Super Delegates

News Type: Event — Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:31 PM EST

politics, obama, democrats, clinton, democrat, barack, hillary, democratic, primary, dnc, primaries, caucus, delegates, superdelegates, caucuses

Will Bower

At this point, Obama can't win without the Super-Delegates either, which the media doesn't seem to be addressing.

My thoughts? So much of Obama's support has come from Independents, Republicans, first-time-voters, and from caucuses... that I would have no problem with having the Super-Delegates call if for Hillary, if it came to that.

The Super-Delegates were put in place for -exactly- this scenario... to decide the ultimate outcome of a neck-and-neck race. Why throw this system out the first chance that this it can be put into effect?

Yes, Obama has been on a winning streak... but Bill Clinton, like Hillary, had a lengthy losing streak himself back in 1992. Hillary isn't out of this yet, and the media (namely MSNBC) is yet again dancing prematurely on her political grave.

Anyhow, back to the Super-Delegates: If all of the primaries where open only to Democrats, Hillary would be in the lead. If all of these primaries were -primaries-, and not caucuses, Hillary would be in the lead. If all of these primaries were winner-take-all -- as are the Republican ones -- Hillary would be in the lead. So yes, although I may be biased, I have no problem with the Democratic Party having a say in it's own nominating process at the end of the day. With the election being as close as it is, it's not as if that would amount to a coup d'etat -- but, rather, to a slight course correction.

4 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Will Bower's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: none

Public Discussion (5)

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

3.0

1.0

{"commentId":1500808,"authorDomain":"bondibox"}

bondibox

The problem with super delegates deciding the final winner is that someone's going to be pissed. And I'm not talking about Hillary and Barack. I mean the Populists, who seem to be behind Obama (as evidenced by his lead in total votes) versus the Establishment - the people like Chuck "Lizard" Schumer for whom the superdelegate system was devised. If the delegates go to Obama, expect Schumer to get all pissy, and if they go to Clinton, expect a revolution within the party.

{"commentId":1500808,"threadId":"224066","contentId":"1320878","authorDomain":"bondibox"}

2 votes

#1 - Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:56 PM EST

{"commentId":1501209,"authorDomain":"njb"}

njb

If the party wants to be unified, they will not overturn the will of the people.

Many of the people who support Obama do so because they want to vote against another Clinton.

I would venture a guess that many feel it is time to put the two rulings families out to pasture.

Another guess would be that the HRC supporters would support Obama before vice versa--minus the party loyalist.

I agree with the above comment though, if the supers decide the nominee, it could split the party. Forever.

I don't see how it could be a pretty outcome.

{"commentId":1501209,"threadId":"224066","contentId":"1320878","authorDomain":"njb"}

1 vote

#2 - Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:52 PM EST

{"commentId":1501257,"authorDomain":"agio"}

agio

So in other words, if the Democratic party were to try and limit popular participation in the nomination process as much as possible Hillary would win. And then, in the general, all the independents would go to the GOP. Great strategery, there.

{"commentId":1501257,"threadId":"224066","contentId":"1320878","authorDomain":"agio"}

2 votes

#3 - Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:11 PM EST

{"commentId":1501798,"authorDomain":"toes2tango"}

news junkie

the media have discussed this ad nauseum, just so you know. i hope we're all including the written word in our media umbrella. super delegates is most of what i see discussed on the web. i don't use the television for actual information anymore unless i want to watch a live debate.

{"commentId":1501798,"threadId":"224066","contentId":"1320878","authorDomain":"toes2tango"}

#4 - Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:59 PM EST

{"commentId":1532986,"authorDomain":"willbower"}

Will Bower

Bondibox. I think we're far enough along into this that -- at this point -- people are going to pissed *regardless*. Therefore it comes back to who can better survive that Rove-machine in the Fall. We've already gotten a small taste this past week of how Swift-Boatable Obama is. The Superdelegates might -- in their wisdom -- realize that, in the end, they don't want to put such easy prey on their ticket.

NJB. I can assure you that -- for all the Obama supporters who will not vote for Hillary, there are Hillary supporters who will not vote for Obama.

A brokered convention will not destroy the party. Granted, the outcome could very well mean that Hillary and Obama are forced to share the ticket, but that -- at least -- is a solution. And, even if there is a split this time 'round, there's nothing that would keep the halves from re-coalescing by '10. The split would *not* be "forever".

And, Agio, how is it any better strategy -- on the whole -- for Republicans to be invited into the Democratic Primaries? Or vice versa? Again, what is the point of Party politics if those within their respective parties cannot choose their own candidates?

Considering that the White House has been occupied by Republicans for 28 of the past 40 years, it might be worth considering that their more-competitive / less-"democratic" system of electing their candidate is a more successful one.

{"commentId":1532986,"threadId":"224066","contentId":"1320878","authorDomain":"willbower"}

#5 - Sun Mar 2, 2008 10:28 PM EST

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"224066","isPrivate":false}

WILL BOWER

Backyard

Super Delegates

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: