jane!

Did you mean to have choices 3 and 4 in the superdelegate vote be the same?

Thanks for this mini-poll, Jane. I thought for sure ‘voting by popular vote’ would be on top. That proves you just can’t second guess a group of people. ;-)

jane – one of the issues that came up in the previous thread was that a lot of commenters objected to the “winner take all” approach, and preferred that the delegates try to accurately reflect the vote totals in the state. if the delegates wanted to do that, it would require that some delegates vote for each candidate and that the overall %totals of delegates reflect the %totals of voters.

i think that this preference should be an option on your poll.

Jane– I agree that Superdelegates should take their constituencies into account, but that doesn’t mean it should be the only thing they take into account when making their choice.

I think Richardson might have an out. Didn’t Hillary only win NM by a few hundred votes? If that? Does anyone know the breakdown by Congressional district in NM? According to his own logic though, he as an easier out than Kerry or Ted Kennedy.

Jane, makes you wonder if Richardson changed his tune after Obama became a target of the State Dept and knowing that some of the employees are connected to Bill’s previous administration? Could be.

questions 3 and 4 are the same. are you trying to skew the vote?

i should have included.. the option i described should be included if your goal is to gauge the preferences of your readers. but if it’s just to spark more debate, then it doesn’t matter.

I can’t vote in that poll. It’s not one factor, but weighing various factors, including the overall national pledged delegate count.

If the winner of the pledged delegate count doesn’t win the nomination, what will be the affect on the party?

good point… we also need an option of “none of the above”

I’m probably a minority in this believe but since most of the so-called super delegates are elected officials or are officials within the Democratic Party, I have to have faith that they have the best interests of the Country and party at heart so have to trust their good intentions.

If I can’t trust their good intentions in this issue, how can I trust their good intentions as elected officials or as state party officials.

Therefore, I have to trust them or do the work necessary to kick them out of their offices.

i also feel if the super delegate feels some really strong argument internally as to why a canidate is fatally flawed(my words) such as …the person is deceitful,they should vote for the OTHER choice imo

i said that yesterday…underwhelming mandate?

I have to admit, I think the super delegate system is a great idea

super delegates do not vote as a block, they were put into place to represent progressive issues, for instance there are American Indian super delegates and there are super delegates who represent women issues

and these delegates need to vote according to who will best serve their interest, this helps insure a progressive agenda from our candidates

it also inoculates us somewhat from a candidate catastrophe, some thing that becomes known that makes that candidate unelectable

I think it’s a great system and most people don’t know anything about it being the only real reason they’re against them

If I can’t trust their good intentions in this issue, how can I trust their good intentions as elected officials or as state party officials.

you can’t. that’s why we do oversight.

So the question remains — has Bill Richardson changed his mind?

I’ve changed my mind. I was a strong Hillary supporter, and voted for her in California. Since then, Obama has done a lot of things right, and Hillary has done a lot of things wrong, imo. I like that because of OHB’s name would be welcomed in the war ravaged mid-east, we may be able to get something accomplished there. I like that since he half African, we might be able to get something done there. I like that since he’s black and married to a black woman in a black church, we may be able to get something done here. If he chooses an administration like he’s chosen a campaign committee, nothing we can’t accomplish.

If he were president, I see his speeches translated world-wide, for the betterment of mankind and mother earth.

Yes. It’s fair to change your mind.

I am amazed to find so many defenders of the super delegates here! I have always felt the concept was entirely undemocratic, instituted specifically to suppress the DFH faction.

If we are really going to endorse Choice One

Cast their vote based on who they believe would be the strongest candidate for the party

We may as well dispense with the messy Primary process completely, since these omnipotent individuals are going to impose their will on us in any eventuality.

one good part about itis,that if one canidate does something egregious,like support the republican canidate,yes,let the real dem superdelegates strike back

Oversight is one thing but a lot of what folks propose for the super delegates fits the realm of second-guessing IMNSVHO.

I have to admit, obama has won my heart, I was really hoping hillary would be our candidate, now I don’t

I have to be honest here, though, I think both of these candidates are the most beatable of those that tossed their hat into the ring and am sorely disapointed in our party

i love you muchly! and yes i changed my mind about Obama too…ive gotten to know him,and his family…I LIKE WHAT I SEE

You are right. The problem is, looking back at how the party was run during the Clinton years, do we want a repeat of that? I don’t. It sucks that we don’t hear more about the issues from the media, but my big question to Hillary would involve what happened to the DNC and the party in general during Bill’s term and how would she fix it(since we know that most of her inner circle hates Howard Dean)?

exactly

most people who are against the system actually think the super delegates act as a block, they don’t, they vote according to their interest group

they are like states, a candidate must win their issue to win their vote…this is a really good idea as far as I am concerned

I would hope that SD’s don’t go against the will of the people, but only in the case if the Dems ever nominated a Pat Robertson type wack job(which I don’t see the Dems doing).

Then I assume you are working from within to change those rules that brought the super-delegates into being in the first place?

I’m not a total fan of the concept but I do understand the rationale for them. These are the rules of the Democratic Party, for good or for ill.

1,789 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Awe come on Sister Jane, let go of it…the New Mexico totals were within 1% and if ya polled the Hispanic activists NOW I believe a whole bunch of ‘em would leave Mrs. Clinton-McCain. But let’s get right down to it…the Super Delegates hafta reflect their constituencies because they gotta go back to ‘em fer votes and they know which candidate would be better all the way down the ticket in their state. So since the vote totals didn’t reflect any consensus, I won’t quibble with any local pol, super delegate’s choice even if it goez ta Clinton-McCain. But I firmly believe that the super delegates are breakin’ for Obama because they know that Clinton-McCain will be the Angel of Death to progressive candidates down ticket.

KEEP THE FAITH AND WATCH THE GRAPES THEY’RE STILL PRETTY SOUR!

I really think this superdelegate issue has been blown way out of proportion. I believe that the superdelegates were put in place to vote for the person who, in their view, would be the best overall candidate. I agree that they should be done away with, but after the election.

Here in California, it seems that half of the superdelegates already committed have committed opposite to what their constituencies voted for. Also, Bill represents all Democrats in NM (not just Latinos) and a difference of 1% doesn’t exactly give a clear mandate from the masses.

i voted for the superdelegates stepping out of the race. that said, no, we shouldn’t dispense with the primaries and conventions. if we did, then the superdelegates would have all the votes. the way it is now, they have some of the votes.

…but only in the case if the Dems ever nominated a Pat Robertson type wack job(which I don’t see the Dems doing).

There were those who believed the George McGovern and Jimmy Carter with both that level of wack job which is one of the reasons why the super delegates came into being.

i’m not disagreeing with on the superdelegates – i haven’t given it much thought and don’t have a strong opinion, one way or the other.

but i’m willing to argue all day about how history has shown we can’t trust our elected officials to represent our interests unless we are watching them every minute – even then, i don’t trust them. *g*

Seems like Sen. Clinton has been not very understanding to either Richardson,or Dodd,in their calls to her telling them of their decissions,her highly paid advisers are plenty lousy imo

In re: #30:
the that George McGovern and Jimmy Carter with were both…

let’s get this straight for everyone informed;

there is no smoke filled room to discuss who they will vote, they do not vote as a block, they vote according to the very purpose they were made a super delegate in the first place, to represent the issue they are an expert

there is no smoke filled room, they don’t vote as a block

jane – i’m curious… why do you think this is such an important issue? i haven’t been following the story of the superdelegates – should i be? is it a more important issue than i’ve recognized?

hahahahhahaha,i feel Obama ,is one i can trust,he seems to do self analysis
ht/K.Horney

The “changed your mind” has nothing to do with what candidate you support. Richardson said on principle that the right thing to do was for superdelegates to vote as their constituents did. That meant regardless of what their personal feelings were. Now he doesn’t seem to feel that way any more.

What is the basis for this philosophical shift?

it’s only an issue becaues the media is stirring the pot and trying to get democrats mad at their party, try to get the republicans happy to be republicans

there is no there here, this is not a real issue

and so he should say Upon further reflection,i was quite wrong about this

nothing is written in stone anymore,info moves at breakback speeds

you know – all the people who “trust” obama without even knowing him well are one of the biggest reasons i don’t support him. it’s freaking me out that you-all are going with your gut feels and your faith.

where did my reality-based community go?

Richardson could well be blowing with the wind for selfish purposes. Maybe Hillary and Bill invoking McCain as the stronger candidate than Obama pushed him over the edge though. That’s what did it for me…

Perhaps Richardson was promised a role in an Obama administration so he changed.

Quite Kissingerian, democracy is too important to leave up to the votes of the people.

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”-Henry A. Kissinger

just in case there’s any doubt. i’m not supporting clinton either.

… what i am sure of is that i will have no problem working against mccain.

has he in fact said he would cast a super vote for Obama or is this just an endorsement? John Lewis comes to mind as an example of someone who is casting thier super vote for the candiate that the majority of his constituents voted for but still supports and had endorses Hillary.

It is interesting to read the comments of people who have changed their minds from supporting Hilary to supporting Obama. No where in any of the comment sections of various political bloggers do I read it is the reverse. I wonder how many people are shifting from Billary to Obama? Anyone keeping tabs on this? My one hope is that no matter who is the democratic candidate, and I am for Obama, but if by some political hocus pocus trickery, it’s Hillary, my hope is that we’ll still vote for the democratic nominee, there’s too much at stake, especially future supreme court nominations.

I guess you just have to look at what’s been offered. Hillary has disappointed, and Bill has shocked. Obama has reassured. (I’m not using faith in any sense, just my pinhead.)

I don’t think any of us can go with anything but a gut feeling. We really don’t have an idea of what someone will be like as president and we go with what we have. I understand your feeling and we can keep our fingers crossed.

i have not said this lightly….i feel,and i have been around the block(many decades),just as strongly as i felt that chimp would be a complete and utter disaster,that this guy,gets it.my degree was in history/psych

I already commented yesterday on why i personally am supporting him.

(((selise))) it is the craziness of the season and i think that a lot of people have a personal interest vested in this race, that is they feel personally involved and that might speak to the passion by which some support their candidate.

Yes, according to the Obama campaign, Richardson is both endorsing and pledging his superdelegate vote to Obama.

Me too. I’m not Hillary bashing in the Kos sense of the word. I’m just sooo disappointed. She could have said that she screwed up on the Iraq vote as many others have. It’s a recent change of mind on my part. I sent $ when word came out that she was putting her own money into the campaign.

I’ll sure vote for her if she’s our nominee, though.

Well, I’m a little untrusting of the super delegate system because their vote can override the will of the people in our country, meaning, if a majority of Democrats vote for Barack and the super delegates want Hillary instead, I don’t see it as fair. I understand their value and their purpose (they’re there in case our party members elect a KKK member or something….they can override it for the benefit of our party and the country as a whole….the chances of a KKK member being nominated is slim though…just using it as an example).

1,789 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen kevinp and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

“I really think this super delegate issue has been blown way out of proportion.”

I’m with you Brother kevin, but I think the discussion has been healthy because I now believe that a balance of popular vote, caucus and super delegates gives the best opportunity for the base of the party to be reflected in the ultimate nominee. In the beginnin’ I was worried that the Clinton-McCain money machine would be able to buy the super delegates, but as I’ve watched the process play out, the super delegates are tellin’ us a lot about how each candidate is gunna play down ticket in their state.

So let’s keep the baby AND the bath water…the nomination process this year is gunna give us the best candidate for the party nationally up and down the ticket. It’s becomin’ clear that the Clinton-McCain strategy was to buy the nomination in a front-loaded process…when that didn’t happen, the bright lights of continuin’ scrutiny made a lotta the make-up run off Clinton-McCain.

KEEP THE FAITH AND KEEP YER EYES ON THE PRIZE…FEAR IS JEST A WORD!!

It’s not so much that I trust Obama. I don’t particularly trust him. And I don’t trust Clinton. I was undecided between him and Hillary until Hillary started going negative on Obama. For me she was giving ammo to the Republican menace and disregarding that we desperately need a Democratic president.

She started being in this fight just for herself and not for the party. That was when I chose Obama. Then when she said McCain would be a better choice than Obama, I went beserk with anger and disgust, feeling like I could never vote for her even if she became the nominee. I have calmed down since then because I will not do anything that could help McCain win. So I will vote. If she’s the nominee I’ll vote for her (think Supreme Court justices and a number of other issues), but damn I hate what she’s doing to the Democratic party and therefore the country.

loo hoo – i shouldn’t have said “you-all.” lots of people have reasons beyond faith or a gut feel, and i was wrong to make such a general statement. that’s doing something that irks me when others do it, so i’m especially irked at myself.

… there are lots of good reasons to support either candidate, and i’m shouldn’t have implied otherwise. i just don’t think “faith” or “gut feel” is one of them.

If I could vote to dramatically limit super delegates role in this process, I would. I think super delegates should not be able to vote unless a major candidate enters a health crisis or impeachable type offense late in the game.. or in cases of deadlocked ties, etc. At the very least, the number of Super delegates as a percentage of the over all delegate count is to high, imo.

Under the current system as I understand its rules, I voted for the first choice… strength of party.

If anyone fails to vote because their chosen candidate isn’t the nominee they may as well have voted for McInsane. There is far too much at stake to skip the process.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opini…..0803210304

Richardson said on principle that the right thing to do was for superdelegates to vote as their constituents did.

He did? Is there another quote where he said that? In the quote in this post, he says super delegates should “pay attention to” the voters. It seems the voters in his state said they like both candidates almost equally.

but the candidates have to compete for the delegates vote as much as the states, the states can overide the popular vote just like the super delegates can

this is a good system

I thought most people knew without saying that politicians have no integrity. Obama, Richardson, Clinton, all politicians. This is why Obama adulates have set themselves up for a big, big fall if Obama wins and they get to find out in no uncertain terms that Obama is a pol through and through. Thier Obama worship is greatly misplaced. It is understandable stemming from desperation for leadership after 8 years of the most vile scum imaginable at the helm of power, but nevertheless misplaced.
.

all people are equal but some are more equal.

