"SUPER" Delegates

[chance1]

^That's not true. It is very likely that Senator Clinton will go into the convention with a lead in the popular vote.

And remember: this is a Democratic Primary. We are electing the nominee for the Democratic Party. And Senator Clinton holds a commanding lead among actual Democrats who have participated thus far.

read my lips

D-E-L-E-G-A-T-E-S

Obama is up by 140 or so

 

[lancelva]

^As we saw in Texas, the delegates do not necessarily represent the will of the people. So you do not like the automatic delegates because you see the very same problem presented by pledged delegates. So why the double standard?

 

[noah617]

Does the job of Super Delegate come with a cape or do you have to buy your own?

 

[lancelva]

^Automatic delegates hold no special privileges compared to pledged delegates. Both are granted one vote at the convention and their votes are weighed equally.

 

[chance1]

^As we saw in Texas, the delegates do not necessarily represent the will of the people. So you do not like the automatic delegates because you see the very same problem presented by pledged delegates. So why the double standard?

u make an interesting point

i guess we should start the whole process over right lance?

until we find one that serves sen clinton best

cuz that's all u care about

manipulating the system to best serve her

bottom line for me is simple

superdelegates is an abuse of power - a handful of washington insiders who hold the keys to the presidency if it is close - must be changed for the future

they can vote on caucuses for futures - but these r states making these decisions right?

so that's different

but something to think about

 

[noah617]

So no cape?

 

[MystikWizard]

^It's not "stealing the nomination." The rules clearly outline that automatic delegates are meant to excercise their independent judgement.

Just because your candidate doesn't win does not mean something has been "stolen."

I thought the noble thing to do would be to let the majority decide. Apparently not. When you have Superdelegates like Bill Clinton ... hmm ... isn't he married to one of the Presidential Candidates?? Nope, no biases here) and other Washington insiders, this rips Democracy right out from the will of the people, and places it into the hands of the Elite to make the decision.

Something tells me that if this race was close and Hillary was leading in Pledged Delegates, and if Obama had more pledged Superdelegates, you would be throwing a fit about this process. And you know that is the truth.

Comedian Lance, you are a Spin-Machine and everyone knows it.

 

[lancelva]

cuz that's all u care about

manipulating the system to best serve her

How is following a process that has been in place for 26 years "manipulating the system." No where in the rules does it say that automatic delegates must serve as a rubber stamp for the pledged delegates. What would even be the point in having them if that was the case?

 

[chance1]

How is following a process that has been in place for 26 years "manipulating the system." No where in the rules does it say that automatic delegates must serve as a rubber stamp for the pledged delegates. What would even be the point in having them if that was the case?

this is eeerily reminiscent of the bill clinton years in the white house

where doubletalk was the norm

obama is not qualified for pres
i want obama as my vp

i agree with no delegates counting for fla/mich
voters in those states r disenfranchised

howard wolfson referring to obama as "like ken starr"
bill clinton saying obama's campaign is a fairy tale

i take back what i said about not understanding why people hate the clintons so much

cuz i know now

they will do anything/say anything

to win

anything

 

[MystikWizard]

this is eeerily reminiscent of the bill clinton years in the white house

where doubletalk was the norm

obama is not qualified for pres
i want obama as my vp

i agree with no delegates counting for fla/mich
voters in those states r disenfranchised

howard wolfson referring to obama as "like ken starr"
bill clinton saying obama's campaign is a fairy tale

i take back what i said about not understanding why people hate the clintons so much

cuz i know now

they will do anything/say anything

to win

anything

This is the first time I can ever remember in which someone who is coming in at 2nd Place is saying she wants someone who is in First Place with Pledged delegates to be her VP ... with her on top of the ticket.

 

[chance1]

So no cape?

would love to see the old farts in super hero capes

would make great tv

 

[lancelva]

i agree with no delegates counting for fla/mich
voters in those states r disenfranchised

The campaign never agreed that the Florida and Michigan delegates would not count. We only agreed not to campaign in those states, nothing more or less:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

they will do anything/say anything

to win

It's interesting that you talk about a candidate who will "do/say anything to win" when your candidate told the people of Ohio one thing about NAFTA and the Canadian government something different; when your candidate's top foreign policy advisor told the BBC that he would not really withdraw troops from Iraq, despite his campaign pledge; when your candidate talks about a "new kind of politics" while his advisors launch personal attacks on his opponents; and when your candidate touts "transparency" while refusing to answer questions about his involvement with an indicted slum lord. Talk about saying and doing anything to win...

 

[Kulindahr]

so voters have rights .........

but only if they chose the right person????????

Voters... in what?
At the moment, people aren't participating as citizens, they're participating as members of a private organization, subject to its rules. They thus don't have "rights", they have only privileges as granted by the organization's rules.

At one time, the Democratic Party had only "Delegates".

That doesn't sound very impressive, so "Superdelegates" were added in the 1960s.

There is some discussion of developing "Ultradelegates" for future elections, eventually to be replaced by the "Hyperdelegate."

Within 50 years, we hope to have "Superultrahyperpenultimate Delegates Gold."

That will be cool.

And finally, last but not least...

ludicrous delegates.

 

[andysayshi]

^ Or "ludicrates".

As mentioned, the primaries are not part of a true democratic process, but a means for an organisation to choose its figurehead.

In many demcratic nations, including Australia, the choice of leader/figurehead of a political party is made from within - the public have no role in selecting that person. They merely select their local representative (senator or similar) and hope that he/she will make the appropriate choice of leader for them.

