Forget Super Tuesday Or Even Tsunami Tuesday, It's All About The Super-Delegates
By Nicole Belle Friday Jan 25, 2008 11:01am
Download | play Download | play (h/t Bill)
With the news that Hillary Clinton is trying to get the delegate votes from Michigan and Florida certified again (Surprise! Surprise! Whether the Democratic party would truly not count those votes has always been questionable), the math has been done and it appears that even after the Feb. 5th "Tsunami Tuesday" with 23 states either having their primaries or caucuses, the delegate count won't be high enough to pick the official nominee. So all eyes turn to the super-delegates, who don't have to follow the election results of their state in pledging their support.
On Friday's Countdown, Keith Olbermann and David Shuster look at the history of the super-delegate and how it impacts this race.
Login or Register to post comments.
Nicole. I'm glad you caught this clip. I thought it was really relevant to what is going on and explained the issue real well when I saw it. Thanks for the grab.
Why the fuck are there 'super-delegates'? FUCK DELEGATES! Lets call them VOTERS, ordinary people, and let them be the ones with the power!
The American system is so confusing.
And messed up. The electoral college is most certainly outdated.
Do these delegates receive special interest money?
Two Americas indeed.
Our voting system totally sucks. Remember, it gave us the truly awful George Bush! The fact that power players hold all the cards is unamerican. I sure our founding fathers would think so. And I don't see anybody on the horizon who would ever hold a candle to those great leaders.
With all the strange irregularities the voting population clasp the declining value of their votes like they are American dollars.
It never was worth anything anyways. Its just a funny kind of dressup party where you find out later that some of the monsters were not wearing costumes.
Mukaseys hanging of the "Orwell" painting frames the issue nicely.
Shawnmeat: This isn't even about the electoral college. The party primaries are completely free of any constitutional constraints. The parties set them up themselves. If they had the internal support from their membership, they could get all their candidates into a room and play spin the bottle, or decide the nomination via a single-elimination ping pong tournament or an eight-way game of Trivial Pursuit.
I sympathize with Hillary here, but more because I sympathize with voters in Michigan and Florida who feel jilted at the privileged status of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina than anything else. What makes them so special, anyway? Bellwether states that serve as major election trophies--Ohio, Florida, Virginia--would be much better places to start.
So those of us who have primaries after Feb. 5th can still have a say? Now that is the democratic process working.
As for those Michigan / Florida delegates, if they are included, they should be evenly split among the candidates. Changing the rules in middle of a process is never a good idea.
Bush family dirty tricks = Clinton family dirty tricks. Nothing will change when two dynasties control the USA for 30+ years.
A have a couple of complaint about this.
1. Shuster and Olberman missed the primary reason that the so-called "super delegates" came into being - it was because a fair number of Democratic Party elected officials didn't get named as delegates during the McGovern and Jimmy Carter campaigns so could not officially participate in the convention those years. Basically a WATB response.
2. Olberman sounded somewhat upset that a Dem nominee would not be decided by the end of "super Tuesday." Except that at the end of super Tuesday voting and caucuses, there will still be nearly half the states yet to have a primary or caucus. I'm unaware of any laws or rules or mandates that claim the Democratic Party has to pick their nominee on the schedule laid out by TradMed.
3. And al those "pledged" delegates? That "pledge" is only good through the first ballot of the convention anyway, after which the delegates are free to vote for whomever.
That's where I don't understand this American freedom and democracy fairy tale. A democracy where candidates are chosen like this?? Wow.
Viva @ 8:
Nope, basically the party power brokers are going to hand the whole thing to Clinton (R-NY).
Gramarye @ 7:
IF we started with the "Bellwether" states though, it would favor the already well know/well funded candidates. The Iowa Caucuses and NH primaries, for all their faults, do force the candidates to meet with real people and address real issues. Other small states could probably do the same but these two have actually been doing it for years. I myself like the fact that the candidates DO have to meet with regular people rather than just run advertising and tarmac campaigns which would be the result if we started with larger states.
The Democratic Party has become patently undemocratic.
The reason for instituting the "Super Delegates" is so just in case the Democratic voters out there decide to nominate a candidate who is not "a party hack", the Super Delegates can just shut down the process and vote FOR their party hack!
I want no part of the Democratic Party or any of their candidates. They are an exclusionary bunch of plutocratic, bureaucratic politicians who do not give a rat's ass about the people of the United States. They certainly do not respect our votes.
Considering that every candidate running, whether Democrats or Republicans are cut from the same "military industrial complex/big pharma/ big insurance companies/corporate cloth, (except Ron Paul), I dare say...it is time for a third party.
Sadly, I fear it is too late to form one.
Good post. You just have to make an EXCEL spread sheet and itemize the delagete types, who has what now, and who could get what in future primaries to see that these early primaries, Super Tuesday and the primaries in general are a bit of a dog and pony show. Anyway that's the process.
Wile E. Coyote- Superdelegate.
Sorry, off on a tangent.
Supers? "When everyone is super, no one will be." [sorry, had dto say it]
Just say "NO!"
Monsters are "super" too...
Travis @ 12:
I guess I have no say. Maryland is Feb 12, and it looks like it'll be over by then. It's meaningless anyway because they're going to pick Hillary in some smoke-filled room regardless. So much for Change.
Most Americans forget their country is not a democracy. It is a republic.
The thing that I did not realize is that super delegates are high up, powerful and former members of the establishment. Logically, this would inhibit change.
It seems to explain the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton phenom.
The Provokateur @ 18:
Is that "super" in the sense of "uber" ........I mean "over".