Super delegates are anti democratic

One person one vote is the objective here

Has he given any more indication as to why he has had a change of heart?

Truth be told, I hope this leads to more sups declaring how they are going to vote, maybe it will end this race sooner rather than later.

This is a system which creates a special class of people. It is democratic and can override the will of the people.

Haven’t you had enough of that?

the delegate system is not one vote one person in the first place, the primary system is not one vote one person

the super delegate system is a stop gap, we do not have one person one vote even without the super delegates

listen this man turned down WALL STREET out of school ,and chose working in his own community for meager wages…THIS says a great deal to me about WHO HE IS as aperson,im cynical,but NOT that cynical

that my friend is the system.

If the inferior candidate does a better sales job they will get the most votes.

Voters beware.

Don’t dismiss the voters and disenfranchise them.

the super delegates do not act as a block sander, their vote is competed for just as a states vote

this is what we need, we do not need the delegate system to be able to overide the rule of the people and I believe the super delgate system does just that, it creates the stop gap and cusion in the case the lead candidate has a catastrophe

i don’t care who he is, i care what he does.

This thread is quickly descending into Obama vs. Clinton diatribes. Can we please stick to the super delegate issue itself? I do think it is important.

After this election, I’d like to get rid of super delegates. Don’t forget that the pledged delegates can vote for anybody! So we still have protection if the leading candidate does something wild, like endorse Nader or something.

I can’t have Edwards and I can’t have Dodd. Hillary and her circle are centrist and Obama sounds centrist but is less so as far as I know. I’ll take my chances with Obama since his coattails appear likely to produce more and better democrats.

you keep saying the current system is the will of the people but it is not

the primary system is not one person one vote and the person with the fewest votes can have the most delegates

each state has a say, it is not a popular race it is a state race, the super delegate system actually protects the people from a candidate that they do not want

Why is the delegate system alone less democratic than the with the super delegates on top?

Good point, wobbly.

It’s pretty hard to read Richardson’s earlier comments as anything other than an exhortation for superdelegates to vote the way their constituents did, but I’m sure if you try real hard — click your heels together and say “there’s not place like home” — it is possible.

I’m with you, I refuse to bash, call her our of her name or otherwise be nasty about the whole thing. My choice of candidate (3rd I might add) has everthing in the world to do with him being a better match for the issues that concern me and nothing to do with my rejecting or being anti- Hillary.

I like that we can have debates and discussions about issues but when veracity free comments are being tossed out as though they were fact (and presented as such) and cloaked as ‘concern’ or ‘vetting’, I have neither the desire, interest or patience to play along. This is why I’m here and this is why I have stayed.

why do you say the super delegates are on top?

they are not the majority of delegates, they are on bottom not on top

I’m with you on that. I would actually like them to change the whole primary system we have in place. i have seen a few different ideas batted around but would like to see the DNC address this

If I had my druthers I would abolish the states system and the senate and the electoral college. We are either one democratic nation or we are bunch of competing special interests.

I believe in one person one vote and the closer we can get to that the better.

I don’t need no effin super delegates to moderate my vote.

Who cares what Richardson says. He’s one voter. His opinion is not more important than yours.

I’m also impressed that people like Leahy and the Kennedys (most) and Dodd have endorsed Obama. These are people I normally trust. I’m curious as to why Feingold hasn’t endorsed yet. Has Waxman?

1,789 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen tbsa:

“If anyone fails to vote because their chosen candidate isn’t the nominee they may as well have voted for McInsane.”

You don’t hafta vote for Clinton-McCain if she steals the nomination, putcher money and energy into local, state and congressional races (and ,of course, the Senate) to insure that if McCrazy is elected super majorities of Democrats will be forced to act as opposition as they should have been for the last 8 years…in my opinion Mrs. Clinton McCain would be a disaster to the Democratic Party and ,by extension, the American people under any circumstances.

That’s the point here…Clinton Mccain is, in fact, NOT a Democrat and her candidacy will kill the Democratic Party up and down the ticket but will be most damaging if she wins the office.

KEEP THE FAITH AND BELIEVE YER LYIN’ EYES…THE CURE FOR THIS MESS IS MORE DEMOCRACY!!

if you want to get rid of superdelegates (and that sounds like a great idea to me), i think the time to raise the issue is after the primary is over – now the whole issue seems far to wrapped up in who a person’s preference (obama or clinton) is.

and that is what he did, and he alo,helped many people,in doing that

My friend super delegates get their vote because of privilege or some other reason beyond the fact that they are members of the party.

It sets them up as a special class. Don’t you see that?

They are not voted by the people to have a vote but assigned a vote because of partronage.

The SDs can caucus and vote to nullify the voting status. How bout that? or simply refuse to cast votes. But they need to do it as a block.

Not so hard if you read the next question and answer from that interview:

BLITZER: Well, the Democratic caucuses in your state, New Mexico, decided that Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Does that mean you have to go with the Democrats of New Mexico, because she won the caucuses there?

RICHARDSON: Well, she won by 1 percent, you know. It was a very contested race.

okay this puts it to rest for me…i agree with the guy

They are years long party activist who’ve worked their asses off in most cases.

Two people asked about why number 3 and 4 were the same upstream. I didn’t read an answer for that, maybe I missed it.

I voted number 4. I don’t believe we should have super delegates, but we have them now and shouldn’t change the rules midstream.

I still don’t understand why Bill Richardson voting for Obama is such a big deal. Why winner take all? If 49% of the voters voted for Obama shouldn’t they have a say?

Hee hee, you made me laugh there. :)

I’m quite serious. He did not say that super delegates should robotically vote for the person who mathematically won their state. He says they should listen to the voters. Did he put a timeframe on when the voters speak? Richardson doesn’t actually vote for months. Did he say the primary vote is the sole expression of the voters’ voice?

That’s not what Richardson said last night and he is one.

This was supposed to be in response to Jane @ 77

I don’t think that gives them more voting rights or special voting rights.

There are plenty of people who work their asses off yet in novemeber you get one vote.

I am appalled that anyone who believes in democracy can support such a system of class.

Well elected officials are supers automatically, but there are also party activists who’ve gotten the super status by working their asses off. I am an elected member of my dem central committee and I know two of them. They are regular people who’ve worked hard for the party.

I am one of those people who work very hard and only receive one vote. This all due respect you must spend alot of time being appalled. That being said my vote was to get rid of the supers alltogether.

Selise,

Why does it matter WHEN we correct a mistake.

This was decided by the elite in the party and that elite can simply denounce their special status and accept the will as expressed in the primary electoral and caucus process.

The solution is simply and just and hurts no one. The most popular “so to speak” will be the nominee as it should be.

I do spend a lot of time being appalled. But I also spend my time advocating positions which are consistent with my belief in democracy.

None of the candidates running are the most qualified to be the president of the united states. We have a flawed system and we need to try to perfect it whenever the opportunity arises and move toward a more equitable and just and democratic process.

You betcha

I am also for term limits because I believe that there is plenty of good people out there and the more who participate in government the better.

I don’t buy the hogwash about “institutional memory”
being vested in incumbents.

That’s like herding cats. These people are all individuals. The chance that they will decide to vote as a block is the same chance that the House of Representatives will vote unanimously on some bill.

True, but sometimes even selfish people can act selflessly and do what’s best for the party or the nation or something beyond their selfish interests.

I know it’s rare, but one can dream.

Why does it matter WHEN we correct a mistake.

because now it is not seen as a mistake by many who’s candidate is aided by the status quo. taking action now, will be seen as seeking partisan advantage by many people and changing the rules midstream.

why not take action when the action will be judged on it’s merits? don’t we have enough to argue about now?

that said, i’m all for abolishing them.

Imagine a business that replaced its entire staff every four to six years. Then talk to me about the unimportance of institutional memory.

New Mexico was pretty much a tie. If it was lopsided (even 5% difference), I might change my mind. But this wasn’t the case for New Mexico.

And, even so, if he is a governor, his constituents can vote him out next time, if they wish.

And WHY are there Super Delegates? If they are supposed to vote with their state’s results, that would simply double one vote. I thought the whole reason for superdelegates was to give them a secong chance to change their vote, esp. if they voted in January, and by the time June came, things had changed. And that is certainly the case this year.

Fern we have a rolling system of elections in the senate and could do the same in congress. There is no need to toss everyone out in one fell swoop.

The benefits of getting rid on incumbency outweigh the advantages of keeping the present system.

The present system is way to prone to corruption.

Even the word super delagates is elitist and wrongheaded.

The reason given was the fear that a populist could win over a party regular.

How’s that for a bad reason to have them?

Any reason why 2 of the choices are the same?

With all due respect to Jane, I suspect this is an issue because Richardson didn’t make the “right” choice.

what was the right choice?

On Topic

Bill Clinton will be at the CDP convention in San Jose next weekend to woo the SD’s

http://www.mercurynews.com/loc…..ck_check=1

And have elections every year for the house? I don’t think that is a good idea either.

