Superdelegates deciding the nominee.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I know we've discussed this before, but the count isn't changing......it's very very close.

In my view it would cause irrepairable harm and by the time they healed their party, November would already be upon us.  I don't think they'll tip the scales in the opposite direction of the pledged delegate outcome.

[J. J.]

The super delegates were designed to change, or at least provide a check on, the vox populi.  There are many more races out there than the presidential race and super delegates should give the party a more global view.

These are super delegates:

Current Democratic Members of Congress and Governors, all elected:  275-300.

Current officers, former Chairmen, all elected by the DNC at some point:  25-35.

Members of the DNC, elected by their state parties, some self selected:  The bulk, I'd say about 400.

Former Democratic office holders, presidents, vice presidents, Speakers, and Democratic leaders:  Maybe 15.

It is an indirect democracy, but still democracy.

These leaders will have a more global view.

[Verily]

These leaders will have a more global view.

So global that, the only time they got to make a serious decision, Walter Mondale was the result. The positive spin won't cut it.

[Flying Dog]

If the SuperDelegates overrule the decision of the elected delegates then there will be hell to be paid.

[J. J.]

These leaders will have a more global view.

So global that, the only time they got to make a serious decision, Walter Mondale was the result. The positive spin won't cut it.

Hart conceded prior to the convention, so that wasn't the case.

I'm old enough to remember McGovern and Mondale and the was a world of differene between the two.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Even superlefties like Rachel Maddow on MSNBC say if the supers decide this against the vox populi they'll be "pitchforks and torches in the street".

I think the libs are terrified because they don't know how it would fracture the party.

[Aizen]

If Obama won more delegates but those superdelegates end up reversing it for Clinton, I'll be one of those people with a torch and a pitchfork on the street

[angus]

The super delegates were designed to change, or at least provide a check on, the vox populi.  There are many more races out there than the presidential race and super delegates should give the party a more global view.

These are super delegates:

Current Democratic Members of Congress and Governors, all elected:  275-300.

Current officers, former Chairmen, all elected by the DNC at some point:  25-35.

Members of the DNC, elected by their state parties, some self selected:  The bulk, I'd say about 400.

Former Democratic office holders, presidents, vice presidents, Speakers, and Democratic leaders:  Maybe 15.

It is an indirect democracy, but still democracy.

These leaders will have a more global view.

good points all.  In any case neither party is a branch of the government.  They are mostly--and in my opinion should be totally--privately funded institutions.  They need not be democratic in any measure.  Any person or group can and should challenge them.  I have voted for third party and independent candidates more than once.  I urge others to do so if they aren't satisfied with either party's candidates.

That said, no I don't think unpledged delegates are really expected to live up to their commitments.  Clinton's unpledged delegates out number Obama's by about 90 (235 for Clinton compared to 124 for Obama, according to CNN.com), but they can change their votes if they want.  Presumably those who publicly endorsed Obama (Kennedy, for example) will vote for Obama.  And those who endorsed Clinton (Bill Clinton, for example) will vote for Clinton.  My guess is that many will decide later.  Probably many will decide based on local politics.  My own rep, for example, would do well to vote for Obama since Obama won his district.  Others, perhaps some originally committed to someone else, may vote for Clinton for the same reason.    If one candidate ends up with a majority of all soft delegates, then that candidates becomes the party's nominee, and it really doesn't matter since the Democrat party needn't be a democracy.  Same for Republicans.  They are simply factions, agents of politicians, operating within the framework of a democratically-run Republic.  Internally, they may choose to operate in a democratic fashion, or they may not.  That's really a decision for partisan Democrats to make.  And if they don't like the party's internal workings, they are free to leave, or vote for other candidates.

[J. J.]

Even superlefties like Rachel Maddow on MSNBC say if the supers decide this against the vox populi they'll be "pitchforks and torches in the street".

I think the libs are terrified because they don't know how it would fracture the party.

I think the ultimate problem is that you can make a political argument that the duly constituted super delegates should not decide the nomination because it don't represent the will of the people.  Y can't make the argument that those delegates in FL, that do represent the will of the people, shouldn't be seated.  At least you cannot without looking like an absolute hypocrite.

MI is not quite as bad as FL, but it still violates the vox populi principle.

[Nutmeg]

The super delegates were designed to change, or at least provide a check on, the vox populi.

Untrue.  Superdelegates were designed to help the winner of the pledged delegates over the hump in a close contest, not to decide the contest themselves.

