These are people who have a vested interest in the future of the Democratic Party.

I wouldn’t trust in that as a general principle. See the Iron Law of Institutions. (When a fellow Republican accused him of ruining the party, Penrose replied, “Yes, but I’ll preside over the ruins.”)

There are, however, superdelegates that are elected. Some states have add-on delegates that are handed down by obscure rules, but are nonetheless bound by the election results, I believe. I forget how many of these there are, in total.

If I’m not mistaken, those are all elected positions, including the DNC chair.

I guess you’re taking what I wrote more literally than I’d intended. What I mean is that these aren’t “Just Anybody”’s. These are people who have a vested interest in the future of the Democratic Party. They are either current elected government officials (governors, senators, congresspeeps), or party officials elected through the normal party process (state and national conventions, for example, where the chair is elected by people who participate at that level).

I’m curious. Care to elabourate?

A number of issues in the GOP became so heavily charged — and this is really obvious with McCain’s campaign and party members saying they’d vote for Clinton before voting for McCain — that a lot of us just plain left the party. Many within the GOP today talk about “Neo-Conservatives” like they are a good thing. They aren’t. They are prone to playing dirty tricks because the person isn’t “Conservative-Enough”, and the result has been this insane march right-ward (wrong-ward …) into “neo-conservativism” — big government for big business, big government for controlling the bedroom, big government for controlling as many aspects of peoples lives as they can dream up. That is NOT the conservative way of doing thing. I wish they’d just go away.

I see the same thing happening within the DNC this cycle, particularly from the Clinton camp. Politics always involves compromise and when compromise is tossed out the window, or when slurs and slanders replace reasoned debate, the only person who benefits is the candidate. The usual DNC problem is pandering to every imaginable special interest group out there, hoping to garner another 1 or 2 percentage points.

Regarding the “high” negatives of Clinton: I think the issue is not so much that these people might vote D, as the degree to which they would go out of their way to turn out just so they could defeat Clinton.

I don’t know. Nobody does. Increasingly, I think it is probably futile to vote on the basis of what you think other people might do.

Well, wrong or not, they may just then wrongly abandon the Democratic Party.

Well, they might abandon the Democratic party once they find out that it’s not all that purely democratic. Whether or not they’d be wrong to do so is a matter of opinion.

So everyone who supports a rule that would objectively favour one candidate over another must be doing so out of a conscious desire to help that candidate.

Nope. I didn’t say that. I was asked about Speaker Pelosi, not “everyone”. Don’t put words in my mouth.

To answer what you propose as a contradiction in my position, I say that I believe that yes, the Democratic party hierarchy knew and knows what the whole idea of superdelegates is, but that Speaker Pelosi is deliberately speaking in contradiction to that in order to try to help secure the nomination for Sen. Obama. That’s an opinion, not something I can offer objective proof for.

I have a low opinion of Speaker Pelosi.

please try to remember that the super delegates were also elected

Not all of them. They include all current members of the DNC, all past former Democratic Presidents and Veeps, all former Senate and Congressional leaders, and all past DNC chairs.

There are, however, superdelegates that are elected. Some states have add-on delegates that are handed down by obscure rules, but are nonetheless bound by the election results, I believe. I forget how many of these there are, in total.

thus what they do can only be described as “the will of the people.”

Once you’re elected, everything you could possibly do is tautologically defined as the “will of the people”? That means we can get rid of all these expensive checks and balances on elected officials, since they can’t ever go against the will of the people by definition. Hell, we’d only ever have to pay for elections once every few decades - once they’re elected, they manifest the will of the people, right?

I’m sorry, but that’s some really weak porridge right there.

As an aside, some of the behavior I see from the Democratic Party faithful reminds me of what forced me out of the GOP years ago, and what has led to the ruination of the GOP since about the ‘88 or ‘92 election cycle. The DNC has always been a bit flaky, but this cycle the DNC is approaching the idiocy of the Religious Wrong and the damage they did to the GOP.

I’m curious. Care to elabourate?

I think it was Robert who put it best — please try to remember that the super delegates were also elected, thus what they do can only be described as “the will of the people.” It’s also the super delegates who have the biggest dog in this hunt. If the DNC makes a bad showing in November, they are more likely to be affected. Yes, one should keep We The People at the forefront of their actions, but advancing a candidate that will harm the party, whether because of their perceived racist and classist beliefs, or because they have strong negatives in some other area, isn’t the way to stay in office and keep We The People at the forefront of their actions.

In all likelihood, Obama will get the go-ahead at the convention. Clinton looks, to me, to be trying to debate Obama to death. This isn’t the 1800’s, when candidates debated all over the place (see the Lincoln v. Douglas debates …) because there were no televisions at the time, and even newspaper circulation wasn’t the best. They’ve each had their say — 21 times now — and it isn’t like we don’t know where they stand.

As an aside, some of the behavior I see from the Democratic Party faithful reminds me of what forced me out of the GOP years ago, and what has led to the ruination of the GOP since about the ‘88 or ‘92 election cycle. The DNC has always been a bit flaky, but this cycle the DNC is approaching the idiocy of the Religious Wrong and the damage they did to the GOP.

What is true this cycle that hasn’t been true before is that a LOT of party members are going to be upset after the convention. However, with the race this close, it shouldn’t matter nearly as much as it seems to — it’s not like Clinton has 20% of the delegates and Obama has 80%. Right now the gap is 141 estimated delegates out of 3155 estimated total delegates, or less than 5% of the overall delegate count. The way some of you are arguing, you’d think it was a lot wider.

Under the Democrats’ proportional awarding of delegates, any triple digit lead in delegates would have been virtually impregnable back in February, let alone April. Consider it analogous to a baseball game. To make the comparison clearer, let’s consider this a ridiculously high-scoring game with tons of innings. It’s the bottom of the 89th, the second last inning. The score is 87-80. Percentage-wise, there isn’t much of a difference. But getting 7 runs in two innings is still a very tall order. It’s the absolute spread that counts.

For Florida, I’d actually say that Clinton stands a chance against McCain while I’d say Obama doesn’t. However, I see it as more than made up by Obama’s turning Virginia and North Carolina together in a Florida - they make up a similar number of EC votes, and their electoral prognosis is similar (i.e. likely Republican, but enough to keep it a close fight). And Clinton is too weak in the West, in that not only would she lose all the Southwest states that are ready to turn blue this year, but also states the Democrats need such as Oregon and Wisconsin.

The nominating process is not a popularity contest to see if more people like Clinton than Obama or the other way around. The objective is electing the next president.

The objective is to select the next Democratic candidate for president, who in turn has to go through another popularity contest very similar to the primary process.

I’d accept a superdelegate veto on the primary results for one reason only: a bona fide dead girl or live boy. (Exhaling without inhaling type controversies don’t count.) If the latest Rasmussen polls are to be believed, the majority of Pennsylvania Democratic voters won’t accept even that, so I’m not even a hard-liner on this issue. I’m simply someone who can’t believe that so-called Democrats can write off the democratic will - which is expressed through the majorities, be it 2% or 40% - so casually.

What is true this cycle that hasn’t been true before is that a LOT of party members are going to be upset after the convention. However, with the race this close, it shouldn’t matter nearly as much as it seems to — it’s not like Clinton has 20% of the delegates and Obama has 80%. Right now the gap is 141 estimated delegates out of 3155 estimated total delegates, or less than 5% of the overall delegate count. The way some of you are arguing, you’d think it was a lot wider.

The best reason to have superdelegates is because it doesn’t matter how many people voted for Clinton in Florida — it’s going to go to McCain anyway. And the number of Republicans voting for Clinton in Texas, as a way to boost McCain’s odds in November, also don’t matter because McCain is going to win Texas, too. What’s going to matter is the number of delegates for which candidate from the states that are likely to be blue this time around. I’ve not taken the time to do the math, but if the super delegates don’t do that math, it’s further proof of the general stupidity in the Democratic party.

The nominating process is not a popularity contest to see if more people like Clinton than Obama or the other way around. The objective is electing the next president.

First, the end of the first paragraph of #33 should say “(1) does not follow from (2)”. Reading it over again, the numbering as it is doesn’t make sense.

Second, I concede my last statement was unfairly pro-Obama. I did not mean to say that no party activists are rooting for Clinton - and by extension, the only plausible means she can win by this point, some sort of superdelegate coup. (I wish I had a more value-neutral word than “coup”, but it’s the only one I can think of that approximates what I’m trying to say. I’m also typing while stoned.)