I didn’t mean that in a business they all went at once, but that the whole lot of them were replaced at some point over that period of time.

My understanding is that the superdelegates are supposed to vote ‘for the good of the party’.
Jane, you have Richardson on record saying that there is something wrong with that. I believe you are correct that Richardson should correct/clarify his earlier statement.
But I do not see this as a burning issue.
FD: I do not have s real stake in this horse race.
I have a mild preference towards BHO which has been more a result of HRC’s campaign than his, but I am far more concerned with the prospect of a McCain/?? presidency than any Democratic alternative.

Your poll is missing the option I would choose: the candidate with the most pledged delegates should be the nominee. Any other option would only be appropriate under extreme circumstances: as the saying goes, if the leading candidate is caught with a dead girl or a live boy (reverse genders as appropriate).

You seem set on accusing Gov. Richardson of hypocrisy. But I’m sure that Richardson would agree to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton if all other superdelegates pledge to cast their votes for the winner of their constituency (which might be a congressional district, not a state).

Do you really think that the Democratic Party won’t be ripped to shreds if, somehow, Hillary Clinton were able to put together a victory based on superdelegates and poached pledged delegates, after losing both the pledged delegate race and the popular vote?

If Hillary Clinton were running a positive campaign, I’d be happy to see her stay in, as a race increases interest in the election and increases turnout. But she’s going around saying that the Republican candidate is qualified to be commander in chief and that the leader on the Democratic side isn’t. Jane, you would never tolerate such a statement from Joe Lieberman. Why the blind spot when it comes from Hillary Clinton?

If that’s the only way she knows how to run, I want her out of the race ASAP, because otherwise I can only conclude that her backup plan is McCain 2008, Hillary 2012, and that she’d prefer a McCain victory to an Obama victory. If that isn’t how she feels, she’d better turn around and train her fire on John McCain, pronto.

Sorry…I was on the phone with a friend.

Here’s what I want to know…how come the republicans don’t have super delegates? Why is it our party is torn by all of this ‘madness’?

I say no “super” delegates. no delegates at all. Popular vote only. All the rest of these shenanigans are an attempt to short-circuit the process so some hand-picked Hillary can get the nomination.

Republican vote as a block. It’s why they are so effective in congress and have so much party “discipline”.

It’s hard to imagine that all the Rs could support whacko dumb lying McCain, but they will. Winning is everything and they have no core principles.

I think the SD’s came about because of what happened with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…..atic_Party

http://www.cresswellslist.com/ballots2/mfdp.htm

Probably not the only factor but … what do I know

PS It’d be pretty ironic if the SD’s wind up voting for Hill over Obama in light of the links above

Thanks for the links, John. ;-) Maybe that is what Hillary’s role is in all of this? She’s staying in cause the national discourse the right wingers (and Rev. Moon!) want so they can take over the country by martial law. You never know with these people (DC insiders)…

Thanks for your comment too SanderO. I like the idea of popular vote in choosing our nominee and our president, which is something the wingers don’t like.

I don’t understand what all the hoopla is about the popular vote. Most caucus states did not have a popular vote election. If the popular vote is used as a measurement, it would leave out a whole lot of states. This is supposed to be a delegate race. It’s time for the Supers to step up to the plate and vote and end this before the Party is in such shambles that the Hillary and Obama factions find it impossible to support the winner against McCain.

Beautifully put.

How you can justify the superdelegates on that basis is beyond me. All delegates should be elected. It is as simple as that and that simple for the repubs and for the Dems before the Dem vietnam warhawks instituted the superdelegate process following the 72 convention.

Hello. Got here late, so someone I’m sure already said this…
in answer to the question,
grow a goatee?

Republicans have something similar, which CNN calls unpledged RNC member delegates.

But most of their state elections are winner take all, so it ends the race much faster, usually.

Wrong, The Repubs do not have unelected voting delegates

Somewhat OT:

Considering the wee rancorous beasties which have, of late, beset the better angels of many here among us, regarding civil political discourse;

Selise’s point concerning voting on ‘faith’, could, reasonably, be expanded to include ‘hope’ and ‘charity, as well.

What ‘titles’ and ‘attributes might you assign to those with whom you DON”T agree, regarding their choice of candidate? For example:

‘Hope’ is bandied about Obama – as if it were ceremonial incense …’

or,

‘To suggest that it is Hillary’s ‘turn’ is an act of ‘charity’ – expressing the soft discrimination of low anticipation …’

Let’s have a bit of humor, for poo’s sake if nothing else.

Jane,

It is very clear that you are concerned with Richardson’s ‘position’.

Please do not take this suggestion as flippant; Might you simply ask him?