How many super delegates have day jobs for Fox news?
curtilingus @ 20:
Maybe kids wont have such a tough time remembering the president's name now.
Democracy? Bullshit.
Abbybwood @ 14:
What are you on about?
I know who it is that you support. What's it got to do with him? He's a Republican.
And while I'm here, there's nothing- NOTHING- in the Constitution that regulates the way that a political party should pick it's candidates. If all the card carrying members of either party were to meet in a stadium and pick a candidate in a giant seance, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It might not be too wise, but it would probably shorten up the current nominating process by about 95%- and that would be a good thing, imo.
This website is tracking the delegates and superdelegate:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
Why even bother voting nowadays? Our primary vote doesn't mean a thing because of the Super delegates. (Bought and paid for.) Our general election vote doesn't mean a thing if you are a Democrat in a red state, due to the Electoral College. Somewhere, somehow, something's gotta give.
We can't have anything radical like an actual real democracy for the benefit of society, according to Shuster, so after McGovern in '72 this system was set up. Does Canada have a real democracy, I may want to move there?
So Clinton wants the delegates to count. Big deal. Everyone knew she had an advantage in Michigan and Florida beforehand, so it is just as politically advantageous for Obama and Edwards to refuse the delegates as it is for Clinton to want them. But of course, only Hillary is calculating.
gregster @ 28:
Not really. Closest thing we have is what is called a "minority" government. When a party barely scrapes together a win, they can be brought down from power by the other parties if they screw up. The last 5 US election results up here, would have been minority governments and you might not be in the situation you are now.
9:44 AM
Headlines:
CNN U.S. presidential contender Barack Obama faces a crucial test in Saturday's South Carolina primary as he seeks to regain the initiative in the race for the Democratic Party nomination. More than half of voters in the key southern state are expected to be African-Americans.
MSNBC Race is a subtext in the first primary to feature a large number of black voters; Democratic Party chair predicts record turnout.
Fox News Polls open for Democrats in Palmetto State, the first primary to feature large number of black voters
REALLY??!!
MSM, what's up with the headlines. The least competitive race so far and no winner yet? It took 5 minutes to announce Romney the winner in Nevada. You can do better than that.
Edwards/Obama '08 - it's all over but the cryin'.
Edwards will be the "unifying" candidate with populist support.
Of course she wants Florida and Michigan to count...Florida's going to go in her favor and Michigan already has. But I don't think it'd be fair, since Michigan already had their primary and she was the only name on the ballot...how many voters when in thinking going Obama or Edwards and then voted Clinton instead just because of that? As for Florida - if she wanted the votes here to count, she really should have said something earlier...it's a bit late now (though if everyone's names are on the ballot this time, I wouldn't have a problem with it). Stupid move on the DNC's part to strip us (FL) of our delegates anyway...the republicans did the same thing (move their primary up) but their party didn't throw a fit and overreact like ours.
So the founding fathers would think this is not cool?
Wrong.
The founding fathers did not trust "the people" to make sensible decisions. That is why Senators were APPOINTED.
Citizens did not have a direct vote for Senators until 1912.
Mike S - bullcrap! And you know it. The Democratic Party chose to remove those delegates from Michigan and Florida - not Obama or Edwards. Obama and Edwards just chose to follow Democratic Party rules. And now Clinton will be rewarded for breaking the rules. Don't give me this Clinton was leading in Michigan and Florida crap. She was leading EVERYWHERE at the time that decision was made.
Frankly, if Hillary gets nominated by the Dems because of Super Delegates, I might be done with the party. What has my support amounted to? Its a top down system, where they tell us what to do. The Democratic party is playing with fire. Perhaps this implosion will be a good thing, letting party outsiders come in and remake the party. Sadly, the Republicans have been right along - the Democratic Party is the party of special interests groups - themselves and corporate America.
ConcernedCanuck @ 30:
That would be better than what we have at this point.
Thanks to the previous commenter for linking to 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. I just wanted to add that we have the only list of superdelegates that haven't endorsed yet and the most complete list of endorsing superdelegates available. We only list official endorsements that can be backed up by a press release or news article. This makes our numbers much more accurate and reliable than the major media who will call an endorsement if the superdelegate has said they haven't decided but are slightly leaning toward one candidate.
We're also the #1 place to go for Democratic National Convention news.
So, the bigwigs decide who runs for president, and not the people.
Oh, democracy! <3
Canada's system is highly flawed, and there are still a lot of problems with it, but it's a hell of a lot better than the two-party system you guys have. Not to mention, our conservative politicians are probably only minutely further right than your Democrats. You don't have any religious zealots trying to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into the 10 Commandments.
Impact is a noun, not a verb. Don't deteriorate the language.
According to the list, Bill and Hillary Clinton are both Super Selegates from New York. They are listed as pledged to Hillary Clinton . . .
gregster @ 28:
Oh, gregster, c'mon...The primaries are not elections in the same way that the November elections will be. The primaries are simply suggestions to the parties on who they should nominate. Hell, I'm old enough- I could run for President independently. I could forego the cost of getting on the primary ballots and simply pay for petitions to get on 50 state ballots(+DC, and whereever else we elect the President). But I wouldn't be engaging in direct debate with the Democratic or GOP candidates until they were chosen.
And, if I'm not mistaken, Canada's parties don't hold primaries. They go directly to conventions and choose from the inside. Maybe Canada does it differently- but I know this is the case in the UK.
Well, gee, if the 'Super Delegates' votes don't cinch the election for the establishment, maybe they'll have to take the wraps off the 'Mega-Voting Delegates', whose charter is to vote as often as necessary to assure the preordained result.
It'd be a shame to have to resort to the 'Ultimate Delegates' again, those nine flunkeys commonly known as 'The Supremes'.
The Harvard Crimson For Obama
26 Jan 2008 12:16 pm
A pitch-perfect editorial. The younger generation gets it.
Andy K. - if a majority of voters choose one candidate, and the party chooses another, do you think that party's candidate will have the support of the voters? I don't think so. If Clinton wins because of Super Delegates, that will ABSOLUTELY DEMORALIZE the party. It will be the death knell of Democrats. I won't be able to vote for a party that chooses its candidates like that. Why even have voters? Why not have the Dems in Congress just choose the Presidential candidate? If the party is going to take the time to get the citizens involved, and than ignore the citizens, than that party is DESTINED for doom.
Flash @ 34:
How much should we care what the Founders thought when our values differ from theirs? We're well over two centuries removed from that period. I wouldn't take their political advice today any more than I'd take their fashion tips today.
Also, scratch the surface, and you'll find that "The Founders" were hardly a monolithic bloc, and our high school history books probably make them seem a bit more unified than they likely were, just because they were unified against the British. They were hardly unified in drafting the Constitution, however. It was a product of a lot of compromises. Also, the Founders' greatest constitutional innovation was Article V, allowing for changes (other than changing the number of Senators each state gets) in the future. They knew the world wouldn't remain as it was in 1787. They were right.
Chopvac @ 40:
Yes, the deterioration of the English language is a major concern. I'm sure there's a blog just for that.
Anyone for a new Constitutional Convention to clean up the mess that is our electoral system? As the electoral system declines, so does the quality of our elected representatives.
coleshack @ 48:
I'd vote for that, but it'd never be counted.
Andy K @ 42:
No you are right Andy, we hold conventions. There is a slight difference though. The positives and negatives of minority governments. In the US, if you win, even with only 45% of the vote, you rule the entire nation, or can, like GW has. That doesn't happen here. Unless you get a majority of the electorate voting for you, you have to keep your ears clean (well, cleaner anyways) or the other parties can bring down your government and an election is called. But then again, we can have 3-7 elections in the time it takes the US just to pick their candidates before an election!!!!!!!!
DL @ 45:
You are assuming the votes are fairly and accurately counted.
Nicole Belle, once again makes a pro-hillary article.
Why didn't you mention the fact that Hillary was the only major candidate left on the Michigan ballot, because she weaseled herself on the ballot because her quote "Michigan wouldn't count".
It's clear that she kept herself on the ballot with a different motive, with all this in mind.
DL @ 45:
I don't think that's what should- or will- happen. It might happen, and it might happen in both parties.
My problem with the current system is that it goes on far too long. Yes, primaries are a far better way to gauge a candidate's viability when compared to the smoke-filled back rooms of the past. But the system has got to be fixed.
And here's the problem: Candidacies are lengthening to perpetuality, but you can't disallow a perpetual candidacy. To do so would fly in the face of the 1st Amendment. But we can work up the will to pass legislature that will greatly shrink the primary window. We might have to do so in the state legislatures, which would take a great deal of coordination- and would probably favor the candidates with more money, who would be able to cover more ground in a shorter time. So we'd need to pass campaign finance reform, too.
No small tasks, granted, but it needs to be done.
coleshack @ 48:
Yes, and please add term limits. If we had term limits, we wouldn't be stuck with people like Feinstein until they are 79 years old. It's hard to replace all the old fogies in the Senate unless one of them decides to retire. (I'm 65 and say that.) Many people say we are becoming like Nazi Germany, many say like the old Soviet Union. I think we are becoming like Mao's Red China with a geritocracy. (No such word apparently. Y'all know what I mean.)
Preacher Boob @ 43:
It's a republic I hear, democracy is mostly for show.
This is what pisses me off about this 2008 season. I live in FL. I will vote on Tuesday the 29th, but my vote will not count to choose the Democratic candidate.
ConcernedCanuck @ 50:
Another long overdue fix that we need to enact: reform the electoral- or, more particularly, the Electoral College- system.
The EC was a concession to the slave states. It goes hand-in-hand with the 3/5 Clause of the Constitution. It allowed the disproportionately strong slave states to control the White House. Other than the last two elections, the EC hadn't been an issue for about 100 years, give or take. But look at some of the early Presidential elections- they were so fucked up that they had to be decided by Congress (admittedly, a preferable method than having the election decided by the Supreme Court).
I wonder how the Paulists feel about going to a strict rule that the Presidential candidate who garners the most popular votes- plurality or majority- takes the seat as chief executive. This notion is rather anathema to that of "States Rights".
[Deleted. Off topic. Site Monitor]
SM @ 56:
I feel ya! I'm in Michigan. I voted "uncommited". I would have voted for Edwards. I'l be pissed if HRC, one of three candidates(along with Gravel & Kucinich) who flouted the rules is rewarded for those actions.
nochickenhawk @ 54:
term limits do not work
take a look at what goes on in california, where term limits have cause pols to be even more corrupt in a shorter period of time, and have allowed lunatics to be elected to the state legislature
the democratic system works....if you dont like a pol, get off your ass and get someone new in
term limits were put into place in california to remove one man from power....now there are umpteen dirty and wacko pols in sacramento
and when they get termed out, they go and run for local office...where they do even more damage (take a look at how villaragosa has totally fucked los angeles)
as for what appears to be 2 brokered conventions...shit, the fix is in...we dont get a real choice...the corporatists win....america sold to the lowest bidder....our future as a 3rd world super power now insured
A few months ago, before this ridiculous primary election campaign began, it would have been the height of absurdity to contemplate the possibility of a republican party win in '08.
