NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23022090#23060662
The fix is in: Superdelegates and the Election Scam

The day after the Iowa caucus, I visited CNN.com to see how the delegate count looked for Obama and Clinton. At first, I was dismayed to see that he only garnered a 2 delegate lead over Clinton but, considering the mathematical proportions, this seemed appropriate. What did get my attention, however was the actual delegate count: Obama 66, Clinton 169. What?!

How did that happen? How does a third-place finish in the first caucus earn a 103 delegate lead over the first place finish? This made absolutely no sense and if you are not keen to how the real voting process works, let me fill you in on a secret that nobody is talking about:
It's called the super-delegates. The super-delegates are like the casino pit bosses whose job it is to make sure the house always has a slight advantage. These delegates are party insiders that are not obligated to vote in accordance with the will of the people. Instead, these delegates base their votes on Mafioso-like bartering tactics.

http://matthewraleigh.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/07/1209432-the-fix-is-in-superdelegates-and-the-election-scam-
Message to the US DNC:

You need to scrap this super delegates Bullshit sooner than later.
The people should decide, NOT some elders-know-better group.

Scrap this shit now or else disaster is all that much possible.

*waits for the Hillary apologists to attempt to "refute" this*

Shit's going to hit the fan if Hillary wins because of super-delegates.

Shit's going to hit the fan if Hillary wins because of super-delegates.that is exactly what I am talking about.

if he wins the democratic vote and the mafiosi-Super-delegates give it to her anyway, the shit is going to hit the fan ... lots of shit.

Well, a little revolution, now and then, is a healthy thing...

Let it hit the fan. That way we fix it.

Let it hit the fan. Can you say president MacCain? That is the amount of shit I am talking about.

If the DNC destroys democracy inside their party, they dont deserve my vote. I dont care if its MacRambo at the other side.

Can you say president MacCain?

Can you say "I'm getting the hell out of the country if that happens?" I can.

Shit's going to hit the fan if Hillary wins because of super-delegates.

Either way, if super delegates make the decision (because there are still a lot uncommitted and with a neck and neck race, the committed delegate race is likely to go all the way to the wire) it's going to result in a great deal of disenfranchisement. At which point one has to wonder, why bother? I'm far more worried about that (regardless of who they hand it to) than I am the disenfranchisement from the Michigan/Florida thing.

You're acting like it's news.

It isn't.

Oh, and cut the ridiculous insertion of words like "mafiosi" in front of things you don't like. It's lame, and the only other types of groups who do it are right-wing talk radio hosts and Latin American leftist caudillos. Neither group is particularly appealing, unless you are deranged.

Amen to the OP!

Since all the superdelegates are party or public officials, what we're doing in Alaska for our 4 superdelegates is telling them (nicely) that if they do not vote at the convention in at least the same proportion as our popular vote (3 to 1 for Obama), we will hold the Hillary voters politically accountable, and it will probably cost them their party position. This is necessary because we have our party chair being the biggest Hillary person in the state, and Bill Clinton personally called at least one other superdelegate (who is so far sticking to her pledge to remain uncommitted).

Please note that we didn't resort to these tactics until after lobbying them a lot first, so when contacting the superdelegates in your state, I recommend first emphasizing why you think Obama would make the best president, then if applicable, kindly mention that the reason you're contacting them is because THEY represent YOU in the Democratic party, as party officials / superdelegates from YOUR state.

In no way should Michigan be allowed, but Florida maybe. Hillary would've won regardless - it is full of Hispanics and old people.

In no way should Michigan be allowed, but Florida maybe. Hillary would've won regardless - it is full of Hispanics and old people.

Both states have until June 10th to ask for a 'do over,' in which the candidates could campaign and ultimately those states get their wish-they will be important decider states. But at the very least the cat in charge at Michigan is currently ruling that option out. Fucking ridiculous.

Oh, and cut the ridiculous insertion of words like "mafiosi" in front of things you don't like. It's lame, and the only other types of groups who do it are right-wing talk radio hosts and Latin American leftist caudillos. Neither group is particularly appealing, unless you are deranged.