This would provide a test, of sorts, for Richardson. Would he dare respond? Would he decline to really answer if he were to speak with you?

Many here, and elsewhere, would be most interested in his ‘answer’. If, indeed, some politicians have sensed the need for real change, beyond ‘politics as usual’, then you would have provided him an opportunity to demonstrate his committment to such change.

George McGovern, on Democracy Now recently, explained that the super delegates were originally to comprise only 25% of the delegates.

When we discussed the issue of super delegates at our county democratic convention recently, it was put forward that our Democratic Senator and Representative, Democratic Governor, and former Senator and Democratic National Committee Chair as well as our representatives to the Democratic National Committee (who have not been elected to those positions, at least in recent years, perhaps are appointed by the Governor) are all deserving of participation as super delegates in that (except for the DNC reps) they have been elected by our voters at large to represent our state(NM). Our fantastic Dmocratic state party chair also is a super.

It was pointed out that states having less Democratic elected officials do not have as many super delegates, and I suppose that more reddish states also have less overall delegates as they have less Democratic voters. I don’t know how the proportions are worked out.

I remember as a child, listening to the radio with paper and pencil in hand (oh yes, before little calculators, the convention was maybe not on TV, and we had no TV anyway) as each state read the number of votes for this or that candidate. We would add and re-add as the night wore on. I don’t know if it lasted more than the one night. There was suspense until the end and the smoke filled rooms and such, I suppose. In those days, the campaigns really did not start until September.

The NM delegation of supers is about 30% of our total delegation. The percentage gets more and more above 25% if your state happens to attract (for example) a former Senator from Oklahoma who has also been chair of the DNC, and the honor never goes away, I guess.

Senator Harris (OK, DNC) has been the only super delegate from NM prior to Richardson who has declared for Obama. The rest of the declared supers have declared for Hillary. There are many–maybe half–of the supers who have not yet said who they will support. So the balance of the supers from NM have a lot to think about.

The Native Americans among the Harris family are individually supporting Obama. It would not be a surprise if one of them would be elected as a “people’s delegate” to the ‘08 Democratic Convention.

We will elect half of our delegates to the national convention to support Hillary Clinton on April 19, and less than half of our delegates to support Barak Obama, based on our votes February 5.

I am not the biggest fan of Richardson, but he is a good Democrat, and he will work hard to elect a Democrat to be President. Right now, he is working for Obama.

It is part of the dirty racial secret (?) in our country that there is tension between Hispanics and African Americans, and it is worse in some places than others. Perhaps it was the willingness of Obama to “go there” that helped to push Richardson over the edge.

Our vote was on February 5. Perhaps since then some things have changed. If the vote were re-held today, perhaps the vote would be different. Perhaps Richardson is more in-tune with what people are saying now.

I know plenty of Hispanics who are supporting Obama. He won my polling location in the SW center of town by a significant margin. This is a traditionally Hispanic area with deep Hispanic roots. Albuquerque went for Obama, and it is a very Hispanic city.

I think Obama was largely unknown outside of the urban areas he visited in NM. But there was a LOT of excitement for him.

I don’t find Richardson’s support for Obama to be unusual, nor do I think it is a stunning violation of his stated position.

What I find exciting about Obama is that he seems to be energizing a whole lot of young voters. These people are the future. I hope they will continue to be involved.

sander, you have an incomplete understanding of what a super delegate is, how they became super delegates and their function for our party

again, they do not vote as a block

Because New Mexico’s popular vote, delegate vote and Hispanic vote all went for Clinton, commenters both here and at the Huffington Post said that this probably meant Richardson was endorsing Obama but not pledging to vote for him as a superdelegate.

Lets take a close look at the New Mexico results.  You will notice that though Clinton got 14 delegates and Obama 12 the difference in the popular vote was only 1,123 votes in favor of Clinton.  But  Richardson himself  got more votes than that and so if you add Richardson’s support to that of Obama then Obama wins.  As to the Hispanic vote, Richardson is only 1/2 Hispanic and that diminishes any obligation he has to be bound by that constancy rather than the state as a whole, which, as I have demonstrated, he and Obama together clearly won.

And then there is the issue of leadership.  I think that the real reason he is a super delegate is that as an elected Democratic governor he is considered a party leader.  And that is what he is doing.  I suppose that if between now and the convention Obama was caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy Richardson would feel free to change his mind.  That is his role in this.

I am late getting to this, but isn’t there a choice left out: The superdelegate should vote for who they think would be the best leader of our country?

Superdelegates should only come into play if the primaries come out exactly tied. Exactly tied. At that point, the supers should vote for the candidate of their own personal choice.

