"SUPER" Delegates

[lancelva]

Lancelva, Why do you insist on calling them "automatic delegates" rather than "super delegates"?

Because that is the more appropiate term. They hold no special privileges above pledged delegates. Both have exactly one vote an exhibit and equal amount of weight. They are "automatic" because there votes are note based on the vote of any primary or caucus. Rather, they are granted a vote automatically by virtue of thier position within the party.

And yes, centex, I know exactly what you're talk about. I deal with it almost every day...

 

[Nishin]

Actually the official term is "PLEO ("unpledged party leader and elected official") delegates ... a bit annoying to write tho

 

[NickCole]

They are autonomous, not automatic then. And they are "super-delegates" by virtue of their special privilege in that they can vote however they want dependent on how they feel or how they are bought, not on representation of those the party depends to even get elected into office.

Yeah it really bugs you doesn't it!

I love that.

 

[Raincoat Massacre]

Why is it no one started bitching about super delegates when they started flocking Obama? Super delegates were obviously put there by the party for a reason. And I think to be outraged that the candidates would have to use them is idiotic.

I figured that you might take it that way, but honestly I can't understand why you'd pay someone to tell you how shit works in our Democracy, when you can experience the joy, torment, frustration, and brutal hours, and complete and total lack of respect/regard for YOUR OWN participation in the process by a bunch of ADD half-wits who've decided that what you're doing at the moment is more interesting than American Idol.

Hell yeah! I worked my ass off on the Clinton campaign in the months before Super Tuesday. There is no better experience than getting out there and getting involved

 

[Raincoat Massacre]

I 'bitched' about them long ago, when all I supported was Kucinich.

Yayers I lurved Kucinich. He was always so angry.

<----------------Now you can call me Rainbow brite...

 

[Kulindahr]

Just a thought:

not too long ago, "superdelegates" was what most delegates were.... party members had very little real say, and the convention was an actual selection affair, not a coronation.

BTW, I'm going to try to use UPLEOs from now on, just to be politically correct.

 

[noah617]

This is the real reason Lance calls them automatic delegates:

Hillary Adviser Harold Ickes Tells Surrogates To Refer To Super-Delegates As "Automatic Delegates"

In a sign that the spin war over the significance of super-delegates is underway in earnest, Harold Ickes told assorted Hillary supporters on a private conference call yesterday that the campaign wants them to start referring to super-delegates as "automatic delegates," according to someone on the call.

The person I spoke to paraphrases Ickes, who is spearheading Hillary's super-delegate hunt, this way: "We're no longer using the phrase super delegates. It creates a wrong impression. They're called automatic delegates. Because that's what they are."

The worry appears to be that the phrase "super-delegates" implies that "they have super-powers or super influence when they don't," the source says, describing Ickes' thinking. In other words, the phrase suggests that they have greater than average clout and that they have the power to overrule the democratic process, giving it the taint of back-room power politics.

The new term "automatic delegates" appears to be ostensibly a reference to the fact that these folks are super-delegates automatically, by virtue of their office or position.

I haven't yet seen any evidence that Hillary surrogates are following Ickes' directive, but if we start hearing the new term, we'll now know why.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_adviser_harold_ickes_t.php

It seems fairly harmless but at the same time has that stench of language manipulation that Bush loves so much.

 

[chance1]

Because that is the more appropiate term. They hold no special privileges above pledged delegates. Both have exactly one vote an exhibit and equal amount of weight. They are "automatic" because there votes are note based on the vote of any primary or caucus. Rather, they are granted a vote automatically by virtue of thier position within the party.

And yes, centex, I know exactly what you're talk about. I deal with it almost every day...

so super delegates (the real term) r just like pledged delegates? really?

pledged delegates r based on the voting of LOTS of people - regular people - poor, old, black, liberal, women - ALL kinds of people

super delegates r predominantly rich party boss types

so how r they the same again?

yikes

as for u witnessing history ............ give me a break

the history ur witnessing is "the brinks job"

check the fax for the new talking points lance

 

[lancelva]

so how r they the same again?

As I said, both automatic delegates and pledged delegates have exactly one vote each. So they are the same in that they both hold the same voting power at the convention.

