven't acknowledged anything Dawgs?
You see we haven't had the problem of the infighting that your party has once things get moving along,,,, this is a problem you are having to face at this time in history,,,, you saying but but you have them too shows weakness, butch up and deal with your problem at hand or you may end up really being up set with the outcome next fall,,,, the only people you can blame is your own party, for being such knuckle heads and getting into this mess in the first place,,,, all I have to do is sit back and watch,,,,, a few months ago I was resigned to the fact that all was lost, but people in your party have given me a glimmer of hope now, because the smugness in your own party has bitten ya in da behind,,,,
Reply
-
-
0%
Blackacereturn3 months, 3 weeks ago
I will say this first. The GOPers has one up on us. I think they will win and here is why. McCain will pick Colin Powell as his VP. I saw where he said bush should sign the home owners relief bill. He hasn't said anything for the last year and now this. What they will do is have him hammer bush on everything for the next few months then McCain will announce him as the VE. In one instance the off set the black thing and add a man the entire nation loves and respect. Given the fact that Most DEM's have a soft spot for McCain and like Colin, that would be a tough ticket to beat. We never saw this coming. But Obama could cross party lines and pick a Conservative opponent. It's an idea what do you think?
Reply-
0%
Tangent0013 months, 3 weeks ago
I think you're a bit behind the times. Dems used to have a soft spot for McCain, back in his 'Maverick' days. Lately McCain has flipped his positions to be much more in line with the Bush administration.
You could argue that Powell is attractive, but less so after he grabbed his ankles to deliver the cooked and blurry intel to the UN leading up to the war. Since that time, Powell has barely been a blip on the radar, which is probably to his advantage.
Reply -
0%
libsRfunny3 months, 3 weeks ago
"It's an idea what do you think?"
I think you get the first positive vote I ever gave one of your comments. I don't think either scenario will happen though, but I agree Obama will not win. He's too out of touch with Middle America, and you can't win without Middle America. That's the point Hillary has been harping for a while, but Middle America doesn't much care for her, either.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Tangent0013 months, 3 weeks ago
I doubt it. Though, to a certain degree they can use their judgement regarding 'electability', Superdelegates cannot decide on whim. If the popular vote favors Obama, the Superdelegates would be hard pressed to justify swinging the primary in Clinton's favor (which is why Clinton now wants FL and MI to be counted).
Unless, of course, Obama is discovered in a hotel room buggering Cheney.
Reply
-
-
0%
lum-chate3 months, 3 weeks ago
Sen. Barack Obama plans to claim the Democratic presidential nomination on the evening of May. 20.
Latest W. Va poll May 8 Clinton 63 Obama 23, Clinton up from 56-27 twi days ago. So Clinton up 40 pts. in West Va. and up 34 pts in Kentucky & on the day of the Kentucky primary where he'll lose by astonishing numbers for the 2nd straight week Obama is going to announce victory.
If he does that he'll look as foolish as George Bush did on the Air Craft Carrier announcing victory in Iraq almost 5 years ago. Good fodder for McCain & the 527's.
That's why the superdelegates are there, to prevent an unelectable candidate who for some unknown reason won a few early primaries from embarrassing the party by lopsided loses like those of McGovern, Dukakis & Mondale!
Reply-
-
0%
Tangent0013 months, 3 weeks ago
Actually, the media can do whatever the hell it pleases. Serious journalism is gone, gone, gone.
Yeah, many talking heads are saying the Fat Lady has sung. If you look at the delegate math, that's not too far off the mark. Hillary's only hope is wring as many votes out of the FL and MI compromises and continue to suggest that Obama is unelectable, but again, all that really does is make uniting behind the eventual nominee more difficult AND give ammunition to the Reps in the Fall.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
canadianrancher573 months, 3 weeks ago
Thanks for this artical, I have been a little confused about the super delegate issue and I feel this explained it quite well, but it also covered most of the things I feel makes the average voter a little hostile about the process.
When I look at your country I can see it heading in a general direction and this is just my opinion but it is not in the direction of interest of the average American, when I factor in the super delegates that the Democrats use when selecting a presidential candidate it seems to confirm my fellings that the direction the country will go is not in the hands of the average American.