Where were you when governors, senators and elected officials supported the Vietnam War and were deprived election as delegates when they were forced to run against McGovern delegates who opposed the Vietnam War. I certainly do not rely on local elected officials to be appointed as delegates to vote, without accountability, on who should be president.

My father was an alternate delegate and went to Chicago in 1968 to represent Eugene McCarthy. I think a portion of the NM delegation voted for George Wallace in the first round.

The anti-war movement took over the ward and precinct elections and went on to become delegates/alternates in 1968, as I recall. I guess that is how they started to gain some clout, moving toward McGovern in ‘72.

Here is what Wiki says about 1968:

“On one side, Eugene McCarthy, a U.S. senator from Minnesota, ran a decidedly anti-war campaign, calling for immediate withdrawal from the region. On the other side, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination, called for a policy more in line with President Johnson’s, which focused on making any reduction of force contingent on concessions extracted in the Paris Peace Talks.

The Democrats eventually nominated Humphrey, who went on to lose the election to Richard M. Nixon. The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.”

I believe by the next cycle, 1972, there became “super delegates” who were the remaining vestiges of “party delegates.”

They were supposed to be 25% of the whole total, according to McGovern, who was on Democracy Now recently to talk about it.

Yes, the true best choice is missing from this poll. The answer is vote for the candidate with the overall pledged delegate lead. How could that choice not be included? Seems most curious to me. Leave out the truly most logical choice so that people think it doesn’t exist. I won’t make a choice, just as I might be forced to leave my presidential ballot blank in November.

Do you consider us that stupid?

Carlo – is it possible that questions 3 and 4 are where your mystery question lies?

3)Remove themselves from the process and let the contest be decided by popular vote

4)Remove themselves from the process and let the contest be decided by popular vote

Notice anything? May not be the ragtag conspiracy you imagined, but human error…

There were no unelected delegates at the 72 convention

I can appreciate that it was human error to not take a close look at the poll before it was posted here, but I will not believe that it was human error by whomever composed it in the first place.

In the current scorched earth atmosphere where backhandedly questioning the loyalty to this country of the leading candidate whilst affirming the loyalty of the trailing candidate and the supposed common enemy Republican candidate by the trailing candidate’s husband is considered by some as just a slip or blown out of proportion when characterized as a McCarthyite tactic, which it most definitely was, I begin to take very, very little for granted.

The fact that the answer that would surely be favored by the leading candidate’s supporters and is their central argument, whether one agrees with it or not, was omitted by the composer of the poll, speaks volumes.

So, here is Wiki on 1972. Again, it is basically instructive on how we have arrived at 2008 and shows that in some ways, history repeats itself. I have no idea if it is accurate, but I believe it is.

“The new rules for choosing and seating delegates created an unusual number of rules and credentials challenges. Many traditional Democratic groups such as organized labor and big city political machines had small representation at the convention. Their supporters challenged the seating of relative political novices, but for the most part were turned back by the supporters of South Dakota senator George McGovern. McGovern had amassed the most delegates to the convention by using a grass roots campaign that was powered by opposition to the Vietnam War. Many traditional Democratic leaders and politicians felt that McGovern’s delegate count did not reflect the wishes of most Democratic voters. Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter helped to spearhead a “Stop McGovern” campaign. The stop-McGovern forces tried unsuccessfully to alter the delegate composition of the California delegation. California had a “winner-take-all” primary format, which was contrary to the delegate selection rules. So even though McGovern only won the California primary by a 5% electoral margin, he won all 273 of their delegates to the convention. The anti-McGovern group argued for a more proportional distribution of the delegates, while the McGovern forces stressed that the rules for the delegate selection had been set and the Stop McGovern alliance was trying to change the rules after the game. As with the credential fight, McGovern’s army carried the day effectively handing the nomination to Senator McGovern. The Illinois primary required voters to select individual delegates, not presidential candidates. Most Illinois delegation members were uncommitted and were controlled or influenced by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley. The delegation was challenged by McGovern supporters arguing that the results of the primary did not create a diverse enough delegation in terms of women and minorities. The credentials committee, headed by Patricia Roberts Harris, rejected the entire elected delegation, including elected women and minorities, and seated an unelected delegation led by Jesse Jackson and pledged to George McGovern.”

You are so right! People don’t like the responsibility of democracy. We would rather have Mom and Dad Superdelegates who “know what’s best for us” decide than grow up and make our own decisions.

The problem is Mom and Dad aren’t perfect, and they don’t necessarily have OUR best interests in mind. When given the choice between watching Junior’s soccer game and going to the boss’s anniversary party, what will most Dads do?

I just don’t get people. Why would you overwhelmingly vote to give a small handful of people the power to overturn the will of most the people? What happened to democracy?