Am i the only who doesn't think "mafiosi" is a particularly negative word? Maybe I watched the Godfather one too many times, but the root really only means "braggart".

more like STUPERdelegates


AMIRITE?! :D

more like STUPERdelegates


AMIRITE?! :D

POOPERdelegates.

Well, a little revolution, now and then, is a healthy thing...

Let it hit the fan. That way we fix it.

But... ugh... just think of the mess...

But... ugh... just think of the mess...

Don't worry, I have enough mops for everyone. :)

Let's hope some head's will roll too. We need some spring cleaning of the fixtures in Congress.

Let's hope some head's will roll too. We need some spring cleaning of the fixtures in Congress.

*hands Trotskylvania a mop*

I hope you plan on helping us clean up afterwards.

*hands Trotskylvania a mop*

I hope you plan on helping us clean up afterwards.

After that, I won't mind at all. :cool:

After that, I won't mind at all. :cool:

Cool, let's get to it! *starts handing out guillotines*

By no means am I defending this system. It's so convoluted and money-oriented that no decent candidate stands a chance. But this is NOT an election. These primaries and caucuses are tools to help the PARTIES choose their candidates. They aren't our candidates and they aren't nominated by us. They are nominated by their parties. Now obviously, the parties want candidates that are 'electable' in their eyes, but they are also looking for candidates that will best represent the will and desire of the parties. In other words, they are looking for the best and brightest cocksuckers they can find.

:)

By no means am I defending this system. It's so convoluted and money-oriented that no decent candidate stands a chance. But this is NOT an election. These primaries and caucuses are tools to help the PARTIES choose their candidates. They aren't our candidates and they aren't nominated by us. They are nominated by their parties. Now obviously, the parties want candidates that are 'electable' in their eyes, but they are also looking for candidates that will best represent the will and desire of the parties. In other words, they are looking for the best and brightest cocksuckers they can find.

:)

I'll second this. If the parties didn't want to, they have no obligation to even hold a primary.

That said, this is a crappy-ass system, and it's an awful pity for Americans that those who actually care and want a better system are greatly outnumbered by those who do well out of the system(mainly those cocksuckers LG mentioned) and those who don't really give a shit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23022090#23060662
Message to the US DNC:

You need to scrap this super delegates Bullshit sooner than later.
The people should decide, NOT some elders-know-better group.

Scrap this shit now or else disaster is all that much possible.
Um... this is a primary. The people are lucky to have a say in the first place, since this is entirely a Democrat Party matter.

But this is NOT an election.The parties ask people to register (become a registered Democrat) .. part of their sales pitch is that we will VOTE to elect the Candidate for president.

If that -sale pitch- offer is a Lie, If my vote is going to be ignored by the Democratic Party, I would want my money back. AND I want my name out of their lists, They can forget about any kind of support for the next 10 years.

Like I said they still have time to fix it, but they have to do it before this goes to the wire.

Am i the only who doesn't think "mafiosi" is a particularly negative word? Maybe I watched the Godfather one too many times, but the root really only means "braggart".

Quite.

That, and because of how it's used in our society, it almost seems more like a joke than anything else.

The parties ask people to register (become a registered Democrat) .. part of their sales pitch is that we will VOTE to elect the Candidate for president.Yeah, so that they don't have Republicans voting for a nonsense candidate to torpedo the Democrats.

If that -sale pitch- offer is a Lie, If my vote is going to be ignored by the Democratic Party, I would want my money back. AND I want my name out of their lists, They can forget about any kind of support for the next 10 years.Seriously? You signed up to be a democrat? And now you're pissed about the consequences?

Like I said they still have time to fix it, but they have to do it before this goes to the wire.You have no intrinsic right to determine the democratic candidate. That's up to the party, and being a registered Democrat does not count.

By no means am I defending this system. It's so convoluted and money-oriented that no decent candidate stands a chance. But this is NOT an election. These primaries and caucuses are tools to help the PARTIES choose their candidates. They aren't our candidates and they aren't nominated by us. They are nominated by their parties. Now obviously, the parties want candidates that are 'electable' in their eyes, but they are also looking for candidates that will best represent the will and desire of the parties. In other words, they are looking for the best and brightest cocksuckers they can find.

