Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Yoohoo Obama supporters.......read this and weep

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:47 PM
Original message
Yoohoo Obama supporters.......read this and weep
The 1972 Democratic National Convention produced George McGovern as the Democratic presidential nominee. Although he won the nomination by a wide margin, he lost the presidency in a landslide to Richard Nixon, winning only one state and 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Because of this, the Democratic Party instituted super delegates as a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process. Political experts say this system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. And what had HHH been doing during the primaries?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:54 PM
Original message
Ok, who, or what, the f is HHH?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
23. Hubert H. Humphrey.................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FARAFIELD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
24. That answers that
You really dont know what HHH means? lame
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. Durned whippersnappers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #36
43. you gotta love it though.
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 08:30 AM by bigtree
(just do some more reading, lcool and skip)

here's some. (I'm rereading, myself) :

Although it did not have a formal set of rules before 1972, the Democratic Party operated with two controversial rules from its earliest conventions. The UNIT RULE enabled the majority of a delegation to cast the entire vote of the delegation for one candidate or position. The unit rule was abolished by the 1968 convention. The TWO-THIRDS NOMINATING RULE mandated candidates for president and vice president were required to win a two-thirds majority vote (as opposed to a simple majority). The two-thirds nominating rule was abolished in 1936 because the rule produced seven multi-ballot conventions between the years of 1832 and 1932.

Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota was an unmitigated disaster as the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972. But he had a lasting impact on the party through his work as first chairman of the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection. Because of the McGovern committee's work, it is no longer possible for small groups of state party officials to handpick convention delegates, tell them whom to vote for and, in effect, choose the party nominee without consulting the voters. (Hubert Humphrey was the last such candidate -- he received the 1968 nomination despite having won NO primaries or caucuses.)

Beginning with reforms proposed by the McGovern panel, the Democratic party "democratized" the presidential selection process through a succession of commissions between 1968 and 1992. This series of changes succeeded in 1) crafting rules to guarantee better representation for women, young people and minorities; 2) secured PROPORTIONAL ALLOCATION of delegates, based on state primary or caucus results (eliminating winner-take-all allocation of delegates); and 3) gave convention votes to party leaders and elected officials (they are nicknamed SUPERDELEGATES and are allowed to remain uncommitted until the convention).
Year-by-year review of notable Democratic rules disputes/changes

* 1968-72 Rules: A commission headed by Sen. George McGovern produced a set of guidelines in 1972 requiring delegates to "fairly reflect" their state's preferences among presidential candidates. In addition, the makeup of each delegation had to be "in reasonable relationship" to the proportion of minority groups, women and young people in its home state. No more than 10% of a delegation could be named by a state's Democratic Committee. Rules requiring the "timely selection" of delegates, publicizing meetings at which delegates were chosen and public notification of a delegate's candidate preference were enacted.

As a result of the changes, there were challenges filed against more than 40% of the delegates selected for the convention. Perhaps the most notorious battle involved the revocation of the credentials of 58 Illinois delegates led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and the awarding of their seats to an alternate delegation led by Jesse Jackson. (Sources: The National Journal, August 23, 1980; St. Petersburg Times, July 17, 1988; Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections.)

* 1976 Rules: A commission headed by Rep. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland replaced the demographic quotas of 1972 with affirmative action requirements to increase participation by women, blacks and other minorities. (However, this specific plan had the OPPOSITE effect, decreasing the proportion of women from 38% in 1972 to 36% in 1976. The proportion of blacks declined from 15% in 1972 to 7% in 1976. After 1976, quotas for women delegates were reimposed.) PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, the distribution of delegates among candidates to reflect their share of the primary or caucus vote, was mandated by party rules. (Sources: The National Journal, August 23, 1980; Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections.)