 

[chance1]

As I said, both automatic delegates and pledged delegates have exactly one vote each. So they are the same in that they both hold the same voting power at the convention.

uh huh

clearly they're not the same - cuz the # of people required to generate a pledged delegate is vast

a super delegate is ............

a SUPER delegate

this is the part of the convo where u disappear lance cuz ur argument is invalid

and disingenuous

 

[lancelva]

^How is it disingenuous?

1 automatic delegate = 1 vote at the convention
1 pledged delegate = 1 vote at the convention

Therefore, 1 automatic delegate holds the same power as 1 pledged delegate.

 

[chance1]

^How is it disingenuous?

1 automatic delegate = 1 vote at the convention
1 pledged delegate = 1 vote at the convention

Therefore, 1 automatic delegate holds the same power as 1 pledged delegate.

do don't take my advice

they're not the same because .................

LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people go to the polls to vote - and those votes get added up/aggregated to create a much smaller # of delegates - don't know the exact math but i think u get it

Al Gore is a super delegate - he is 1 delegate

so by himself he has the power of LOTS OF VOTERS

not sure why ur playing dumb on this one lance

not sure at all

 

[lancelva]

do don't take my advice

they're not the same because .................

LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people go to the polls to vote - and those votes get added up/aggregated to create a much smaller # of delegates - don't know the exact math but i think u get it

Al Gore is a super delegate - he is 1 delegate

so by himself he has the power of LOTS OF VOTERS

not sure why ur playing dumb on this one lance

not sure at all

No, he has the power of 1 pledged delegate because he can only cast 1 vote at the convention. If you're concern is that pledged delegates represent more people, then that's why the rules only allow for about 20% of the total delegates to consist of automatic delegates. It all evens out.

 

[chance1]

No, he has the power of 1 pledged delegate because he can only cast 1 vote at the convention. If you're concern is that pledged delegates represent more people, then that's why the rules only allow for about 20% of the total delegates to consist of automatic delegates. It all evens out.

it all evens out?

how is it even that xyz dem political hack has the voting power of thousands of people

for arguments sake - state A has 100 delegates and 2 million people vote - and hillary gets 55% and obama 45% - and say hillary gets 55 delegates - so it took 20,000 votes to create that ONE pledged delegate

xyz politcal hack is as important as 20,000 voters

i don't think that evens out

 

[lancelva]

^What happened to all of your "rules" talk? The rules call for automatic delegates. And both sides, as you've said before, have agreed to the rules.

 

[Kulindahr]

Chance, you're trying to walk on cotton candy here -- you keep sinking, and all you get is sticky.

Lance is quite right that they each have one vote at the convention. You're not even arguing his point, you're doing like a professional politician and changing the question to what you wish had been asked, not what was.
And you're expecting a private organization to adhere to some white-tower principles you hold. If that's what you want, you need to rise to the top of that organization and get your ideas imposed. You want this to be an election process, which it isn't: it's a selection process. If the DNC had decided they were going to take a list of registered Democrats and randomly pick 100 of them to be "lottery delegates", they'd be perfectly entitled to do that.
This isn't government, and it isn't "of the people, by the people, and for the people", it's a private organization's internal workings. That's why the contention that Hillary aims to "steal" the nomination is baseless; she is so far following the party rules. And if she gets the DNC to recognize the Florida vote, that will also be following the party rules, since presumably they can make exceptions to the rules.
Is the current process fair? Not entirely.
Is the current process democratic? Definitely not.
But the current process is legal and legitimate, and as Democrats love to say, if you don't like the system, change it.

 

[noah617]

The rules call for automatic delegates.

Why do you keep using that made up word?

 

[Kulindahr]

^What happened to all of your "rules" talk? The rules call for automatic delegates. And both sides, as you've said before, have agreed to the rules.

Rules don't make things right.

Rules established by Democrats pretty much kept blacks in slavery for decades after the Civil War -- that wasn't right.
...since we're talking about Democrats here.

 

[lancelva]

And as Obama's senior campaign adviser said:

 

[Kulindahr]

^^^Why do you keep using that made up word?

I'm lost.
^^^ means three posts up. Where's the made-up word?