Politics – Barring 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.
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.
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.
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 )
"of the people, by the people, for the people." Supposed to be anyway.
Not if you are a democrat
*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.
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.
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.
"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....
Superdelegates have already said they will vote at the convention for the candidate that is a likely winner. That is not Barak Obama if he continues to lose states like Kentucky, and W Virginia, and Wyoming.
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.
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.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
shawnmartinez1960
yarrkz24
Radamel
MacBookForMe
romeohoover1968
leeharris1969
rontravel
asolious
chukajung
alamala
livia1954
CliffordMackey
HowardGeddinge
harveyditak
hhttgx72
whodey08
ojivux72
PrettyBalloon
HiHoney
Raiderwall
ETproductions
SunnyDays
Torres54
schristoforides
idyll
Rigel
Nowalive
Macas
Emmanuel70
raesepis
ind06
Rinty
dissent
funkywallpapers
joedevil
bizexpert
Ratskii
jw.olinger
baddad59
Redneck
parkermark50
nancystanias
thinkingserious
siri.tongsirikul
Pupi
hurr1
meckgo
Amroch
wangyy1980
avpd85
99)
Vote
Telling the truth will hurt, but it is not reason to give 'negative" rating to my post, or you gave it to me, because I posted it before you did your. Have great day.
I negged it because it's a lie, you have a good one too.
... and I had no other chose than to give you a positive, for being so "brave" to walk "blind" through a NEO-CON(vince) WORLD... Ha, ha, haaa!
LOL after many recounts and studies of them you are wrong,,,, saying that Bush was selected over and over again and wanting a different outcome because you believe the lie is insanity defined.