Good article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html?_r=2

[Mr. Morden]

I agree with J.J. in principle.  I don't think there's anything wrong (in principle) with the superdelegates voting the opposite way from the pledged delegates.  I just find it politically unrealistic that they would do so, unless the results of the primaries end up as such a muddle that people can't even agree on who the "winner" of the primaries was (say, for example, if the "popular vote winner" is different from the "pledged delegate winner").

Because even if I don't have a problem with it (and I'm not a Democrat anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter what I think about this), lots of other people will, and I just don't think many of the superdelegates would want to live with the firestorm that would be created if they were seen to be "overturning the will of the voters".

[J. J.]

The super delegates were designed to change, or at least provide a check on, the vox populi.

Untrue.  Superdelegates were designed to help the winner of the pledged delegates over the hump in a close contest, not to decide the contest themselves.

Good article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html?_r=2

A bit of revisionist history from the NYT.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

[gmo]

They are mostly--and in my opinion should be totally--privately funded institutions.  They need not be democratic in any measure.

Agreed.

Why is there such wringing of hands over what the superdelegates would decide for the Democratic Party but not a whisper about the voice that all the non-affiliated voters in many states are having in deciding the nomination.  Should independents and others not officially in the Democratic Party be playing a major role in deciding who the Democratic Party should be nominating for president?

[TomC]

No, one of the two will concede.

[J. J.]

I agree with J.J. in principle.  I don't think there's anything wrong (in principle) with the superdelegates voting the opposite way from the pledged delegates.  I just find it politically unrealistic that they would do so, unless the results of the primaries end up as such a muddle that people can't even agree on who the "winner" of the primaries was (say, for example, if the "popular vote winner" is different from the "pledged delegate winner").

Because even if I don't have a problem with it (and I'm not a Democrat anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter what I think about this), lots of other people will, and I just don't think many of the superdelegates would want to live with the firestorm that would be created if they were seen to be "overturning the will of the voters".

Which voters.  Certainly not those in FL.

[J. J.]

No, one of the two will concede.

Frankly, I agree.

[Mr. Morden]

I agree with J.J. in principle.  I don't think there's anything wrong (in principle) with the superdelegates voting the opposite way from the pledged delegates.  I just find it politically unrealistic that they would do so, unless the results of the primaries end up as such a muddle that people can't even agree on who the "winner" of the primaries was (say, for example, if the "popular vote winner" is different from the "pledged delegate winner").

Because even if I don't have a problem with it (and I'm not a Democrat anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter what I think about this), lots of other people will, and I just don't think many of the superdelegates would want to live with the firestorm that would be created if they were seen to be "overturning the will of the voters".

Which voters.  Certainly not those in FL.

Whichever metric the campaigns can spin the media, the party activists, and the general public into believing represents "the will of the voters", that's the metric that'll be relevant in determining which way the superdelegates will go.  If that metric is "pledged delegates not counting FL & MI", then that's the one they'll follow.  If it's "pledged delegates including FL & MI", that's the one they'll follow.  If there's no consensus, and different candidates win under different metrics, and people can't agree on who "won" the primaries, then the superdelegates will either just go with whoever they think their own constituents think is the "winner" or whoever they personally would like to win the nomination.

[J. J.]

Whichever metric the campaigns can spin the media, the party activists, and the general public into believing represents "the will of the voters", that's the metric that'll be relevant in determining which way the superdelegates will go.  If that metric is "pledged delegates not counting FL & MI", then that's the one they'll follow.  If it's "pledged delegates including FL & MI", that's the one they'll follow.  If there's no consensus, and different candidates win under different metrics, and people can't agree on who "won" the primaries, then the superdelegates will either just go with whoever they think their own constituents think is the "winner" or whoever they personally would like to win the nomination.

I think thise two "metric" answers may be different.

Be prepared for a very nasty fight, in which the Queen of Nasty has already positioned herself.

[angus]

Should independents and others not officially in the Democratic Party be playing a major role in deciding who the Democratic Party should be nominating for president?

well, I think that's another issue entirely.  But it is also an internal matter for the Democrats.  As a practical matter, I like modified open primaries.  Most states I have lived in had them.  I wish Iowa had a modified open primary.  Everyone talked at the GOP caucus, by the way, about how "this'll probably be the last year for this.  by four years from now we'll go to primaries.  probably open.  It'll mean the end of the first-in-the-nation status, but it'll encourage participation."  I'd like to be able to say, "yeah, right."  But honestly, I don't know whether Iowa caucus goers bitch every year about the caucuses.  For all I know, this is the first year they're bitching about it loud enough for the legislature to hear it. 

