It looks like the democrat nomination is going to come down to super delegates. Super delegates being democrat congressmen, senators & govenors, casting their vote in any way they wish.

We know that Hillary is behind in the popular vote, & the delegate vote. Someone on this board estimated that she would have to win approximately 61% of every state left to beat Obama. Which is highly unlikely.

So, eventually the super delegates have to come into play. What would induce a super delegate to vote for one or the other, while possibly ignoring the wishes of the voting public?

Does anyone else on this board see a welcome sign to corruption? I sure do.

Your thoughts?

There are two takes on the superdelegates.

There's perception and then there's reality..

The reality is that they were generally meant to quietly be able to manipulate the outcome of a primary race which used to be pretty low key.

The reality is also that they can no longer quietly manipulate things because the race has been so public. This presidential primary race is being looked at more closely than any race in the last 40 years..at least. So as a result, the public knows all about the Superdelegates. The Jig is up.

Then there's the perception. The perception of the public is that these superdelegates are shadowy figures who will work politics in a smoke filled room where they will make deals and basically cave to bribes...so we can't know how they will vote. There's no way that the perception of the Superdelegates is going to be positive unless they theoretically split down the middle. Since that's not likely, no matter what they superdelegates do, it's going to be controversial.

Superdelegates were a way for the DNC to quietly pull strings if they needed to be pulled. They were a good idea as long as they remained largely unknown. Now that they are visible, it's obvious that it's a horrible implemenation for an election in which the public participates. Look for them to be completely abolished in 2012 if the DNC has any common sense at all.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

This election reminds me of 1932... From what I read from history books...

It was the height of the great depression, and Alfred E. Smith, the man who lost to Herbert Hoover the first time, due to distrust and lack of likeablility. Decided he'd try to give it another go. But then another man, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who Smith had helped get elected as governor as New York, thought he'd challenge him. Roosevelt had 12 years experience before running for the presidency (exactly the same as Obama). He had been out of politics for nearly a decade after being stricken by polio. But his address for Alfred Smith at the 1928 Democratic Convention brought FDR into the national spotlight, he had the status of a "rockstar".

During the months leading up to the '32 primary, things were terrible in America, the stock market continued to fall everyday, record amounts of Americans were being foreclosed on (we broke that record today by the way), and revolution seemed imminent if the government didn't act fast to address the problem. Smith was the early favorite for the nomination early on, he often criticized FDR, telling him, it wasn't his time yet, he was to vague about his ideas, he wasn't experienced enough to deal with the issues at hand, and he wasn't offering concrete solutions to the problems of the day.
But the momentum swung to FDR over the summer, it became obvious he would eventually be the nominee. Smith held on fast hoping to force a brokered convention, but much to his dismay, the delegations from the south and the great plains, gave FDR the lead, he still needed a few more delegates however, which was then that the minor delegates threw their support behind FDR putting him over the top.

FDR set a standard fot the first time showing up to accept the nomination, and pledging himself to a "New Deal" for the American people. The democrats knew with the republicans weakened by Hoover's policies, and with the rising star Roosevelt as their nominee, they would win the whitehouse.

However, Smith, was so upset over FDR winning the nomination that he campaigned against him in the general election. After FDR's election, Smith set up the liberty league, a group of fat cat wall street conservatives whose only purpose was to criticize all of FDR's policies. Smith ended up loosing all respect from his party.

Yeah it's corrupt. A politician being able to cut deals with another politician in order to get the nomination, above the will of the people, is a corrupt system.

There are so many back room deals in our election history that we could start a thread. The DNC tried to enforce it's muscle after the '72 election and now it's going to blow up in their faces. One reason is the "corrupt" look it has to it, another is that Howard Dean doesn't have the balls let alone the muscle to stand up to the Hildebeast and her trained pit-bull, Bubba.

Expect Superdelegates to remain in place. They might even expand.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

If the DNC screws this up, the superdelegates will be the only ones they have.

I really don't mind the superdelegates. The vast majority of them are elected party officials. Why shouldn't they have a say in who their party nominates for the presidency?

To me, political parties are kind of like clubs. If you don't want to be a part of one, you don't have to be. And if the clubmembers would prefer to be able to pick who they would like to nominate, as opposed to the general public, than I'm all for it. It's not as though these superdelegates are selecting the president. If you don't like the way the club nominates their candidate, don't vote for that club.

That being said, if a club feels it is very important that their candidate wins the position for which he/she is fighting, then it might be a good idea to pay close attention to how the voters feel.

__________________
"The nice part about being a pessimist is that you are constantly being either proven right or pleasantly surprised.”
- George Will

This is just petty partisan bullshit or just plain ignorance.
The GOP also has "uncommitted delegates", not as many, but that's the only difference.
The idea is that all these Super Delegates or uncommitted delegates are high ranking members of the party who can guide the party in a situation where the primaries and caucuses do not produce a clear winner.

If Obama is leading in the popular vote and the delegate count there is no way the super delegates will go with Hillary.
If the delegate count is close, within a dozen or two, and the popular vote favors Hillary, then the Clinton campaign has a good case to make to the Super delegates, and remember for that to happen Hillary will practically have to sweep the remaining primaries, if she does that, then she has a good case and it's up to the super delegates.

If no candidate got the required number of delegates in the GOP primary, it would be up to the uncommitted delegates to put someone over the top.

And if no candidate wins on the first round, the convention is open, and can select someone whose name didn't even appear on a ballot.

Welcome to politics.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Goober, I think the problem is that the Dems have so damn many. It's really ridiculous.

But the delegates could be staunch supporters of the status quo and go with Hillary.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004