Why are all these political pundits calling for the scrapping of superdelegates..

[glowing]

fuck them.. they are loving to see us divide our own party.. and they have something to distract us all with while Bush finishes destroying anything we have left in our Republic.

[dchill]

1. Because the supers...

may decide against the will of the pledged delegates.

[glowing]

2. And the reason for that is because they do not want to have a repeat

of McGovern.. and rightly so.. this is not a time to fuck around people...

[Alhena]

4. LOL- I didn't think anyone would have the guts to come here

and defend our political overlords each having a vote worth about 10,000 of us mere peons.

Looks like I was wrong- take a bow, glowing.

[dchill]

6. What you said.

"

[glowing]

12. I think there's a lot more going on than meets the eye.. And most people

do not understand or comprehend what is going on... Perhaps it is time to just lay it all on the table.. bring out all the dirt.. and find out how fucked we all truly are..

No.. I believe in the Power of the People.. but the populace is not privy to the knowledge that they need to make sound decisions.

[lurky]

7. Wikipedia on McGovern:

The McGovern Commission changes to the convention rules marginalized the influence of establishment Democratic figures (some of whom had lost the nomination to McGovern). Many refused to support him, with some switching their support to the incumbent President Richard Nixon through a campaign effort called "Democrats for Nixon". In addition, McGovern was repeatedly attacked by associates of Nixon, who used an array of "dirty tricks" and illegal tactics during the campaign, including the infamous Watergate break-in, which eventually led to Nixon's resignation in 1974.

Funny, it's the folks who campaigned against McGovern from within his own party who blame him for the loss in 1972.

If you want Mommy and Daddy to pick your candidates for you, there are plenty of nice countries that have systems you would like: China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran. They all have "elections" with candidates who are hand-picked by the "wise leaders" so that the people can't do anything "foolish".

[Kahuna]

5. Exactly. And if they do all hell will break loose. nt

[Yossariant]

10. Why should they abide by the pledged delegates? What if one leads the popular vote?

How are the pledged delegates any more valuable a yardstick than the voters?

I'm a Hillary supporter and she leads both, but I'm just saying ...

[joshcryer]

13. They would not do that.

[totodeinhere]

3. I have heard several talking heads say...

that if Obama wins a majority of delegates that are contested in the primaries and caucuses and then the will of the Dem voters is taken away by the super delegates and they give it to Clinton anyway, it will tear the Dems apart and throw the election to bombs away McCain. Or vice versa for that matter if Clinon wins more delegates and they take it away from her.

I don't think that the McGovern analogy is correct here because we have two good and very electable candidates. Neither will lose in a landslide like McGovern did. Either one should beat the shit out of McCain as long as the party stays united.

[Yossariant]

8. Obviously, the Party is not united. Half of Hillary's supporters say they won't vote for Obama

and half of his say they won't vote for Hillary --- according to the talking heads on Charlie Rose last night.

[totodeinhere]

9. If that's true then I'm scared.

[CK_John]

11. Superdelegates was the price for reforms that gave us 50/50 gender

delegates and 80/20% delegate selection via primaries and caucus. Without this comprise we would have 100% insider selection. A good deal IMO.

[TexasObserver]

15. Utter nonsense. Stop making up things.

The superdelegates were designed as a conservative tool to be used by DLC types to stop the party activists from "taking over" the process.

They're the friggin Politiburo of the Party, designed to thwart the will of voters.

[TexasObserver]

14. Because it's exceedingly anti-Democratic to have them

[bigtree]

17. anti-democratic is an excellent term

but, I use counter-democratic

[gulliver]

16. Obama is behind in superdelegates.

That's basically it. If Obama were ahead in super-delegates, his supporters would be mum. If Hillary were behind, her supporters would probably be questioning the super-delegates too. Basically it is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. That seems wrong on its face. If the rules are there, they should be followed. If the rule is no good, change the rule, but not in the middle of the game.