What I was trying to communicate was that Democratic activists hate the superdelegate system more than other Democrats; hence I contrasted “most” with “all”. For instance, establishment Clinton backers will defend a superdelegate coup outright, whereas regular Clinton activists may say that they don’t like superdelegate system themselves, but are willing to make an exception for the following reasons (usually something like a dead girl/live boy scenario, under the presumption that Rev. Wright or bitter-gate qualifies as dead girl/live boy). And establishment Obama supporters will express negativity about the superdelegate system, whereas regular Obama activists will angrily denounce it. That’s all I was trying to say.

But it’s no secret that I’m pro-Obama - or more specifically, anti-Clinton - so chalk it up to my bias if you will.

I saw Edwards on the Colbert Report and his rationale for having remained uncommitted so far - he’s still trying to say what little sway he has, which is even by the most generous estimate is small, to goad the candidates into stronger health care and anti-poverty positions. Both Obama and Clinton supporters who condemn him for not making an endorsement yet should therefore STFU. Had it not been for Edwards, neither Clinton nor Obama would have any sort of universal health care plan. How good would it have been to been to looking at a potential President Edwards at this point in time? But alas…

In actuality, it’s a majority of the entire party, voter and official alike, and essentially all of its committed activists, against a thin smattering of party elites and opportunist partisan hacks.

I strongly agreed with this entire post until the last sentence; the folks who want the superdelegates to decide for Clinton include a lot of committed party activists and regular party members, after all, and they’re not just elites and hacks.

For the most part, I think they’re not motivated by selfish opportunism, but by a sincere (but I hope mistaken) belief that Obama is incapable of beating McCain in an election.

EDIT: I missed Dianne mentioning sitting out the election on her last post. To which I say, I think it’s a greater danger than you’d think. Political junkies take it for granted that every four years we have the most important election in our lifetimes. I remember how much that was said about 2004, and I remember how many people stayed home anyway.

That may well be the opinion of your average Democratic voter, but that doesn’t mean that they’re right. People who support a political party, or any other organization, should have some idea of how it works.

Backtrack to the top of the thread and read how this issue came up. We were discussing the political ramifications, specifically from Black voters. The opinion of the Democratic voter may be that such an action by the superdelegates is unconscionable. You think they’re wrong. Well, wrong or not, they may just then wrongly abandon the Democratic Party. That is the whole point (and that was what we’ve been discussing).

You are arguing a point that no one is disputing. The superdelegate system is how the party works. We get it. We are disputing the moral implications of such a system, if it is to be used in certain manners. Your main argument has been thus:

1. It is not immoral for superdelegates to override the Democratic voters for any reason they feel like.

2. Superdelegates are how the Democratic Party nomination process works. Voters should know how their own party works.

(2) does not follow from (1). Give me an ethical argument, not a rehash of the rules.

From the fact that this will lead to the nomination of her favored candidate.

So everyone who supports a rule that would objectively favour one candidate over another must be doing so out of a conscious desire to help that candidate. Let’s see where that takes us.

Voter ID laws (which in a limited form I have no problem with) affect the poor, elderly, and recent immigrants the most. Ergo, it helps the Republicans and hurts the Democrats. Therefore, all such laws are a deliberate scheme to help Republicans.

Or does this reasoning only apply to Democrats you don’t like?

All I can say is that the Democratic party should have thought of this

Hmm. That depends on just what you mean by “Democratic party”. If you mean the people in the party structure, I agree, but no one has been disputing that point. If you mean the Democratic electorate, that they have no right to be turned off by a party process they don’t like, that they’re obligated to support a candidate they feel attained the nomination through illegitimate means, then I disagree. They have that right. They have no obligations.

This is all moot, because if things go as expected Clinton will need a supermajority of superdelegates to overturn Obama’s pledged delegate lead. I’ve heard estimates in the range of 3 out of every 4. It’s an impossibly tall order when the superdelegates are breaking the other way, with virtually every endorsement since Super Tuesday going his way (with the exception of Murtha), and his closing his once three digit superdelegate gap to around ten as of now. But this goes beyond Obama and Clinton. I plain don’t support such an overturning of democracy in any situation.

One last note. Your statement,

I’d say that is definitely is what pretty much the entire Democratic party structure thinks.

contradicts

From the fact that this will lead to the nomination of [Pelosi’s] favored candidate.