 

[syntax]

The automatic delegates play an important role in the process and, right now, no candidate can win without the support of automatic delegates. They make up the party faithful...the grassroots organizers and party elected officials who know our party best. That is why they are not only allowed but expected to excercise thier best judgement in elected the candidate that would serve the best interests of our Party and nation.

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

 

[Centexfarmer]

The automatic delegates play an important role in the process and, right now, no candidate can win without the support of automatic delegates. They make up the party faithful...the grassroots organizers and party elected officials who know our party best. That is why they are not only allowed but expected to excercise thier best judgement in elected the candidate that would serve the best interests of our Party and nation.

Chance1 isn't talking about automatic delegates.

YOU, lancelva, are an automatic delegate (most likely because of your position within the Clinton Campaign).

I am an automatic delegate within the 23rd Senatorial District in Southwest Dallas County, Texas because of my 16 years of service to the Dallas County | Texas Democratic Party.

None of that means shit to me now, because the Obama Supporters who showed up in MY Precinct (A record 264 to caucus during the "Texas 2 Step" of which your candidate rcvd 75 votes) on March 4, 2008 kicked my ass to the curb.

I'm now an "automatic delegate" because there are "Super-Delegates" who feel like my service shouldn't be lost over one caucus.

THEY need Democrats who know what in the hell is really going on; procedure, decorum, rules of order, conventions, committees, GOTV, because a group of Kool-Aid drinking "nutter-butters" took a few classes to become a part of the party system, AND expect people like me to DO everything for them.

FUCK THEM!

Not because of WHO they caucused for, but because THEY'RE NOT DEMOCRATS!

They may have benefited from Democratic Policies, and some of them may have actually voted Democrat once or twice in their lives, but they've sipped the Kool-Aid, and because I am white and wasn't caucusing for their candidate, they didn't have ANY use for me.

I busted MY ASS to get Bill Clinton and Al Gore elected in 1992, and 1996, and Al Gore elected in 2000, and I'll be GAWD-DAMNED if I'm going to Support the likes of Senator Barack Obama because of HIS supporters, and his/their apparent disregard for fellow Democrats.

As I've stated in the past, if Senator Barack Obama wins my party's nomination I'll "bust my ass" to make sure that he wins, but after the March 4, primaries here in Texas he won't be getting any of my help.

I thought that Hillary Clinton didn't give a flying rat's ass about the Democratic Party; anything to win.

Senator Barack Obama apparently doesn't KNOW enough about how Democratic Party politics work, that people that you describe as:

the party faithful...the grassroots organizers and party elected officials who know our party best.

Don't matter.

In fairness I hoped that, at least a few "Super-Delegates," would recognize the party faithful, but in the Democratic Texas 23rd those individuals saw it as a power play, and they're working it for everything that they can get toward their own personal advantage.

Some have appointed me an "automatic delegate" because they don't trust anyone else.

I'm beginning to come around to supporting a complete elimination of the "caucus" process within the Democratic Party.

WINNER TAKES ALL!

This is the shit that's being left in the wake of the Clinton/Obama campaign for POTUS within each respective State Democratic Party.

I'll bet you lunch and the airfare to get there, that once the nomination process is over, neither Clinton or Obama will stick around to help clean up this mess!

Of course, you're probably too close to see, know, or to care about any of that.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Centex, your post makes no sense to me.

Why would it?

You're not a Democrat, and from what I know of you, you've never actively participated in the inner workings of any American Party that actively worked to get their candidate | platform elected.

Hands on.

First hand knowledge | experience.

As much as you dislike Lance, he's got a front row seat in history.

I've only spent the past 16 years rearranging the scenery.

He should know what I'm talking about, and if he doesn't, then give him 16 years.

 

[Twisted06]

I thought the noble thing to do would be to let the majority decide. Apparently not. When you have Superdelegates like Bill Clinton ... hmm ... isn't he married to one of the Presidential Candidates?? Nope, no biases here) and other Washington insiders, this rips Democracy right out from the will of the people, and places it into the hands of the Elite to make the decision.

Something tells me that if this race was close and Hillary was leading in Pledged Delegates, and if Obama had more pledged Superdelegates, you would be throwing a fit about this process. And you know that is the truth.

Comedian Lance, you are a Spin-Machine and everyone knows it.

let the majority decide? hrm really ?


is that why obama has those caucus things when average working people are normally working? oh ya thats really fair show your enemy that you can fight have a caucus when hillarys main support is normally working. l

and why r u and others still complaining about the fucking super delegates ? this goes back to the florida thread. i said there votes should be counted because its right thing to do, nevermind the rules. and then you and others come in saying thats the rules, if they wanted there votes to count they should have went by the rules. same bullshit here midnight the super delegates are part of this. if you dont like it do something take it up with the goverment who really cares even ? someones always gotta find something to whine about when it dosent benefit them.

and back to the majority thing. i guess nobody thinks back to the george bush accident? how do you even know the votes are being counted right ? you dont know.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well that seemed underhanded, nasty, and clarified nothing. A shame I've wasted so much time and effort (and money) into poli-sci...

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.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well, political science looks at the over-all system, its effects on law, micro-/macro-economics, groups, individuals, international affairs, polling, elections, etc---not to mention attempting to understand foreign governmental systems---as it is now, historical relevance, and future implications, and other pretentious, intellectual mastubatory, and delusional efforts.

Yep!

It's like reading a book about fly-fishing, as opposed to standing in a clear stream and ACTUALLY fly-fishing.

Good luck with that!