But yes, the hand-wringing is silly.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans owe anyone anything, excepting those who gave them money.  And all they owe those people is to try their best to put one of their own in office.  I don't give money to either of them, but if I did, then you could probably assume that I have enough of it that it really makes a difference to me who wins, and in that case I'd be more concerned about winning than about about the democratic process.  As it is, I'm not wealthy enough to really care about winning.  This allows me to be idealistic with regards to the Democrat primaries and hope my favorite Democrat wins.  That happens to be Obama.  But if Hillary gets more delegates, then so be it.  After all, four-tenths of one percent more, of all the people who have chosen to vote in the Democrat primaries, have voted for Clinton than Obama.  Vox angus may urge you to vote for Obama, but it's silly to presume that vox populi Americana favors him.  The vox populi is attached to the os populi, and os populi is generally too busy consuming fast food and cheap beer to bother voting.  But those who do apparently favor Clinton over Obama.

I still say that if I'm a congressman and my district votes overwhelmingly for candidate X, and I'd previously said I'd vote for candidate Y, and I was facing a re-election battle in November, then I'd probably vote for candidate Y.  But then, I'm a stubborn bastard.  I'm thinking most active politicians are nowhere near as stubborn.  If they were, they'd never be re-elected.  My guess is that you'll see lots of constituent-advised voting in this particular year.  Especially in swing states like Iowa.

[Gabu]

I think this whole fiasco provides a good argument in favor of abolishing the idea of superdelegates.

[angus]

On the contrary.  Democracy is over-rated, of course, and it has gained a cult following on par with any religion nowadays, and so every time some process goes against the will of the people, people start bitching.  But frankly, nothing in the process suggest that superdelegates ought to be abolished.  In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that the whole "fiasco" shows that the pledged delegates should be abolished, and that they go back to the pre-1968 system.  That's if you believe it's a fiasco, of course.  I'm not sure I see any fiasco here.  I think debate and participation is a wonderful thing.  It's one of the silver linings around the great grey cloud that is democracy.  If you quench debate and discourse and airing out of disagreements and public input on policy-making, then you pretty much have diminished the only good thing about democracy.  And if you remove the good of democracy, and are just left with the stupidity of the easily-exploited great unwashed masses imposing the tyrrany of their favorite beauty-contest winners, then what's the point of having democracy in the first place?

[J. J.]

I actually like the idea of delegates having some judgment.

[gmo]

In fact, you could make a pretty good argument that the whole "fiasco" shows that the pledged delegates should be abolished, and that they go back to the pre-1968 system.  That's if you believe it's a fiasco, of course.  I'm not sure I see any fiasco here.  I think debate and participation is a wonderful thing.

I would definitely not dismiss an idea to revert the nomination process, say going to something like only what are now superdelagates.  People though are probably quite attached now to voting for the party nominees - not that many necessarily, but they would surely make a fuss.

My hope for what will be learned from this year on the Dem side is that there can be a staggered nationwide voting process to determine the nominee.  It does not need to be decided simply to go with someone who wins two little states at the beginning of the process.  It does not need to throw away the retail politics that gets candidates really pressing the flesh in favor of some TV commercial dominated national primary that will simply confirm the most well-known and well-funded.

Unfortunately it seems that people are getting conditioned to go apoplectic if a month after voting begins there is still any competition.  There is no need for the parties to feel so insecure that they cannot go through some internal debate across several months.

[perdedor]

Providing the race keeps up as it is, Obama will win inspite of the super delegates. However, if the race remains close and Clinton is elected via party bosses and "VIP"s...there will be a major backlash against the Democratic party. A much deserved one at that.

[bgwah]

I actually like the idea of delegates having some judgment.

Of course you do. Everything you have said regarding the Democratic primary, whether it be your desire to have the MI/FL delegates seated, your encouragement of Clinton among your Democratic family members, or your downright excitement at the thought of the super delegates crowning Hillary against the will of the people can only lead one to believe that you really, really, really want her to win this nomination. Not that you like her, but you know she's the candidate most likely to lose against your preferred candidate, McCain. A lot of Republicans feel this way, but then again they pretty openly admit it. You try to hide your true intentions behind "Democracy!1" and "judgement!11" claims, but it is fairly easy to see right through you.