:)But the primaries are increasingly publicized and are practically the election itself. People and media follow it closely and now it is closer than it has ever been and the superdelegates are actually going to have to do something besides show up and enjoy the complementary food table. But if they all decide Hillary is the best candidate because she kisses ass better, the people are going to know about it and they are going to be pissed.

more like STUPERdelegates


AMIRITE?! :DNo, it's "stupor"...

.. being a registered Democrat does not count.Then why on earth would I want to register as a Republican or as a Democrat ???

Then why on earth would I want to register as a Republican or as a Democrat ???Why on earth did you want to register as anything if it wasn't to become a party member?

One of the really fun things is that, despite their clear conflicts of interest, the Clintons and Obama are all superdelegates. It's like being on a board to decide whether or not you (or your spouse) gets a job or an award.

Why on earth did you want to register as anything if it wasn't to become a party member?I would not want to become a member of any Party if my opinion would not count.

One of the really fun things is that, despite their clear conflicts of interest, the Clintons and Obama are all superdelegates. It's like being on a board to decide whether or not you (or your spouse) gets a job or an award.

are they? i thought i heard otherwise...
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
they are! wow, that's just silly.

at the very least, lieberman isn't one anymore - seems that endorsing the other party gets you kicked out of the club.

I would not want to become a member of any Party if my opinion would not count.Striking off on an unrelated tangent, here.

I've already made my trip back to the US for this year. Otherwise, I might well be headed back in August to help '68 Denver if and when Billary trys to steal it. As is, I'm sore tempted...

Striking off on an unrelated tangent, here.would you?

-if your opinion does not count for the election of the candidate- would you want to become a member of such a Party ?

are they? i thought i heard otherwise...
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
they are! wow, that's just silly.

at the very least, lieberman isn't one anymore - seems that endorsing the other party gets you kicked out of the club.

Didn't he quit the club when he lost his congressional primary and run as an independent to retain his seat? Now he just caucuses with the Democrats but that wouldn't get him in on their special reindeer games anymore.

As long as they both (Clinton and Obama) are super delegates they kind of cancel each other out.

Random conspiritorial thought, that might have been forwarded a few times already but I just thought of it and I don't want to redo this post just to check...

Doesn't this many superdelegates act as a mega-buffer against any anti-establishment candidate? Like, they'd have to win by a bunch in order to not get hosed by the super delegates? I guess you could argue that if your the establishment why wouldn't you want that-if there is someone so adrift they shouldn't be part of your group, but someone elses, or something. I mean, a Conservative wouldn't be a good fit, if somehow they ran or something...


Okay, can't find a way out of that maze so I'll stop now.

And Bill has a conflict of interest as well.

Didn't catch that part. Thought he was supposed to be retired and shit. No, that's lame.

As long as they both (Clinton and Obama) are super delegates they kind of cancel each other out.

And Bill has a conflict of interest as well.

As for the rest, the reason for superdelegates is to keep the people from controlling the party. The party leadership needs to feel that they have more of a say in things than the average voter, so they've given themselves more of a say in it.

Striking off on an unrelated tangent, here.

I really have to agree with OD here. The reason you become a registered member of a party is not just to have a sticker, its because you believe in certain principles, and want to support the party that you think has vaguely similar ideals. You expect that party to uphold the principles it claims to uphold. If its not doing that, why would anybody join a party?

I've already made my trip back to the US for this year. Otherwise, I might well be headed back in August to help '68 Denver if and when Billary trys to steal it. As is, I'm sore tempted...

Can't you just do an absentee vote?

I really have to agree with OD here. The reason you become a registered member of a party is not just to have a sticker, its because you believe in certain principles, and want to support the party that you think has vaguely similar ideals. You expect that party to uphold the principles it claims to uphold. If its not doing that, why would anybody join a party?

But that's the thing, in the US parties are more than just the national Presidential race, they're local, and I daresay, they're local before their national. You participate in parties not just for the Presidency, but because you want to participate in the decision making process at all levels of government.

The big campaigns generally run themselves without the sort of party support that smaller, local campaigns do. And anyways, it's your county commissioner and your mayor who have a far greater impact on your everyday life than do your President and Congressman.

Can't you just do an absentee vote?

he means he wants to be there in case the mayor of denver declares that the police aren't there to create disorder, they are there to preserve disorder.

Welcome to American politics.

Hopefully this will split the democratic party into two. One full of corrupt peopl like Hillawhore, and one full of progressive liberals, willing to listen to their constituents

Didn't catch that part. Thought he was supposed to be retired and shit. No, that's lame.

ex-presidents, vice prezes, speakers of the house, senate majority leaders, and such-like get to be superdelegates forever.

btw, having those types on actually makes some amount of sense to me. its the hundreds and hundreds of completely unaccountable (to the rank-and-file, directly) party hacks that bug me.

he means he wants to be there in case the mayor of denver declares that the police aren't there to create disorder, they are there to preserve disorder.

Fortunately, Denver isn't run by the king of corruption, Mayor Daly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23022090#23060662
Message to the US DNC:

You need to scrap this super delegates Bullshit sooner than later.
The people should decide, NOT some elders-know-better group.

Scrap this shit now or else disaster is all that much possible.

Waaah!

First, the primary process has never been a straight up-and-down popular vote. It is closer to that than it has ever been, but it is a complicated process designed to balance competing party interests.

Second, it is a bit hypocritical of some of the same people I've seen lecturing Hillary supporters about "the rules" regarding Michigan and Florida to complain about "the rules" when it comes to superdelegates.

It is unlikely that the outcome of the primaries will be decided by the superdelegates, but if it is "ces't la vie." Those are the rules. Merely because you don't like the way the superdelegates are leaning is hardly basis for complaining about the whole system.

Second, it is a bit hypocritical of some of the same people I've seen lecturing Hillary supporters about "the rules" regarding Michigan and Florida to complain about "the rules" when it comes to superdelegates.

It's one thing to complain about the rules and quite another to try and change them midstream. If they decided right now to drop the superdelegates, that would be a mid-primary rules change, and it would be an unfair move. But that doesn't mean that having superdelegates in the first place is necessarily the best situation.

It's really the same with the Michigan and Florida thing. The decision to exclude them entirely likely wasn't the best decision to make. But changing it now would be unfair to everyone involved.

One thing I would like to see, which is standard in most operations whether it is in the rules or not, is for those superdelegates with clear conflicts of interest in the race to recuse themselves from the voting. But I doubt it will happen.

This seems confusing.
Is this normal, as in set in the system thus necessary for it to function to prevent further corruption?
Or is this really how it reads, a horrific twist of democracy? As i've seen conflicting posts, and know little about how US politics works.

Aside from that some of my general predjudices are, politics is run by the rich, because the large political parties are funded privately, thus serving a smaller group of people.
No wonder the "thickos" don't like to vote, they don't have any power in it anyway.

It's funny when i was little i used to think politics was some some bizzare creation, with lots of old men smiling, and arguing and laughing in their debating chambers speaking very fancy language and allways surrounded by paper.

It is unlikely that the outcome of the primaries will be decided by the superdelegates.Then Its unlikely there will be a problem.

If the superdelegates respect the will of the voters I have no problem.

It is closer to that than it has ever been, but it is a complicated process designed to balance competing party interests.
Competing party interests consisting of what? Who can kiss the most ass and pull the most strings? The superdelegates generally don't have to do squat because usually a person wins the required 2k pledged delegates.

Second, it is a bit hypocritical of some of the same people I've seen lecturing Hillary supporters about "the rules" regarding Michigan and Florida to complain about "the rules" when it comes to superdelegates.
And what are the rules for superdelegates? They can vote for whomever the hell they want. If Obama wins the most pledged delegates, people are going to get pissed when Clinton wins the nomination because a large number of superdelegates are closely attached to her - her husband, people working in her campaign.