The average American that I am refering to is a person who still believes in the United States of America and works hard to provide for their families, believes in law and order, believes that their government will be accountable to them and above all will treat all equally whether rich or poor. Equally is what I feel the Average American is losing to all governments.
Reply -
0%
mackiemesser3 months, 3 weeks ago
Suppose we go in a different direction, get rid of super delegates and get rid of individual state primary elections and instead go with a national primary election with the candidate with the majority popular vote representing the party? If no candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, have a runoff with the two highest vote getters. This would simpilify the process, do away with the absurd media attention in New Hampshire and Iowa and would more closely reflect the will of the people. It would do away with the long drawn-out nominating process and even do away with the party conventions. Won't happen, but I just think it's a better way.
Reply-
0%
nostalgia3 months, 3 weeks ago
The party elites will never allow the great unwashed masses to make the decision alone.
The elites will always want a chance to correct any "mistake" made by the people
Reply -
0%
quackpot3 months, 3 weeks ago
Get rid of the two party system for that matter. The run-off (November election) might be a republican - republican or democrat-democrat or other combination of candidates
Reply -
0%
Klarissa3 months, 3 weeks ago
suppose we don't - it isn't perfect, but it works, and has worked for a longer time than any other system of government.
Sometimes "better" is not safer in preserving the best that we have.
It could be faster, cheaper, shorter - but I have yet to hear of another country that has one that works as well in the long run. (notice, I didn't say short run )
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
djrevelky3 months, 3 weeks ago
*fast disclaimer guy voice*
"Of the people, by the people, for the people" claim is void where prohibited, and closed to Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan. The Democratic Party superdelgates will decide the voice of the people and provide "a mandate" for the country regardless of how "the people" vote.
Reply
-
-
0%
simonsez3 months, 3 weeks ago
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
We don't create tax policy ... they do
We don't run deficits ... they do
we don't take money from lobbyists ... they do
We don't go to war ... they do
Then they give themselves a nice reward ... we don't get one.
Reply -
0%
nostalgia3 months, 3 weeks ago
It is amazing that there is such an emphasis on the Super delegates
Many of them are elected politicians. They won't risk the wrath of their constituents
As I have posted before, the Democrats should be more worried about the "pledged" delegates
According to a news article Clinton's presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.
Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.
Reply-
0%
nostalgia3 months, 3 weeks ago
"Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot," a recent DNC memo states. "A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required."
But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a "myth."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583....
Reply
-
-
-
0%
slate3 months, 3 weeks ago
It could happen,,,, I hope not for the sake of the country, but egos do tend to muck things up if you study your history.
Reply -
0%
doppich3 months, 3 weeks ago
The superdelegates were "created" to prevent a repeat of 1972. I suspect that after the GE, we'll find that they failed.
BTW...I wonder, at the convention, will superdelegates John Kerry and Ted Kennedy vote for the popular vote winner in their state?
Reply
-
-
0%
RickyDawkins3 months, 3 weeks ago
Super delegates? This is a job for Super Obama Girl!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu0m8iCFbr8
Reply -
-
0%
Tangent0013 months, 3 weeks ago
Wow, they ALL said that? How come Obama picks up a few superdelegate commitments every few days? KY, WV, PR, and WY are assumed Clinton territory, but she'll need HUGE victories in all three of those states to even hope to catch up to Obama. Indiana was supposed to be a comfortable lock for her, but she only squeaked by by 2%. OR, MT, and SD are likely Obama wins, but it remains to be seen if he can pull those into the double-digit victories he'll need to deliver the 'knock-out' punch.
Reply-
0%
aniokly3 months, 3 weeks ago
Superdelegates can change their minds about a particular candidate all the way to the second ballot at the convention. They could endorse Obama today, and if he continues to lose elections, change their votes by August. Even those delegates earned in an election can change their minds if it looks like the candidate that won them cannot win. That is why Hillary is staying in the race. She knows Obama will screw up again, like endorsing Rev Wright, then throwing him under the bus, or accusing the middle class of clinging to their guns, and God out of some perverse depression. He is very inexperienced, and will make many mistakes before November, and then Hillary can say, I told you he was unelectable.
Reply
-
-
0%
doppich3 months, 3 weeks ago
I saw a report yesterday that one superdelegate had offered to sell his vote for $20,000,000. They are, after all, politicians, and as we know, politicians "transcend" ethics.
Reply
-