* 1980 Rules: A floor vote resulted in passage of a party rule binding delegates to vote on the first ballot for the candidate they originally were elected to support. (This was a defeat for Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was hoping to convince Carter delegates to abandon the president on the first ballot.) As a result of recommendations by a commission under the chairmanship of Michigan party chairman Morley Winograd, the Democrats abolished LOOPHOLE PRIMARIES -- where winner-take-all balloting still had been allowed at the congressional district level. Beginning with the 1980 convention, the Democrats took steps to increase attendance by state party officials and elected party leaders -- governors, senators and members of Congress. (Although such officials' convention attendance had been declining since the 1956 convention, their numbers had dropped precipitously after the 1972 convention.) States were urged to assign at-large seats to party leaders and elected officials. (Source: The National Journal, August 23, 1980)

* 1984 Rules: In 1982, the DNC adopted several changes in the nominating process. They had been proposed by the party's Commission on Presidential Nominations, which was established in 1980 and led by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. The party created a new group of "SUPERDELEGATES," party and elected officials who would go to the 1984 convention "uncommitted" and cast about 14% of the ballots. (This was a continuation of the effort to bring the experienced, more MODERATE members of the party to the convention to act as a "ballast" against the passions of other delegates.)

In 1984, this had the effect of stabilizing support for "establishment" candidate Walter Mondale over "insurgent" candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. Also adopted was a proposal allowing a presidential candidate to replace a disloyal delegate. Another revision was a decision to allow states to choose to keep a proportional representation system AND allow them to adopt a winner bonus plan that awarded the top vote-getter in each district one extra delegate.

Also in 1984, the DNC retained the three-month delegate selection "window" stretching from the second Tuesday in March to the second Tuesday in June. But to reduce the growing influence of early states in the nominating process, the Democrats required Iowa and New Hampshire to move their publicized events to late winter. Although these states retained their privileged status of "going first," party rules mandated their initial nominating rounds be held only eight days apart in 1984. (There were five weeks between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in 1980.) The DNC also set candidate filing deadlines of 30-90 days before the election and limited participation in the delegate selection process to Democrats only.

* 1988: Only slightly modified from 1984 process. The number of "uncommitted" party and elected officials (SUPERDELEGATES) was expanded and rearranged to reserve more convention seats for members of Congress, governors and the DNC. Rules restricting participants in Democratic primaries and caucuses were relaxed so open primaries in Wisconsin and Montana would be conducted with approval of national party. Finally, the threshold (or share of the vote a candidate must win in a primary or caucus to qualify for delegates) was lowered from 20% to 15%.

* 1992 Rules: In 1990, the DNC made two changes that affected 1992 process. The presidential primary season was moved forward by one week, from the second Tuesday in March to the first. The second change banned winner-reward systems, which gave extra delegates to the winner of a primary or caucus. All states were required to divide their publicly elected delegates proportionally among candidates who drew at least 15% of the primary/caucus vote. The number of super delegates also was expanded.

(SOURCE: Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections pp. 16-23 unless otherwise noted.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
45. Oh you superior little OIK
Go boil cabbage.

I bet you don't know what JSM did that year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
49. Do we also have to identify who the hell
...HST, JRF, and FDR are, too?

You are one hell of a Democrat...NOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. then I don't know why they bother having a primary?
just think of al the money we would save?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasLady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. oh hell, I thought you said sweep
now my floor's all clean.
Damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. we suck
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
u2spirit Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. That was 36 years ago
This is a different time and Nixon was an incumbent. No correlation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
6. and Hillary has been ignoring and insulting democrats in red/purple states for months now
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:49 PM by cryingshame
whilst the DNC under her husband did same throughout the 90's.

Why would the majority of super delegates support Clintons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
7. FORGET THE PRIMARY! SDs SHOULD DECIDE THE NOM. FROM THE START!
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:49 PM by anonymous171
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. We'll see
Won't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
9. And today those same voters would revolt if they dared try such a thing
and they know it. Really I don't know what some of you Hillbots are sniffing but I suggest you take yourselves off to rehab or soemthing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.
So Hillary's history?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. That is also the year that Nixon had his squad messing with our primary.
Nixon chose McGovern as the candidate he wanted to run against. He caused Muskie's campaign to implode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
not_too_L8 Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. you sound like you would be happy
for a repeat...sad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamaniac Donating Member (297 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hey leftofcool...super-delegates weren't introduced until the 80s.
It gave us the ever popular Walter Mondale as a candidate. Look how well that worked out.