Today it must be considered.
Can you imagine what the republican machine, and the 'swift boaters', will do to either Hillary or Obama? You can almost hear them salivating right now.
Hillary will drown in a puddle of her own tears. Obama will be blown away in the wind, as the nation comes face-to-face with it's current reality of race 'relations'.
Would Edwards/Obama, or Edwards/???, be viable? More so than the alternatives.
Hillary is a liar and a cheater. After the Democratic Party stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates for placing their primary too far forward, Obama and Edwards agreed to pull their name off of the Michigan Ballot - Hillary did not, and won the primary with a resounding 15% more than "uncommitted." In Florida, all candidates agreed not to campaign, so Hillary will skate to a win based on name recognition alone. However, now after winning both states, Hillary has asked the Democratic Party to reinstate the delegates - essentially giving her both states for free. This is absolutely wrong, and it is the dirtiest of politics. Not only did she inject race in to the campaign and then try to blame it on Obama, not only did she accuse Edwards and Obama of "ganging up" on her before calling in Bill to help her tag-team Obama, now she's trying to change the rules of the primary to give her hundreds of free delegates. Please, somebody stop her. She is a LIAR and a CHEATER.
Latest Polls.............
Bill Clinton 58%
Hillary Clinton 5%
Obama 35%
Some White Guy 2%
[Evidently you'd like to drive the conversation off topic. Take some time off. Read a book. Watch a film. Whatever. Site Monitor.]
The Provokateur @ 61:
Worked though, didn't it? Caused fear and Iraqnam.
Travis @ 12:
For crying out load Travis - didn't you HEAR what John said the other day?
Now I want you to realize that IF Clinton gets the nomination and YOU stay home and don't vote, that is THE SAME THING as voting for McCain - everyone with half a brain here knows this is the case.
So tell us - IF Clinton gets it, ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN?
The truth. And also, you need to remember that "we" are all friends here - I am an Obama supporter, I voted early by mail in CA already - but I have been anti-Republican my whole life. And damn if I can stand it anymore listening to you idiots squabble about Clinton. If that woman gets the nomination I will GLADLY VOTE FOR HER and against McCain or Romney or whatever other a-hole they put up. You probably are one of those rediculous people who argues that its not Nadar's fault where in this whole fucking mess in the first place - you vote for Nader Travis?
Get your head out of your ass and stop insulting your friends, my friends, your friend's friends - ie. all fellow Democrats - and start remembering who you expect to support YOUR candidate in November - you do EXPECT Democrats to support Obama in the general, right? Even if they vote for Edwards now? Even if they vote for Hillary now? Is this your first Primary son?
Get with the program.
Andy K @ 58:
I'm definitely voting for Clinton or Edwards, I'm just still so undecided because I've compared their proposals for the presidency and I really like both.
I just don't like it that my vote is just a litmus test for some high-powered politician (aka super-delegate) to "see what the little people think" and then vote the other way despite what the voting outcome is. But then again, the FL delegates/super-delegates aren't going to count anyway.
SO WHY THE HECK ARE WE EVEN VOTING FOR IN FL & MI?????
Dire Lobo, if Hillary wins the nomination, I will proudly vote for McCain. If, after all of the negative campaigning Hillary has done, the cheating, the lying, changing the rules to suit her needs and abusing every authority and ability she's ever had, having Bill ruin his legacy by descending in to cheap lies against Obama, if she wins the nomination, I will vote proudly for the Republican Party.
Why? Because I believe in RULES. I believe in fair fights. And if the Democratic Party is content to award the nomination to Hillary, throwing away the incredible opportunity they have with Obama right now, they don't deserve to win. They have a chance, right now, to unite this country, and if they choose to split it, then they will not receive my vote.
This is too important to leave to politics as usual.
Andy K @ 42:
Good points Andy, we still have a way to go for the ideal system. Guess I'll have to be patient.
DL @ 35:
Another madman - for god's sake, are you really that far gone?
And no, sadly or not, the Republicans have not been right about ANYTHING all along or even for five minutes. The Democratic Party is our party because WE say it is and special interests is a coded GOP attack which you have bought into yourself and are now helping them spread.
The whole world is made up of special interest groups - my wife, me and my son are a special interest group - we are especially interested in how OUR country is run!
Finally, is it possible that you could just understand for a moment that railing against what some people did 40 years ago to fuck up the primary machinery is not going to help us. The people leading the party today are not the ones who made up the system and are just as perplexed as we are with their obligations to follow said rules. And there is no reason to believe that these rules cannot be changed in the future - but not if you just say oh fuck it, these people are not worth my time - WHO THE HELL ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO SUPPORT?
Dire Lobo @ 70:
He just said McCain. Do these candidates change because of a letter beside their name? Just curious. Could it be that supposed democratic nations are as screwed as they are because of partisan politics? I think so.
gregster @ 69:
Don't get me wrong. Don't sit on your hands. Call your Reps & Senators. Call your local, state and national party offices. Let them know how you feel about it.
SM @ 67:
SO WHY THE HECK ARE WE EVEN VOTING FOR IN FL & MI?????
Practice for those who want to hijack the votes again. In St. Johns County, despite more voters than in 2006, they have reduced the number of polling precincts.
Or perhaps our nation is particularly screwed because, instead of voting for the person we WANT, we are told to hold our noses and vote for "the party"? This is precisely why people complain about the lack of choices, because it always comes down to party lines.
I voted for Nader in 2000, and I don't blame him for the Bush nonsense. I blame Gore for not running a better campaign and inspiring me to vote for him. If all you vote for is "the party," all you'll get are establishment candidates.
At the end of the day, the country gets the President it deserves. If it's willing to stand for change and make some hard choices, we'll get a good Pres. If it backs down and goes with the "safety choice," then we'll get another 4 years of the same crap we've had since 2000.
As of January 9th, here are the delegate counts including "Super" delegates
Delegates....Super......Total
Clinton:........159.........183
Obama:.........53...........78
Edwards:.......34...........52
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/14536/23972
Ain't that a Pretty Picture! (yes I'm being snarky here)
The Upside Argument:
As stated by David Schuster, it was designed into the process to inject "political realism" into the process and prevent "boat anchor" candidates like McGovern from being selected by the popular vote in the primaries.
It doesn't negate the impact of the popular vote, but weights the process and one thing to keep in mind about Super Delegates is that they are not firmly committed to their votes until the convention and there is always wheeling and dealing that takes place. So they can and do frequently change at the convention.
The Down Side Argument:
The super delegates are selected by the party apparatus and it favors the political machine candidate and yes as you can see there is one.
Many of these delegates have had an amazing amount of funds dumped into their campaigns by lobbyist and the corporate interests who have distorted our political process.
Lobbyist contributions to party:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=K02&cycle=2008
Lobbyist top recipients in 2008 Election Cycle:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=K02&cycle=2008
The Problem for Reform Candidates:
The problem for reform candidates like John Edwards and Barack Obama is obvious. Their stance against the special interests and lobbyists put them at odds with those who have been "feeding at the trough."
It is very much an uphill battle considering the current congress and its "impeachment is off the table" leadership and its habit of folding like house of cards to the King of Corporate government... President Bush.
True reformers very seldom get into office except by acts of God. Take for example one of the first true reform Presidents... Teddy Roosevelt. He was a very effective reformer in New York state, in fact a little too good and the party bosses decided to end his political career by forcing him to accept the nomination as Vice President on William McKinley's ticket.
In those days... VP was the kiss of death because they were seen as the spare, did little but ceremonial functions, almost never got the nomination or were elected as President if they did.
What the hand of fate, or what ever you want to call it, did though was have McKinley assassinated and Teddy found himself with the reigns of power in his hands and he began the "Progressive Era" in American politics.
It is early in the nominating process though and we can only hope that fate is kind to us because the process sure doesn't seem to be from the perspective of the "populist-reform" voters.
Jason B @ 74:
All true but you won't get anyone to change. Everybody talks about change, but a big percentage of people vote for the party their daddy supported, and their daddy's daddy, etc.........you could have a piece of garbage candidate, but some people will vote for them anyway. I don't know why people are like that, but they are. Everywhere.
The fault here lies not with Clinton, Obama or Edwards.
I have been waiting for years to have my primary vote count for something, rather than having it be just an after thought by the time the early primaries were over. Apparently many others felt the same way, hence the move to have many of the primaries moved up on the calender before the nomination was decided.
If the Dems. had paid any attention what so ever to the wishes of the rank and file voters in their party they would have held the primaries and awarded the delegates accordingly. If you are looking for some one to blame look to the party not the candidates.
If I had been running, there is no way in Hell that I would have removed my name from the ballot in either state. I would have told the party to take a hike. All three candidates should have remained on the ballot.
ConcernedCanuck, you may be right, but that doesn't mean that someone like myself should be okay with it. If someone else wants to convince themselves to vote "the party line" at all costs, that's their decision, but they shouldn't be surprised when all they get offered is garbage.
You have to challenge the party, just like you have to challenge a company to provide you better products. If every body just bought the latest version of Windows without complaining, without Microsoft having to have a competitor, you would quickly get a watered-down product that nobody cares about but buys anyways. Competition inspires innovation, which is why we must challenge the party by taking our vote elsewhere if they cannot inspire us to vote for them on their own merits.
Saint Augustine @ 73:
Practice for those who want to hijack the votes again. In St. Johns County, despite more voters than in 2006, they have reduced the number of polling precincts.
UGH! That hit the pit of my stomach, but I think you're right.
Dire Lobo @ 66:
Trolling aside, it's simple. If two Republicans are running, I'm moving out of the country. Already shopping around for a TEFOL cert. Enjoy your perpetual war, guys.
"If voting changed anything ... they would make it illegal" - Unknown
SM @ 79:
UGH! That hit the pit of my stomach, but I think you're right.
When I cast my ballot it was to show the party 1). That I do care enough to participate and 2). I'd rather not see Clinton as the candidate come November.
I'm pissed off the most not because I couldn't vote for my candidate(again, Edwards), but because Michigan has been going through the recession that's just starting to hit the rest of you since about 2001. This state would have been a great place for the Dems to address plans to revive the economy. Mais alors....
Jason B @ 68:
More hyperbole. Jason, I am sorry to say but I think you are not paying attention. Read TPM today (Josh Marshall) and then tell me - what did Bill say that was so egregious as to vote for McCain?
Furthermore, everything you accuse her of - none of which has been proven by the amount needed to get ME to vote for a fucking Republican - McCain has been doing for 30 years and is an expert at.
Finally, do you really choose who to vote for by your interpretation of their campaigning and politic-ing or do you choose based on who will fuck up the country MORE over the next 4-8 years?
If I wanted to vote for the candidate who will fuck up American MORE, then I too would vote for McCain...
