I would consider leaving the party if the superdelegates overturn the will of the people

[usregimechange]

I have been considering this for some time. If Obama wins with their help and does not obtain more pledged delegates, I will also consider leaving the party. The candidate with the most democratically pledged delegates should get the nomination or this party may not make through the general elections in one piece.

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. And I'm remembering that super delegates are in place because we

can win without you. But elements of our party have never been about winning ... hence the change after McGovern.

[LoZoccolo]

2. Most of the superdelegates are elected officials. n/t

[usregimechange]

7. 1 "most" is not good enough, 2 their selection is made without regard to their presidential preferen

ces

[LoZoccolo]

9. OK, leave then.

We'll take care of the country without you. Just don't waste our time while we're helping you out. Run along now.

[BenDavid]

3. superdelegates worry Obama?

I don't like the idea of superdelegates either, but I find Obama's "outrage" hollow, disgusting, and very revealing.

He knew the rules going in. His camp has blasted and mocked Clinton for wanting the delegates from MI and FL seated, using just that rationale, although it's obvious that if they had voted for him, he'd do exactly the same thing and his followers would be chanting about "democracy" all the way.

Did he complain about the system up front, or is it(as it seems) only when he thinks thesuperdelegates will help her? Easy answer.

Obama is just an old-style politician in a pretty package (like the Kennedys were). Even with the media on his side, he may have trouble maintaining this facade much longer.

[abburdlen]

4. It's bad.

It's bad that with the mess of Florida and Michigan, "the will of the people" isn't cut and dry
But even more scary is that some supporters in the Clinton camp are vocally dismissing the caucus system. (So far I've only heard the complaints from supporters not her campaign)
It's not a problem if they're just trying to spin the losses but I'm afraid it's just going to muddy the waters of 'will of the people' even more.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Suppose they favor Obama over Clinton?

I have a suspicion that THAT will be just fine.

ON the other hand, if Hillary wins with the popular vote, the delegates, AND the superdelegates, a lot of people will STILL be screaming that Hillary stole the nomination.

It's really a can't-lose situation for Obama -- vote for me or the eagle gets it.

--p!

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. Caucuses are the will of the people?

:rofl:

[VolcanoJen]

8. Don't worry.

This thing is about to steamroll. If Obama manages to win in Maine tomorrow, and score big victories in DC, VA and MD on Tuesday, then I think we'll have reached a tipping point in this race.

As the momentum shifts, so will the superdelegates. Watch the money... that's where the story is. If it stops flowing in to Clinton, it's pretty much done.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Super Delegates Exist For A Reason You Know.

They are part of the nominating process, whether you like it or not. No one ever said the way it works is by strict popular vote. No. Instead, a component is made up of civilian interests, and a component is made up of party interests. Generally, they align. But you can't make a claim that the SD's are subservant to the civilian vote. They are COMPLIMENTARY to them. A nominee needs the support of both. It is a combination of party interest and voter interest that leads to the Democratic nominee. And as part of that process, if 49% of voters want one candidate while 51% want another, but 65% of the party insiders want the former while only 35% the latter, then I hardly see how you can feign such outrage or pretend it would be so monumentally unfair if the former was the one in fact nominated.