Shut up and sit down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
14. Oh, the voters aren't making a mistake. Not this time.
Hillary - now THAT would be a mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
15. That's not quite accurate.
1982 was the year they were created, and this is why:

History

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party made changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

But some Democrats believed that these changes had unduly diminished the role of party leaders and elected officials, weakening the Democratic tickets of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter. In 1982, a commission chaired by former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt created superdelegates. Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented in 1984, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%. <5>

In the 1984 election, the major contenders for the Presidential nomination were Gary Hart and Walter Mondale. Each won some primaries and caucuses. Mondale was only slightly ahead of Hart in the total number of votes cast, but won the support of almost all superdelegates and became the nominee.<6>

In 1988, a study found that superdelegates and delegates selected through the primary and caucus process are not substantively different in terms of viewpoints on issues from each other. But it also found that superdelegates are more likely to prefer candidates with Washington experience than outsider candidates.<7>

The superdelegates have not always prevailed, however. In the Democratic primary phase of the 2004 election, Howard Dean acquired an early lead in delegate counts by obtaining the support of a number of superdelegates before even the first primaries were held. Nevertheless, John Kerry defeated Dean in a succession of primaries and caucuses and won the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. SDs tend to choose insiders over outsiders.
Thus, Mondale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
16. The historical basis is the only argument the Clinton camp has left
remember what happened 30 years ago when the world and political landscape were entirely different?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nitrogenica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. Read this and weep? WTF like we're on an emotionmal roller coaster
or something?

Get a grip, you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
18. Many super delegates have to get elected themselves. They will go with Obama out of
self interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. Yeah. I remember the nomination of Mondale in '84 too.
What does this have to do with anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
20. The same George McGovern Hillary worked for?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
21. McGovern's advantage was college age voters who had time to support his campaign. Unfortunately
their power and number of votes in the primary was disproportionately large compared to their small number of votes in the GE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
25. The Hillbots are grasping at straws
they know that there is no way she's winning the nomination on either pledged delegates or the popular vote so they are harboring these delusions that these super-delegates would hand her a victory, forgetting that most of these people are elected officials who have a voting public to whom they are accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny Potpie Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. So
In other words, the Democratic Party can't trust their own voters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
27. The SWOON factor is allready de-flating. SD will go with the safe cand. NOT the risky unknown
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny Potpie Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:02 PM
Original message
I guess
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 10:03 PM by Johnny Potpie
rodeodance's message says it all. The SD's will pick the nominee regardless of what the voters want. Why do we even bother to show up to vote for delegates at all? :shrug:

But something tells me this whole delegate vs. superdelegate issue wouldn't be brought up at all if HRC was in the lead, right??? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
42. everything will depend on where both sides are come Denver--right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
39.  yep, the swoon factory for hilly has gone down the toilet
and SDs are going for Obama. Get used to it hillykiddies, the SDs will not go for hilly's sinking ship. No way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. Hillary fans do not SWOON----nor do we to be given bottled water in a crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
28. Yes! And what a great president Nixon turned out to be!
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muntrv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
29. Uh, Chimpy is nowhere near as popular in 08 as Tricky Dick was in 72.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Saturday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
30. LOL Good find. You've give BO supporters nightmares. LOL nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adoraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
31. wow, breaking news
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 10:01 PM by adoraz
whats your point?

edit: don't answer, I get you're point, but you're really grasping here.

it won't be overturned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
union_maid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
32. I was voting age then, too. Not even close to similar times
I liked McGovern. He embodied my ideals as well as anyone. But even at the age of 22, I knew he had no chance in the general from the start. And of course the Eagleton thing, plus Nixon being and incumbent didn't help matters any. Vietnam was a mess, but even if had been clear national consensus for pulling out, it was a mess that belonged to both parties, not just one administration.

Obama has broader appeal and one party has created foreign, domestic and fiscal disasters all by itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
33. Hillary IS McGovern and Mondale!
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 10:04 PM by FrenchieCat
Watch her lose if she's the nominee.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #33
48. McGovern was the anti-war candidate
How ironic to your post is that?

and this from Feb. 15th:

The Comparison
Since the start of the 2008 campaign--it feels like eons ago, doesn't it?--pundits have compared the Clinton-Obama contest to an earlier Democratic nomination battle: 1984's match up between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart. The similarities were initially superficial. Clinton, like Mondale, entered the race as the well-oiled, well-funded choice of the party establishment, while the younger, looser Obama echoed Hart's call for a new generation of leadership. But now that neither candidate looks likely to win the 2,025 pledged delegates needed to clinch the nod before the last primary in June, the climax of the 2008 campaign may also mirror 1984--with the power players known as superdelegates deciding the outcome.

Why It Works
In both cases, an inspiring, Kennedy-esque upstart shocks the political establishment by trouncing an older, stodgier Senator--who, incidentally, spent some time in the White House--in most of the states up for grabs. (Hart won 28 to Mondale's 24; at press time, Obama has won 20, Clinton 12.) But thanks to proportional allocation of delegates and the fact that most of those victories are in small states, the insurgent is unable to secure a majority--meaning that the superdelegates, who tend to favor the establishment candidate, must step in and break the logjam.

Why It Doesn't Work
Even though Hart beat Mondale 26-22 in the first 48 contests--including a sweep of five straight contests in mid-May--he was still trailing the former veep 1,564 delegates to 941 at the end of month. So their grand finale wasn't exactly a nailbiter. Mondale won New Jersey on June 5, which put him within 40 delegates of a majority; by midnight the next day, he'd swayed enough superdelegates to sew up the nomination. Hart kept running, but it was a lost cause. In contrast, Obama leads Clinton by only about 130 delegates at this point. If that margin stays the same, superdelegates will eventually be forced to choose between an establishment candidate who (barely) lost the delegate battle and an upstart who (barely) won. It'll make 1984 look like a cakewalk.

The better comparison, in fact, may be Gerald Ford (the White House habitue) vs. Ronald Reagan (the inspiring insurgent) in 1976. Despite early losses, Reagan dominated the second half of primary season and wound up tied with Ford after winning California on June 8. So the battle continued through the convention. Reagan and Ford spent the next two months personally wooing superdelegates--much as Clinton and Obama would do, were the race still undecided come summer. By the time the candidates arrived in Kansas City in August, Ford had a slight edge, but was still shy of the 1130 needed for a majority--and only clinched the nod after a bit of wheeling and dealing. The final count: 1187-1070. Coincidentally, that's almost precisely the gap that now separates Clinton and Obama.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gore1FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
34. And Obama is going to lose under those circumstances how?
what ungodly proportion of the super delegates are you pipe-dreaming into Hillary's column? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
35. I didn't agree with the "addition" of super delegates then and I
don't now. If super delegates skew this nominating process I think we will see the end of the Democratic Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
37. funny isn't it, mcgovern was right about Nam, thousands of more Americans died because he lost
the American people have plenty of blood on their hands because of that, just as they do because of Iraq



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #37
46. that's what I take from what happened. To my mind, the party leaders took the will of the voters
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 08:16 AM by bigtree
and decided they knew best who we should run as our president. Their attitude seems to be that THEY own the party, not the voters who provide their money, their other efforts, and most importantly, their votes.

I think the votes cast should be paramount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #37
47. Bingo. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
38. The are called "Super Delegates" ...Not STUPID Delegates.
:spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadEyeDyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
40. where every vote counts but some votes count more than others
Political experts say this system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.
And this is democracy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
44. "Overriding the will of the people" vs. "Following the rules and not changing them midstream"
Either way, if the superdelegates make the difference, the losing side will cry foul.

I HOPE the popular vote winner and the delegate winner are the same person, no matter who that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
50. waaah waaaah wwaaaaah
ok im weepin waaaaah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. ?
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 08:45 AM by bigtree
hairball? mange?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC