posted
I'm kind of young and naive to politics, but isn't that why superdelegates were first created? "We want your vote to count...unless it's for someone we don't want to elect."
This is why I'm supporting a Democrat without registering to be one; the party kind of bugs me sometimes.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
According to the poll, Clinton's positives sank 8 points in 2 weeks to 37% (her lowest in this poll since 2001), and her negatives went up also. I think her Bosnia story-telling really hurt her, as well as general negative campaigning.
Obama took a hit from the Rev Wright controversy, but not as bad as I expected.
quote:As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. [snip] ...he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.
Saephon, that's somewhat true. But it's not so much "someone we don't want to elect" as it is an effort to prevent an unelectable candidate winning the nomination.
My understanding is the superdelegates were a reaction to the Democrats' disastrous 72 and 68 campaigns and a balancing act between increasing relevance for primary voters and decreasing relevance for old-school power brokers. In the 72 campaign for example, McGovern ran a brilliant primary campaign but an awful general election campaign, losing to Nixon in a landslide. Superdelegates are supposed to be a backstop against that.
The problem, of course, is that when you have a candidate with enormous grass-roots support but more limited establishment support, like Obama or McGovern or McCarthy, overturning the popular primary vote will just enrage all of those supporters and you'll very likely lose in the general election anyway as a result.
Plus the party will be bitterly divided for years to come. The logic really doesn't work, and the whole superdelegate process needs to be scrapped.
The Democratic Party bugs me a lot also, they have some weird bylaws and idiosyncrasies. But they beat the alternatives.
posted
Sorry if this was already brought up: Tenn. Gov. Philip Bredesen has an interesting idea for a superdelegate caucus in June, after the last primary.
It's a good idea that solves several serious problems for the Democratic Party. So of course it'll never happen. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The superdelegate matter is uncomfortable in this particular election, but I don't think that means their influence is fundamentally broken.
What the superdelegates protect against is exactly what we are seeing, which is large numbers of republicans and independents affecting the outcome. But I believe the non-democrats voting for Obama will support him in November as well, while the non-democrats voting for Clinton do not support her. Still, in Clinton's mind, they are the same thing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's a long list of the reasons why I'm becoming more and more likely to go third party should she, god forbid, actually succeed in winning the nomination.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I *did* see that response and reacted the same way you did. I guess I wanted to keep my post limited to the actual letter itself. Thanks for checking the link out and sharing that excellent summation.
quote:(The Politico) Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), responded late Wednesday night to a letter by supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton urging his boss to stop making comments about the superdelegates respecting the will of Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers:
“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama -- our two strong candidates -- before the convention in August," Daly said. "That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”
The Clinton supporters had asked Pelosi, who remains neutral in the presidential contest, to refrain from making comments that could influence undecided superdelegates to back the candidate with the most votes - who, at this point, happens to be the New York senator's rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. But Daly's comments suggest the speaker will not be backing off of her stance any time soon.
The news shows and the talking heads from last night are a little blurry, but neither Carville's "Judas" comment nor this latest tactic are playing well with some uncommitted superdelegates - if you can believe what some of the political reporters are saying.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...isn't that why superdelegates were first created? 'We want your vote to count...unless it's for someone we don't want to elect.' "
Nope. IF I remember correctly...
Prior to 1968, Democratic primaries&caucuses were all-or-nearly-all voter preference polls, ie only advisories to the delegations of state PartyLeaders&ElectedOfficials and financiers who selected the other (equivalent to super)delegates to the DemocraticNationalConvention.
President LBJ had a very unpopular war going on, and lots of other baggage. So when he decided not to run for the Nomination after performing poorly in the NewHampshire primary (ie preference poll), it set up THE BIG FIGHT at the DemocraticNationalConvention between those who backed antiWar candidates (who won the primaries) and those who backed VicePresident HubertHumphrey (who didn't run in the primaries). When Humphrey (viewed as a replacement-LBJ by the antiWar faction) won the Nomination and lost the GeneralElection, it set up the conditions for the creation of a new system more responsive to the will of the voters.
In '72, antiWar candidate McGovern won the next Nomination and with the support of the delegates who backed him voted in the system of Nominee-selection by PLEO delegates and delegates-selected&bound-by-primaries&caucuses. McGovern lost, but the loss was viewed as primarily due to Nixon's announcement that "Peace is at Hand" in October (though the real peace agreement didn't occur until after the beginning of Nixon's second term). Actually, Nixon was a very effective President in his first term -- I'd rank him 4th amongst Republicans after Lincoln, TeddyRoosevelt, and Eisenhower -- and probably would have won by a landslide anyway.