Pelosi is part of the “entire Democratic Party structure”. This isn’t a quibbling of semantics - she’s its most powerful piece, as Speaker of the House and Chair of the convention. Many establishment, elected Democrats oppose such unprecedented meddling by superdelegates. I know you are trying to set up a dichotomy between “real Democratic Party folk, elected officials, adults” vs. “stupid (Obama) voters”, but that isn’t borne out in real life. In actuality, it’s a majority of the entire party, voter and official alike, and essentially all of its committed activists, against a thin smattering of party elites and opportunist partisan hacks.

I’d say that is definitely is what pretty much the entire Democratic party structure thinks.

That is far from what from most Democratic voters would say.

I agree.

Charitably, they’d say that the superdelegates’ role is to go with the flow under normal circumstances, as they have done in their entire history,

I doubt that very many Democratic voters had any idea up to this point that the superdelegates existed and had had two seconds’ thought about what their role is or what their history is. This is the first time it’s come up; this is the first time that the will of the Democratic primary electorate has been virtually evenly split.

or pull the plug on the apparent leader if something should come up and make him unelectable in November. More cynical ones would say that they exist as a buffer to take down popular candidates who are nonetheless unacceptable to the party establishment.

I’d say both are true, and were part of the intent of creating the superdelegate structure.

Neither agree that superdelegates should get to override the will of the voters for any reason under the sun.

That may well be the opinion of your average Democratic voter, but that doesn’t mean that they’re right. People who support a political party, or any other organization, should have some idea of how it works.

That would be the “democratic” part of Democratic Party speaking. … Under a democracy, the candidate who gets the most votes deserves the title.

The person who gets the most delegate votes will win the nomination. It’s just that the Democratic party deemed the primary voters not completely trustworthy and won’t let them pick all the delegates. The Democratic party deliberately made it’s nominating process undemocratic. It made it … republican. The electorate votes for delegates, who are pledged for the first ballot to a particular candidate. They are not voting for the candidate directly, and they don’t get to vote for all the delegates; some of the delegates hold their office by being successfully elected to state or federal office by the general electorate, which includes a lot of people who don’t vote in primaries. It’s actually pretty analogous to how the Congress was first set up; the House was elected directly by the people and the Senate was elected by the State legislatures, which in turn had been elected by each State’s electorate.

Whereas the Republican party has a delegate selection process that is more … democratic. All it’s delegates (IIRC) are elected by the primary voters. In the Republican party you can’t have this issue; unlike the Democratic party they trust their voters and give the party hierarchy much less room to override the primary voters.

You are acting as if Obama alone sees anything wrong, peculiar duck that he is, with superdelegates overriding the will of the voters. Nancy Pelosi, who will head the convention, has expressly said that the superdelegates should not overturn the leader of pledged delegates. Where on Earth do you think she got that idea, Ron?

From the fact that this will lead to the nomination of her favored candidate.

I’ll freely grant that the average Democratic voter is a) quite surprised that the primary voters don’t have the entire say over who the Democratic party nominates, b) thinks they should, and c) will be displeased if that isn’t what happens. All I can say is that the Democratic party should have thought of this; they should have considered “If a given candidate ends up with a few percentage point lead but we think they’re not the best choice, what’ll happen if we use this mechanism to reverse the result?”

They should do one of two things. Either tell the superdelegates “you should all vote as you damn well please” and explain to the electorate why this should be so (have the guts to back up what they’ve done), or they should say “you all should vote as the electorate in your states voted” and then abolish them after this convention.

Yeah, well, I voted for Bloomberg in the last mayoral election. The question in this case, really, is would you (and people like you) vote for Obama over McCain? Lieberman isn’t running. At least not any more. You had your chance to get him in line for the position and blew it.

A lot of Democrats hate what the Clintons have done to the party.

I’ve used the phrase “He’s a Clinton” to explain my opinion of “left-wing” European politicians such as Blair or Schroeder who aren’t really left-wing. It is an insult. But I find it hard to believe that most people on the left would really vote for McCain over Clinton or even sit out the election. Mr “Bomb Iran” just isn’t someone that gives the left a feeling of confidence.

You might be surprised. Just using me as an example, I would pull the lever for Joe Lieberman over many, many Republicans - John McCain among them. And I’m pretty far right. (Of course, so is Joe. But you did say ‘Democrats’, not ‘left-wingers’.)

There is a lot of frothing Clinton hatred over in the right wing, true, and that tends to overshadow the existence of frothing Clinton hatred among many liberals, particularly as those liberal Clinton haters don’t want to be seen as being part of the Judicial Watch crowd and so stay quiet. But they are there. A lot of Democrats hate what the Clintons have done to the party.