The real problem here is that some idealist people out here believe Obama's crap about bringing people together. Not if the people include the right wing fundamentalist conservative warmongers who want to scre up our country. NO WAY! We don't "come together" with racists or theocrats, we teach their children and breed them out of existance.
Hillary is the first Democrat in decades who is showing some balls and not rolling over - she's showing you a taste of what she can dish out to the GOP, and isn't that what we NEED to win and keep winning?
That said, I think Obama will make a fine president and set a precedent which will foster peace and teach children of both colors what is possible in this country. BUT, that doesn't mean I am confident he will beat the Republicans with his "love one another" and bring them together BS that has never worked before.
I am taking my chance and voting for Obama - but complaining about some supposed rules of politics and reguirgitating talking points about supposed slights and racist insults which never occurred is to literally take on blinders and submit to the narrative and not think about your own best interests, which clearly DO NOT lie with McCain and 8 more years of Bushwar and errosion of rights!
GET WITH THE PROGRAM!
Jason B @ 78:
I agree with you totally, but it hasn't had any impact whatsoever in the Dems since losing all those times since Clinton. They know that with just two parties, they'll get back in eventually, and if not, they still have all that corporate money in their coffers. It is no different in my country. We gave the Liberals the boot to wake them up. Did it? NOPE. They just figure, bide their time and they'll get back in again. If not, they'll still have lots of campaign funds in the old party treasure chest. It's sickening to watch.
Dire Lobo @ 66:
Bullshit on a cracker... not voting for someone does not GIVE a vote to someone else... No wonder you think Nader is to blame for 2000.
Dire Lobo @ 66:
So manipulating the voter rolls, ballot stuffing, ballot confusion, GOP thugs, and the Supreme court had nothing to do with it?
You seriously need to do some reading about what happened in Florida in 2000... Naders role was minuscule compared to the machine that really did the damage.
Dire Lobo @ 66:
Who dares call the kettle black?
The Democratic party is as fucked as the GOP... so what if they give mouth service to some marginal issues here and there.. the overall march toward the cliff where this country is destined to fall off into ... will not change.
All the while you rail against those who really care about Justice, Freedom, Honesty and Progress... in lieu of having them play by the same suicidal rules that has gotten us into this fucking maelstrom to begin with..
That is the soul of this conversation...
You wake up..
Dire Lobo @ 83:
Dire Lobo, Jason B voted for Nader in 2000, and he supports Obama vehemently. He's not a true Democrat, as we in the long run will vote in a collective unit, supporting whoever is nominated even if they don't like them personally. You won't be able to change his mind on this.
When voters get too far out of what the party heads want, they have an old shoe in control to make sure the will of the people doesn't matter.
Land of the free my ass!
You have the right to vote for the party brothers and sisters!
The Party Uber Allies!!!!!!
I love how the exposure of the monolithic mentality of many of the mainstream party over country types ... has absolutely no impact at all.
Win Win Win We must WIN!!
Instead of DEMANDING that their beloved Party conform to them and their beliefs... they toss out their political ethics... and embrace the party morals.
And we take 3 leaps backwards...
But who fucking cares about that!... WE won!!!
Oh Gracious Victory!!
No price is too high to taste your sweet nectar ...
Steve @ 52:
With all due respect, your Hillary-hate is so rabid that you can't even tell that this isn't ABOUT HILLARY. This is about the super-delegates.
You really should seek help. You've swallowed all the media garbage and now anytime someone mentions her name without castigating her as a witch you assume that it's a pro-Hillary piece.
Pathetic.
Herself @ 33:
FWIW, I know I read that the RNC was penalizing MI and FL half of their delegates for the move up trick so it's not just the Dems doing this.
I gotta concur... this is not about Hillary...
This post is not about the "Cool Kids" of the moment...
It is about the powers that pick the "Cool Kids" and ram them down our throats... and then laugh until they piddle their seats while we fight over the inane and irrelevant details...
When they do not matter...
Its Pepsi vs Coke...
Please visit www.theyrule.net and play around with that site for a clearer picture...If you can handle what you find there.
According to the History Channel, the anthrax sent to our representatives was manufactured by our military. Wonder why "they" rule.
I have been censored on this site for bringing up "alternative theories" (it is the site owners perogative . . . no beef with that) and yet here we are spending all of this time and energy trying to pick our leaders only to find out that the entire process is rigged.
Go to the source of currency and you will find "they".
Dire Lobo @ 83:
It isn't JUST Bill abusing his position as former President and Democratic Party Head, it's her changing the rules on Michigan and Florida to get free delegates, it's her injecting race in to the campaign, it's her lying about what Obama's said and trying to insinuate he believes all sorts of things he doesn't believe in. There is no end to the dirty, slimy shit she's pulled and THAT is why I'm not voting for her.
And yet, Bill talks about how close Hillary and McCain are... Funny, that. Look, you don't have to vote Republican, be a sheep and vote party line without thinking, that's your prerogative, it's your vote and you can do with it as you like. But I don't vote by party, I vote for whom I think is the best choice for President, regardless of their ability to win.
Their campaigning and politicing is extremely important to my decision, as it tells me the personality of the people involved and what they're willing to do. Hillary has told me she will be a 51% President, just like Bush, so polarizing both sides of the political spectrum that no one will be willing to work with her on anything. Meanwhile, Obama draws in not only Democrats, not only Independents, but Republicans as well - he's shown he's willing to work with anyone regardless of what side they're on, so long as every one's best interest is in bettering this country. He's a candidate that can show results - Hillary will just go down swinging at every thing she can.
I think both will fuck America up equally.
And how do you teach their children? By coming together. Race relations and gender relations in this country have come a long way, and there are always people who resist, but you don't get people to see your point of view by ostracising them. We didn't convince the federal government to pass civil rights legislation by attacking racists, we convinced them by bringing people onboard and showing them it was the right thing to do.
Yes, we can come together with racists and theocrats by showing them that we all have the same goal, just different ways of approaching it. If you believe that America is too polarized to try to "work together" on any issue, then I simply pity you, for you are little more than a cynical, jaded person who doesn't believe in change. If that's why you're voting for Hillary, that's a sad reason.
How are those "fighting democrats" doing in Congress now? Oh, they're not getting anything done... You think that'll change? Republicans will dig in, energize their base with the Clinton they hate most, and filibuster every thing they can. Hillary's presidency would be the least-productive office EVER. You can't go after these guys swinging your fists and expect to get anywhere - they excel at that, they fight harder and dirtier, and they play to win. You're not going to beat them at their own game.
But people are sick of fighting. They want solutions, they want answers. That's why they're turning to Obama in droves. They don't want a knock-down drag-out fight, they want SOLUTIONS. They want to know what someone's going to do about the economy and how they're going to get it passed, they don't want to hear about how hard someone's gonna fight for a battle they won't win.
There are more than enough Republicans in office to stop and stall every piece of legislation if they are to vote in a bloc. Hillary will energize that bloc, and every thing she will try to do will fail. You think she can get Republicans to work with her when she's trying to "fight" them? They will RELISH taking her down. They did it before, they'll do it again.
Once, every generation, there is a leader who shows people there is something much bigger than a personal ego at stake. The people turn out for this leader - that leader is Obama. Setting a precedent of fostering peace and teaching children of both colors what is possible is entirely the JOB of the President. It's up to the President to determine the direction of this country - and pointing it in the direction of unity is where we need to go. Hillary will just extend the fights of the 90's, and we don't need that - we have too much work to do TODAY to worry about the 90's.
Hillary does not represent my best interests because she does not represent unity, she doesn't represent moving ahead, she represents going back and fighting those same old battles again. In 2000, I voted for Nader and, after 8 years of Bush, we got Obama as a candidate. If Obama doesn't make it, I'll vote Republican or Nader if he runs again, and wait for another candidate who inspires me. Eventually, I sincerely believe, Americans will choose the "best" candidate rather than the "safest".
Besides that, Hillary is the ONLY candidate who actually got BOOOED at the debates for getting too negative on stage.
It's amazing that the BOOOOOOO never got political coverage. Pretty sad, if you ask me. To get an audience to boo you, that takes a lot of work.
Well that was depressing.
Got Democracy?
.
.
.
.
Me neither.
The King passes the throne down to his offspring. The Pope names his Cardinals. The politicians select their successors. The people decide: rent or health care insurance?
Avid Reader @ 93:
Indeed...
Certainly this is on the surface "off topic"... However the deeper we delve into this entire power system we have ... the more "on topic" it becomes.
Who could of gotten their hands on the purest grade of weaponized Anthrax on earth, that was made in our labs then scribbled some messages in Crayons, then mailed them out to the press and a couple of politicians...?
Someone or group that most Americans naively trust with their very lives...not to mention the soul of our nation.
Why do we ignore the chains?...
Is it because down deep we feel powerless?... So we figure by signing onto one of the sides we can make change?
The people are not respected at all.. In fact I think we are held in even more contempt by the power elite NOW... then we were back when this country started.
All one needs to do is look at the Federal interference with Medical Cannabis to see that clear as day...
Why do we stand for it?
We have so many questions regarding our political system... and no where near enough answers...
Hopefully--- the prepackaged answers start to wane on even the most hardened of the party followers.
WE NEED REAL CHANGE... NOW!
The more we ignore our problems.... The longer we think time and another election will wash it away...
The more infected we get...
Regardless of what we think we know about our political system... I think we all know deep down that it is gangrene.
I love freedom... It hurts me to see this?..
How alone am I in my love?... How alone am I in my sorrow?
Do you love freedom?...
Not the bastardized definition that is tossed around these days like a medal...
The REAL definition to that word..
Do you?...
How much is it worth, and what would you sell it for?
its all a big tv show . . . my suggestion is that all of us that can go to Washington D.C. and stay there until we get our Republic back. this was MLK's next move before he was shot by our own fBI/DIA/CIA/NSA (MLK's family sued the government in Memphis court and won . . the results were announced a week after 9/11 . . . another coincidence?)
Dire Lobo @ 83:
What the fuck is this -- the WCW? This ain't a no wrasling match. Hillary has consistently rolled over for corporate interests. The Clintons joined Republicans back in the 90's to pass NAFTA and other trade agreements (such as with China) and Ross Perot was right -- there was a giant sucking sound as good paying manufacturing jobs left the country. The standard of living has been going down. Wages are stagnant and inflation right now is massive. I see it every time I go to the store. As one economist put it, we're using borrowed money to buy imported goods. In addition, NAFTA made Mexican farmers compete with subsidized, highly mechanized US agriculture, put many out of work, and now the US is flooded with people from Mexico, who can't find work down there and are competing with US workers, driving wages down here, which benefits corporate America and hurts working people. And Hillary thinks NAFTA was a great idea!!! That's because she's in a different class than most of us here. She's part of the oligarchy, we aren't. (If you think Hillary is one of us common folk, I'd really like to try whatever the fuck it is that you're smoking.) Dennis Kucinich had the balls to point this out, and say NAFTA and other trade agreements should be abolished, and what their effects have been, which is why they had to shut him up.
Obama is all talk. If he goes back to DC to fight alongside Chris Dodd on Monday I'll probably be so surprised I'll shit my pants. If Clinton does, I'll likely have a heart attack. If you want your rights back, I think you'll have to wait another 4 years. Neither Obama nor Clinton has made it a priority, hasn't said much of anything about it. At least Edwards is talking about it, which makes him better than Obama or Clinton in my view, but they're not like Dodd, who made it a central issue to his campaign, and who said the first day he was in office, "You're gonna get your Constitution back." Kucinich would likely have made it a top priority also.
As far as I'm concerned, if I don't see action instead of talk from Democrats, they're not worth the bother of going to the polls. I'm not going to waste time and gasoline and pollute the air to cast a vote for the status quo. Hillary certainly represents that, and Obama's a lot of hot air.
its going to take alot of courage to turn this around . . . do we have what it takes? . . . time will tell.
It is going to take alot of courage... or alot of very hungry bellies..
It looks to me as if the future is going to ensure plenty of the latter...
So perhaps we can have some progress when we hit rock bottom and some of these psychological financial shackles are loosened.
Tie that into our very real day of reckoning when it comes to us waking up to realize that our free energy lunch on oil dries up. We are at the peak now... and its all down hill from here.
Think about those implications...
This is the age of the internet; we have technology that can be ironclad if it is in the right hands, why the fuck can we not have a popular vote? Sure, American individuals are a dangerous bunch sometimes but what is democracy if not the voice of every citizen calculated to a majority win? Either we embrace a vote with a paper trail and triple security and verification or WTF? It seems to me that a random lottery for every government position is really democratic (with a "safety" measure for ejecting the criminally insane); maybe with a vote to continue the present position citing confidence. Local, state and federal; sounds like a vast improvement! A super-delegate system and an Electoral College system are complete and utter bullshit next to the word "democracy". Complete and utter bullshit! Democracy requires checks and balances but this is simply corruption, voter fraud and class control.
rduke @ 99:
No one talks about the antrax anymore, ever. At especially not the corporate media. It was a specific strain, as I recall traced to the specific lab and it was directed at Democrats, specifically, the ones who were throwing the biggest wrench in the administration's plans to pass the "patriot" act and have a real investigation of the events of 911. Specifically I recall Tom Daschle got one and Daschle really wanted a big investigation of why 911 was not stopped. I don't remember who else. The perps were never tracked down, even though you'd think there would be access card restrictions guarding that stuff, making it very easy to finger someone for it. This is an extraordinary sequence of coincidences.
As long as people tune in to the propaganda machine nothing will change.
Goodness Gracious, I certainly feel pretty fucking stupid.
David Shuster... a little to much during the holidays, big fella??
rduke @ 103:
Don't be so glum...
You're obviously not factoring in Elfin magic!
It will save us!
Superdelegates are simply elected Democratic officials and the various state party chairpersons. So that includes every Democratic Representative, Senators and Governors as well as Democratic leaders in the state legislatures. As someone else mention, they were enacted back after 1972 to prevent an "anchor" candidate. They are fluid, that is, that they do not commit until they actually cast their votes on the convention floor.
The last two presidencies have Not been by a serious majority. Some even call them stolen. None of the parties have a serious majority to date. The special interests are in high gear and maybe a bit scared. The political machinery is in the same state. The economy is in the toilet, and we are in a war that seems unwinnable. The whole world hates us or owns us. The national debt is at a number we can not wrap our minds around. Foreclosures are skyrocketing and bankruptcies are close to follow.
This sounds like the time to shake things up a bit. As Bilhelm states, Caucuses, primaries, delegates, and electoral collage (what ever that is) may have been needed in the old days when mail was on horseback and Candidates needed the time to get their word out to the people. What about dumping party politics, put limits on campaign funding, let 30 people throw their hat in the ring and let the people decide who they want. I know, ---- when pigs fly. It’s just depressing to hear the media make such a circus out of the non-issues and ignore the real ones. I feel very pessimistic about the whole thing. I hear too many people say I don't like any of them so I won't vote. I was in total amazement at the outcome of the last election. Guess What!
1. Super delegates are just -and specifically - party affiliated persons.
2. And all they (SD's) have to do for now is to simply 'publicly' mention their alliance with a candidate to then be thrown in to that candidates pile.
3. Unlike the delegates locked in after an election -SD's are free to change at any time.
Many jumped on to the Clintons long before Obama was a watermelon up Bills ass.
Watch for the same Dems responsible for dragging the party down all these years jump to Hillary's defense they worry now about their cushy jobs.
Obama represents a new and stronger and WINNING Democratic party -Halle freakin-leujah!
Thanks for the educating me on the secret of Super Delegates. I am ashamed to call myself a Democrat. The Super Delegate process is elitist, undemocratic, and Un-American. Yes I know that these elite Democratic party are supposed to vote the way their state does, but nothing binds them to it. They are taking away the right for us grassroots supporters to actually help to decide who we want representing us in the general election. If the Democratic Party is truly inclusive, non-elitist, and champion of the Democratic process, then the DNC needs to end the reign of the kings court of appointees.
I refuse to give any more money to the DNC until they abolish this elitist practice.
DL @ 35:
You know, finally someone this sitethat makes sense of it all.
Avid Reader @ 100:
And which party was running the country at this time? The Democrats, of course. They had the Presidency, as well as both houses of congress. Maybe someone should look into the dead bodies left in the wake of the Clinton Political Machine. http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp and http://www.realchange.org/clinton.htm And move to warn others before another tragic accident. strikes
Login or Register to post comments.