Under the new system, Carter won the '76 Nomination and the GeneralElection. He also won the '80 Nomination in a bruising battle with TedKennedy. However the Kennedy faction won the floor fight to set the DemocraticNationalPartyPlatform, to which the party nominess for NationalOffices pledge support. So Carter was hobbled by an essentially impossible-to-achieve leftwing FlowerPower/unionist/socialist/etc "throw everything in, including the kitchen sink" wishlist upon which to campaign. And lost to Reagan.
Because of that loss, superdelegates screened&selected by PLEOs were created to prevent a similar "popular uprising" of delegates from once again imposing a fantasmagorical national party platform upon Democratic nominees for NationalOffices. ie The superdelegates were put into place (to allow the party professionals) to moderate (the effect of amateur pledged-delegates upon) the party platform and the party rules, and not to control the Nomination.
posted
Does the Republican convention work similarly? I guess I always assumed that the candidates chose the platforms. But I can see where that would negate the whole purpose of a party. I don't think much of parties, in general.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: ...superdelegates screened&selected by PLEOs (party leaders and elected officials)
All Democratic Governors, members of Congress and members of the DNC are superdelegates. How are they screened by PLEOs? They are PLEOs.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"All Democratic Governors, members of Congress and members of the DNC are superdelegates. How are they screened by PLEOs? They are PLEOs."
By DemocraticNationalParty rules, PLEOs are automaticly unbound delegates. Those PLEOs are then merged by the media with other unbound delegates, who as a whole are commonly referred to as superdelegates. However the majority of superdelegates are not PLEOs.
One of my see-nearly-everyday friends was a superdelegate. And I assure you that she was picked-as-a-possibility as reward for being a reliable volunteer for what most people would view as campaign drudge work, and not because she is (or could be mistaken for) a professional politician or a big fundraiser. She was then screened by PLEOs for political*compatibility, on-stage*articulation, and physical*presentation; then selected from the entire group auditioning before the screening panel to become a superdelegate.
* ie An ability to effectively present her state's arguments in meetings with delegates from other states, AND an ability to look good and sound good as "a face of the DemocraticParty" to the news media.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "All Democratic Governors, members of Congress and members of the DNC are superdelegates. How are they screened by PLEOs? They are PLEOs."--Morbo
By DemocraticNationalParty rules, PLEOs are automaticly unbound delegates. Those PLEOs are then merged by the media with other unbound delegates, who as a whole are commonly referred to as superdelegates. However the majority of superdelegates are not PLEOs.
The bolded sentence contradicts other info I have seen in papers and wikipedia. According to wiki, superdelegates = unpledged (AKA unbound) PLEO delegates + unpledged add-on delegates. This corresponds to what I just quoted from you.
However, there are approx. 719 PLEO superdelegates and 76 add-on superdelegates. That's no majority. Certainly those 76 are screened, but they're only about 10% of the total. wiki linkPosts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clinton's claims about a "corkscrew" landing in Tuzla, Bosnia, have been challenged by the pilot who commanded the C-17 that flew her from Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Speaking in a radio interview on the "Rusty Humphries Show," retired Air Force Col. William "Goose" Changose said that he did not undertake any kind of "evasive" maneuver on the approach to Tuzla, and that the only reason the descent was a little steeper than normal was because there were hills around.
"Not only were there no bullets flying around, there wasn't a bumblebee flying around," Changose recalled.
posted
"However the majority of superdelegates are not PLEOs." "The...sentence contradicts other info I have seen in papers and wikipedia."
Yep, Morbo, my statement was WRONG. I should have kept my original "However not all superdelegates are PLEOs." Sorry, I overthought after first posting, and conflated "PLEO" with politicians addressed as "Distinguished": those holding Office as President, Governor, USSenator, USRepresentative, or specificly designated as Distinguished Party Leaders (exPresidents, exPresidential Nominees, the DNC Chairman and exChairmen, and a small handful of others). Then failed to group the state party chairs&co-chairs and other DNC members into my (new and wrong) categorization of PLEOs as "Distinguished Party Leaders and Elected Officials".
About the rationale for creating the superdelegates, I'm not sure. I haven't read about that '80 party platform hobbling Carter. Interesting.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, the whole story-telling thing on Clinton's part was just baffling to me. It's difficult for me to imagine that this was a sincerely mistaken memory for her, but it's almost equally difficult for me to imagine that she could've thought it would've been successful.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
She's been off her rocker for the last couple weeks. She claims that if a situation is too dangerous for the president, you send the First Lady? That's absurd. First Ladies are peace envoys, or at least they can be, but they aren't UN diplomats, or the Navy Seals. She says she landed under sniper fire, several times, and when this is universally discounted by many, she claims she was just tired and this was the first time she has misspoke in a decade? Come on.
And then there's the whole votes flap. She said in January that Michigan and Florida were rule breakers and shouldn't count, that New Hampshire should keep its sacred place as the first voters...when she's campaigning in New Hampshire. Now, months later, with the election on the line, all of a sudden she takes up the mantle of Michigan and Florida and makes the whole thing look like Obama's fault? Then, after declaring far and wide that Obama is against democracy and not having all the people's voices heard, and her people say that it's ridiculous that the Supers should follow the pledged delegate count regardless of the margin of victory (maybe someone should tell her what Democracy means...), she says that votes don't even matter! Because pledged delegates are actually superdelegates, they should all just disregard what the people have voted them into a position of authority to do and just vote for her regardless, thereby sidestepping democracy entirely!
When you start suggesting that it's perfectly fair to subvert the entire democratic process for your own political gain, and claim your OPPONENT is the enemy of fairness and democracy, I think it's clear that you're beyond grasping at straws.
She lost, and she KNOWS she's lost, but that logical information hasn't caught up with the part of her brain that can't BELIEVE that what was supposed to be a cakewalk has turned into defeat, and can't believe that the electorate has turned from her, the shoe in, to a virtual political nobody over her.
Maybe this is a bit of a leap of psychological analysis, but I think she is at the point where her feelings towards the election are divorced from her logical grip on reality, and she's literally saying anything and everything that comes to mind if she thinks it might have any impact at all on the outcome. It's either that or she actually believes the crazy gibberish she has been saying, in which case, she's just plain scary.
But regardless, I think she's desparate and irrational, and more people are noticing, and it's taking a toll. If she ever hopes to be Senate Majority leader, as is still a real possibility, she's going to have to shut up soon before she creates too many enemies to ever make that a possibility.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: And that's a long list of the reasons why I'm becoming more and more likely to go third party should she, god forbid, actually succeed in winning the nomination.
Write-in. If Obama is who you support, don't throw that support to a candidate you don't like as much--if that's how you feel about Clinton, that is.
I've pretty much made up my mind to vote for Obama regardless. Either bubbling his name in or writing it in. I think a write-in vote sends the same message as a third party vote. In fact, I think it sends it more compellingly, because, after all, some people actually support third party candidates on their own merits. But when you write in a vote for a democrat, you are depriving the nominated candidate of your vote while still indicating that the party would have had your support if they'd nominated the right candidate.
I'd said previously I would vote for McCain over Clinton, but if it comes to that, I think now that I prefer the message that would be sent by voting for Obama. Voting for McCain if he's not who I support simply makes McCain look more popular. There have been elections where I believed it was necessary to vote for the lesser evil, but this is not one of them. I'll vote for whom I want, and let the chips fall where they may.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That reminds me of polls indicating that some of the Obama supporters and some of the Clinton supporters claim that they would vote for McCain if their candidate isn't selected as the Democratic Nominee. And pooka's "That's just the heat of the moment. Remember the conservative wing, up to 1/3, of Republicans saying they would vote for Clinton over McCain?"
Could explain why Clinton has been campaigning for McCain by playing the role of the Republican VicePresidential Nominee. "McCain & Clinton - To Heal A Fractured Nation" There's really no downside to it: McCain would appease the rightwing by letting them have their druthers, to vote for Clinton, while still voting for a Republican ticket. A "Bipartisan"Administration would appeal to Republican-leaning Democrats and independents as well as to moderate Republicans. Clinton would gain the ExecutiveExperience that she claims to have. The role of VicePresident in a McCainAdministration would set Clinton up to win the 2012 Presidential Nomination FAR better than the election of an ObamaAdministration... ...which would probably induce some of the Clinton supporters to vote for McCain. Frankly, I can't see any Republican who could fill the role of VicePresidential Nominee in a manner that would pull anywhere near the amount of financial support, campaign volunteers, and voters for the McCain election bid as well as HillaryClinton could.
[/tongue in cheek]
Just filing names from the letter to Pelosi for a quick future reference. Marc Aronchick , Clarence Avant , Susie Tompkins Buell , Sim Farar , Robert L. Johnson , Chris Korge , Marc and Cathy Lasry , Hassan Nemazee , Alan and Susan Patricof , JB Pritzker , Amy Rao , Lynn de Rothschild , Haim Saban , Bernard Schwartz Stanley S. Shuman , Jay Snyder , Maureen White and Steven Rattner
posted
TPMtv: Summa Bosniatica A long (12 min) vid summarizing Clinton's Bosnia problems. Only has Clinton's statements (the ones that got her in trouble and later spin control), plus other first-hand witnesses, like the pilot, the colonel in charge of security, Chelsea, Sinbad (briefly) and various reporters who flew in the entourage that day.
Oh, and a couple of statements by a Clinton spokesman.
Pretty comprehensive. The pilot made a comment that's just common sense and should have been picked up by reporters quicker than they did: if there had been sniper fire, they wouldn't have landed or Clinton would not have exited the plane. The SS and military wouldn't have allowed it.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I read that yesterday, but it seemed a little on the Jew-phobic side for me to pass along. I mean, just because someone is Jewish doesn't mean they can't also be scary. I just didn't want to post it and then have someone point out that it was written by a confederate of Farrakhan or something.
What is the well known bias of Kos? P.S. Mr. and Mrs. Smith go to Washington cracked me up.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just in case people missed it, when one of Fox's attack dogs (I think it was Sean Hannity) tried to bring up Rev. Wright statements to John McCain, Sen McCain very classily shut him down, saying, "I know Senator Obama and he doesn't believe those things."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that. I thought it was very classy of McCain.
Of course from a completely cynical view point, he has nothing to gain by criticizing Obama or Clinton right now. The democrats and the wight wing wackos (WWW) are doing that for him.
McCain really is sitting pretty until the democrats settle their fight. The dems are too busy attacking each other to go after him, the whole media is focused on the democratic nomination and the www are eating it up. All he has to do is make an occasional generous statesmanlike statement and he's a hero.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, though, I appreciate McCain's refusing to go on the attack. My cynical self is saying that he doesn't need to, and that this way he gets to reap the benefits of Clinton's attacks and the media's feeding frenzy around the issue while projecting equanimous, statesman-like behavoir and reaping the benefits from that as well.
But my not-cynical self thinks more highly of him for not getting his hands dirty.
[Edit--or, you know, what Rabbit said]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to wonder if the West Wing had Nostrodamus on the writing staff for the sixth season.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, Noemon said it better. But despite my cynical nature, I think McCain's statement was classy.
I think its important to note that said on Sean Hannity (www headquarters) where it clearly wasn't well received.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing that really makes me think that it is genuine is that he didn't just (in this case and others) sit back and not engage in attacks. Instead he spoke directly against them. It could still be calculating, but I've got to give him the benefit of the doubt on it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking around pollster, the Wright scandal has not altered Obama's curve in Pennsylvania. There really aren't other markets with enough polling to produce a meaningful curve.
We have seen a change, however, in the McCain Obama matchup, where McCain is now on top but it's still a statistical dead heat.
Last week it looked like the McCain/Clinton matchup was crossing over as well, but instead both lines have gone down in parallel. How is this possible? It's an indication to me that more people are saying they would vote for neither -- probably indicating a write in for Obama or something.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Obama is going to pick an old guy who used to be chief of staff to be his running mate, and he's going to die? And then he's going to ask McCain to be his secretary of state? Gah.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting. I guess it's possible there are people who want to keep Obama as far from the White House as possible the same way I want to keep Clinton as far away from the White House as possible.
Before anyone takes offense, keep in mind that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani have already been kept as far away from the White House as possible.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's interesting. I guess it's possible there are people who want to keep Obama as far from the White House as possible the same way I want to keep Clinton as far away from the White House as possible.
I think it far more likely that they think Hillary is the easier candidate to defeat in the general. I agree with them.
They also think that keeping Hillary alive as long as they can hurts Obama. Unfortunately, they are correct. Hillary Clinton's camp are their number one most valuable campaigners at the moment. They don't have to make any attacks whatsoever, so long as she is doing it for them.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Romney is angling for vice-president, I think.
I don't think that is any likelier than Huckabee or Giuliani or, while we're at it, John Edwards. They all have insurmountable liabilities with factions of the Republican base. I'm pretty sure Condaleeza Rice is likewise compromised from a P.R. standpoint. I don't know who McCain will wind up with. Fred Thompson is possible, or some rich guy none of us recall hearing about before this year (a la Cheney).
There was a list of young Republicans on AOL, but most of them didn't look markedly younger than McCain. They might as well pick that Senator from Texas who looks old, but is actually closer to Clinton in age. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Squick