It is unlikely that the outcome of the primaries will be decided by the superdelegates, but if it is "ces't la vie." Those are the rules. Merely because you don't like the way the superdelegates are leaning is hardly basis for complaining about the whole system.
Except it becomes a basis to complain about the whole system when the superdelegates overrule the pledged delegates.

This seems confusing.
Is this normal, as in set in the system thus necessary for it to function to prevent further corruption?
Or is this really how it reads, a horrific twist of democracy? As i've seen conflicting posts, and know little about how US politics works.

While primary elections are now held nationwide, this is really party politics rather than US politics. This is how the parties pick their nominees for president.

It was never meant to be truly democratic, and is actually much more so than the old system - where very few primaries or even caucuses were held. The party elite were once the only people with a say in who the candidates would be.

Then Its unlikely there will be a problem.

If the superdelegates respect the will of the voters I have no problem.

While I'm not advocating this is the correct position to take, let's look at it from a different angle, shall we?

The superdelegates receive their spot for the service that they've done unto the party, and because that the service they've done goes above and beyond what the average member has done. They've likely made some sacrifices, to varying degrees, and they've dedicated their lives to the work of politics and the betterment of the party.

If they decided right now to drop the superdelegates, that would be a mid-primary rules change, and it would be an unfair move. But that doesn't mean that having superdelegates in the first place is necessarily the best situation.The DNC has to correct this nonsense rite now. If they dont, they risk the following scenario:
Obama wins 60% of the popular vote (60% of the normal delegates), yet the SuperDelegates give the win to Hillary anyways.

The DNC has to correct this nonsense rite now, if they dont they risk the following scenario:
Obama wins 60% of the popular vote (60% of the normal delegates), yet the SuperDelegates give the win to Hillary anyways.

At this point, the superdelegates exist. It's up to them to keep that from happening - or suffer the consequences if it does happen.

I suspect that the reason most of the superdelegates have not yet committed to a candidate is precisely because they see that possibility - and know that it would not be a good situation. I could be wrong, but I think it's rather likely that many of them are waiting to see which candidate has the most pledged delegates, so that they can go along with that.

Also, I heard on the news the other day that Dean has already stated that he doesn't want to let this race be decided by the actual delegate vote at the convention - that, if the race remains close, he'll try and work something out with the candidates. I don't know exactly what he expects to work out, as I don't see either candidate giving up, but he seems to think he can do something.

The superdelegates receive their spot for the service that they've done unto the party, and because that the service they've done goes above and beyond what the average member has done. They've likely made some sacrifices, to varying degrees, and they've dedicated their lives to the work of politics and the betterment of the party.Mitt Romney has sacrificed 30 Millions of his own for the Republican Primaries, does it mean his vote should be equivalent to the city of Baltimore?

What about those Exxon execs that donate Millions every year? their vote should be the equivalent to the voters of Detroit.. and what about that powerful Union leader over there? he sure can have the equivalent of a small town? .. and what about Lou Dobbs? he surely weights more than San Francisco.

Mitt Romney has sacrificed 30 Millions of his own for the Republican Primaries, does it mean his vote should be equivalent to the city of Baltimore?

What about those Exxon execs that donate Millions every year? their vote should be the equivalent to the voters of Detroit.. and what about that powerful Union leader over there? he sure can have the equivalent of a small town? .. and what about Lou Dobbs? he surely weights more than San Francisco.

Except that's not an accurate description of the type of people who would be superdelegates, rather, this is:


1. The procedure to be used for certifying unpledged party leader and elected official delegates is as follows:
Not later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall officially confirm to each State Democratic Chair the names of the following unpledged delegates who legally reside in their respective state and who shall be recognized as part of their state’s delegation unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party;
1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,

2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,

3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,

4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,

5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.

When I say that it's people who have dedicated themselves to the party and politics, I mean it. This isn't a list of big donors, this is a list of people who have dedicated their lives to service.

Here's a couple of lists!

Undeclared Superdelegates (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html)
Declared superdelegates (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html)

When I say that it's people who have dedicated themselves to the party and politics, I mean it. This isn't a list of big donors, this is a list of people who have dedicated their lives to service.

I guess the real question would be: Are these people who have dedicated their lives to service in the DNC? Or are they people who have used the DNC to gain power - dedicating their lives to themselves?

My guess is a little of both, with significantly more of the latter.

2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,

3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,

4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,

5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.


... this is a list of people who have dedicated their lives to service. politicians, Senators, liars, Governors, politicians. Do you really love this bunch? I sure dont love them that much.

I think nurses, teachers, volunteers, etc deserve more credit for dedicating their life to service.

The political class needs new people, and they will get my respect back when they prove deserving.

Shit's going to hit the fan if Hillary wins because of super-delegates.

I'll just sit back with a beer and watch the fireworks.

K, so we have know the Electoral College system and everything like it needs to be gotten rid of and canidiates elected by popular vote solely since 2000, why won't it happen?! The american empire, isn't it great?

Long live the revolution!

Kinda shocking how many people seem to have been unaware of the concept of superdelegates. Granted, they're a recent addition to the process, but it shouldn't have been news to so many - it's not exactly a secret, and it's never been a secret that the superdelegates would probably give Hillary a nice edge. But, "better late than never," when learning about the process, I say. :)

Superdelegates have never really mattered in recent elections, though. I mean, can anyone remember the last time a party nomination was still a coin flip after Super Tuesday?

Kinda shocking how many people seem to have been unaware of the concept of superdelegates. Granted, they're a recent addition to the process, but it shouldn't have been news to so many - it's not exactly a secret, and it's never been a secret that the superdelegates would probably give Hillary a nice edge. But, "better late than never," when learning about the process, I say. :)

Kinda shocking how many people seem to have been unaware of the concept of superdelegates. Granted, they're a recent addition to the process, but it shouldn't have been news to so many - it's not exactly a secret, and it's never been a secret that the superdelegates would probably give Hillary a nice edge. But, "better late than never," when learning about the process, I say. :)

We knew, just none of us made a thread to bitch about it until recently.

It was never meant to be truly democratic, and is actually much more so than the old system - where very few primaries or even caucuses were held. The party elite were once the only people with a say in who the candidates would be.See, it all depends on what you consider "democratic."

Lately, the popular assumption seems to be "no vote, no democracy." Certainly not every democratic theorist thinks this makes sense. Indeed, some of us think it's downright lunacy.

For a long time, the Democratic Party had a very strong system from the bottom-up and from the top-down. There was communication. Party members at the very lowest levels felt that they were intimately bound up in decisions about party platforms and candidates even at the highest levels... even though 99% of them would never cast a vote at that level.

They knew each other. They knew their party bosses. And up the chain it went... at every level, delegates were held responsible to people at the next lowest level, and they were held responsible through some of the strongest bonds of all: social bonds. If they didn't communicate the preferences of people back home, if they didn't fight to get a party platform that served local interests, they'd not only be out of a job--they might lose their whole social network, their friends.

In those days, the platform really came first. The party debated, they chewed on it, they considered the various interests that needed to come together to make the party strong, to construct a unified front. There was room for the kind of grassroots politics that generally gets trampled in the line of big-money candidates who run the show today. Then when they had a platform, they discussed the candidates who might be able to sell it. They thought about the political situation on the ground, and they drafted someone who fit the day.

Did they always make great decisions? No, they made some damn shitty ones, but you can pick out plenty of shitty candidates from the primary era as well. Some analysts of American politics, however, have argued rather forcefully that while the platform nominating system didn't necessarily produce good candidates, it had the potential to produce truly great candidates who otherwise would never stand a chance.

Under the primary/caucus system, candidates MUST decide many months--even years--in advance if they want to run. You can talk about "establishment" and "anti-establishment" candidates all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the primary system LOCKS IN candidates who can draw in big money, who can draw it in early, and who are willing to commit to a campaign years before the actual election. The chances of picking someone up who "fits the bill" when we actually know the what the bill is... well, those chances are pretty much zero.

It weakens the party in general, which is not necessarily a good thing for democracy--again, depending on how you think democracy is supposed to run and what it's supposed to do, weakened parties can be a really bad thing. As it stands, we choose a candidate and the candidate more or less dictates the major platform points--or, if they don't, we wind up with the even worse situation in which we have a candidate who is unwilling or unable to stand for what the party believes in.

We wind up with wishy-washy politics. No one knows what they're voting for anymore, they only know for whom they're voting.

I'm not at all convinced that's healthy for democracy.

Either get rid of the superdelegates or change the party name because "democrat" is a misnomer.

that is exactly what I am talking about.

if he wins the democratic vote and the mafiosi-Super-delegates give it to her anyway, the shit is going to hit the fan ... lots of shit.

Not that it doesn't stink to hell, but please. Like it hit the fan in 2000?

Not.

Also, I heard on the news the other day that Dean has already stated that he doesn't want to let this race be decided by the actual delegate vote at the convention - that, if the race remains close, he'll try and work something out with the candidates. I don't know exactly what he expects to work out, as I don't see either candidate giving up, but he seems to think he can do something.Dean should be showing as much transparency as possible on this issue.
I his message is : "we are going to solve this mess behind closed doors" ... It is the wrong message.

Feb. 8, 2008
...
Super Delegate Uproar

The prospect of the Democratic presidential nomination being decided by super delegates has also raised the ire of left-wing bloggers, who have suggested it would not be democratic to have party leaders decide between Obama and Clinton.

"This is a complete disaster," blogged Chris Bowers this week on his Open Left website.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4261986&page=1

BTW thumbs up to Donna Brazile, a rare politician of principle.http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

politicians, Senators, liars, Governors, politicians. Do you really love this bunch? I sure dont love them that much.

I think nurses, teachers, volunteers, etc deserve more credit for dedicating their life to service.

The political class needs new people, and they will get my respect back when they prove deserving.

Once again, these are people who have done a unique service to the party. They've removed themselves from the pleasant world of the private sector, where they'd benefit from the levels of personal privacy we're used to in everyday life, and taken up these positions in spite of the fact that their every move stands the chance of being scrutinized and ridiculed from here, to the BBC to A Daily Show. That's a pretty damn significant sacrifice in my opinion.

And anyways, why the hell should anyone give two shits what you think about Presidential candidates? You think Hugo Chavez, yet another pathetic, authoritarian Latin American populist caudillo, is an example of a great politician. Your expectations are severely out of line with everyone else's.

Okay, first let's clarify a misconception which appears to be incredibly widespread. America is not a democracy. It is a republic.

What's the difference? A democracy is a system of government in which the people elect their government officials. A republic is a system of government in which the people have an influence on the election of their government officials.

It's very clear to see that we're a republic in American politics. From the primaries and caucuses (look at Nevada, in which Clinton won a majority of the votes, but Obama was announced the winner), to the presidential elections (same thing has happened at least twice in our history).

The American people like to believe, in fact they *want* to believe, down to their very souls, that they are the ones choosing our elected officials. They are not...in a republic, their vote counts, but the person the majority wants may or may not win.

Eventually this may change, and America may become a true democracy. But for now, this is the way the system works.

Okay, first let's clarify a misconception which appears to be incredibly widespread. America is not a democracy. It is a republic.

usia is an allegedly democratic republic. there is no hard and fast distinction that necessarily separates republics from democracy.

Can't you just do an absentee vote?

LOL It would be rather difficult to disrupt a fioxed convention a la 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_Protests) by absentee vote. But you have got me thinking. We live in the digital/cell phone age... Thanks! :)

he means he wants to be there in case the mayor of denver declares that the police aren't there to create disorder, they are there to preserve disorder.

;) Indeed. At least something along those lines...

Fortunately, Denver isn't run by the king of corruption, Mayor Daly.

Even so, the exclusion of Michigan and Florida combined with the SDs possibly deciding it, is a potential recipe for a repeat of much of what happened in 1968.

Okay, first let's clarify a misconception which appears to be incredibly widespread. America is not a democracy. It is a republic.This is about the Democratic Party. (DNC)

its internal elections -if you wish- to elect a nominee.

So I guess the question is: "Is the Democratic Party.. Democratic?"

If your answer is "Its a Republic" then I am afraid I have to give a D-