The word is that neither camp can win w/o SuperDelegates. We need to get active.

[bigtree]

Some folks want to argue, now, at this point in the campaign, that SuperDelegates are unconstitutional or anti-democratic. Or that. somehow, the arrangement is unfair. That may well be.

SuperDelegates include former public officials like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, many state governors, members of Congress, retired congressional leaders and all of the national committee members for the Democrats. They were put in place after McGovern (after a landslide primary win) lost to Nixon in '72, because the 'party' leaders felt they knew better than the voters who to nominate.

Here we are, again trying to end military aggression in this election, like in '72, and the party insiders will, presumably, get to pick the nominee, no matter what the majority will decide. That would be 840 some party insiders controlling 40% of the vote needed to nominate. That's not a situation which anyone should feel comfortable with.

The result at the point where this nightmare becomes reality, and our influence as voters in that process, will resemble a typical congressional effort to advance a bill, with our elected officials (the 'will' of voters already invested in them, as much as it can be in a politician) bartering among themselves for support. In that effort, our voices and activism will be paramount to our will being represented.

As I mentioned, though, McGovern was a run away choice. This time around, and in every case where the SD's are in play, the choice will be a narrow one, presumably the important policy differences between the two are narrow as well. So the choice of the SuperDelegates won't be all that far from the intentions of voters. There are issues of corporatism and special interest ties which will influence the SD process, but that's going to be an inevitable, unmovable consequence of the closeness in delegates.

We need to recognize that the prospect of this type of end to our primary is coming. I don't believe either candidate will drop out to accommodate the other. So, we need to begin identifying who the Super Delegates are, who they've pledged to, and where their constituent's interests lie. The effort by concerned voters will be as difficult and important as lobbying their representatives and senators for votes on legislation, but it will be folly to just leave the result to chance while railing against the process. I don't see how we can change the rules at this stage. We're bound to see this through as it is. We need to get busy with our activism directed at these SD's.

Here's one good place to begin: http://sd-project.wikidot.com/welcome

"The Super Delegate Transparency Project is a project founded by Jennifer Nix and Mark Myers of LiteraryOutpost.com in collaboration with Chris Bowers from OpenLeft.com. It is meant to build on the fine work being done at DemConWatch. The 'Watch' has a 'Superdelegate Tracker' and other tools.

SDTP is intended as a collaborative project between all interested parties to provide a running audit of the so-called Super Delegates to the Democratic National Convention."

We need to get active NOW to avoid being total victims of this anti-democratic, party leader construction.

[WatchWhatISay]

1. I think they're wrong

They assume they know how the remaining states will vote. All the Texans I know are voting for Obama.

[bigtree]

3. we don't want to be caught flatfooted and feeling put upon at the end

all at once. We need to organize and lobby these SuperDelegates NOW to adhere to the will of their constituents. That's something both campaigns should be interested in. We don't want any outcome which is far removed from the will of those who've voted.

[Stephanie]

2. I posted the other day - some good info linked here >

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4438719

[bigtree]

4. thanks Stephanie. This is where our supporters from both camps should come together

on managing the actions of these SD's as best as we are able. Great post!

[bigtree]

6. what's with the low response to this issue. We know there'll be gnashing of teeth

. . . and hair-pulling if it comes to pass.

I saw that your own good thread had just died . . .

[bigtree]

5. :kick:

[Diane R]

7. I want to know what Superdelegates are getting promised. Ambassadorships? Jobs? Help w/ debts?

[bigtree]

12. those are excellent questions. Romney was buying votes of delegates

The more visibility we give to these players, the less chance they'll have to get away with these slick, backroom deals, and the more they'll feel accountable to the will of their constituents.

[WatchWhatISay]

8. Can we get rid of them at or even before the Convention

If they voted them in during the 60's, can't we start a movement to get rid of them now?

[bigtree]

10. I really doubt it

[Time for change]

9. Thank you for clarifying this

[bigtree]

11. you're welcome. when will we see a TFC breakdown of the issues surrounding this?

we need to get folks mobilized so that we won't be caught off guard.

I support Clinton, who is assumed to need the SD's, but I don't want a situation where anyone thinks either was appointed by party insiders.

[Time for change]

21. I'm afraid that that's a little out of my scope of understanding

This is a very different situation than I'm used to.

From 1976 through 2004 superdelegates really didn't come into play. In every one of those elections a Democratic nominee emerged early in the primary process, at least by after "Super Tuesday" (if I recall correctly) and sailed on to the nomination with little or no further challenge.

1972, which as you point out was the election prior to the introduction of superdelegates (I hadn't known that), as well as the first election that I voted in or followed closely, was very close, as even going into the convention McGovern was not assured of winning. I suppose that if superdelegates had been used at that time, he probably wouldn't have received the nomination. I guess it would have been a second consecutive round of Humphrey vs. Nixon. So, the end result is that this is the first time ever where superdelegates seem likely to determine the Democratic nominee, and I'm somewhat clueless as to what all the dynamics of that are.

[bigtree]

22. boy, wouldn't we know those dynamics well, in time, if this occured

and they will be legendary

[IsItJustMe]

13. KICK KICK KICK. You are dealing with the very hart of the matter here. I have a strong hunch

that it going to come down to the SD. I hope most of them will go for the nominee that has the most elected delecates, but alot of these SD's have already pledged their votes. Scary.

[bigtree]

15. That brings to mind a dilemma

How do we judge the propriety of a Clinton SuperDelegate, say, refusing to budge in a state which went overwhelmingly for Obama?

What criteria would we use for judging the others who aren't sitting officials? I think the more sunlight we can shine on the process, the less opportunity there will be for objectionable dealmaking raging with impunity.

[IsItJustMe]

17. I think it's getting late in the game and would not be useful to concentrate on the SD's that

are already pledged. Seems to me the best thing a BO supporter could is get a list of the uncommitted SD's and start some type of campaign to get them over to your side.

I would use the argument that whoever gets the most elected delegates should get their support, in all fairness, I think, that's the way it should be.

[bigtree]

19. lobbying the ones left is certainly something which shouldn't be ignored.

That's definitely one aspect of our campaigning (and the issue of the SD's) we shouldn't neglect this time around.

[mtnester]

14. March 5

We got at least that long to go

Superdelegates, one way or another, will start to commit that day..after Texas and Ohio vote

25 days


(sorry my friends and neighbors in PA..it will be over by April, which I know sucks)

[bigtree]

16. good reminder

we need to start our activism (however we choose to address this) TODAY

[cooolandrew]

18. Most folks don't know what they are is the reason but great advice though.

[bigtree]

20. I think the media has done a poor job in representing what's involved.

It will certainly explode into a political spectacle, though, if it comes to that.

The interesting thing is that we really have no credible base from which to guide us in this, other than our own biased camps. It will be a challenge to reconcile all of the differences and disappointments which the process will produce in the end. Better that we feel we had some participation in the outcome beyond just railing against the evident unfairness of the arrangement.

[CaptJasHook]

23. Randi Rhodes was talking about this yesterday

I believe she hit the nail on the head in two ways.

First, we must lobby Howard Dean to pledge that the Super delegates will not be used unless there is an actual TIE. He is the one that will be able to make the decision.

Secondly, if the super delegates end up switching candidates from whomever wins the popular vote, there is going to be hell to pay. I will never, ever, ever vote Democrat again if they do that. Instead I will do everything I can to become part of a new progressive party, even if that party loses for the rest of my life.

And I know that I am not alone in saying this.

[bigtree]

26. I'm wondering just how much influence Dean actually has

He's presumed to be outgoing, isn't he?

[Yossariant]

27. Aye, there's the rub!

You say that the superdelegates must vote for whichever candidate has the most popular votes while #13 says the superdelegates must vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. ;-)

All this talk about being fair and democratic vanishes when the rubber meets the road and you are left with, "I oppose the unfair, undemocratic superdelegates ONLY if they vote for Clinton."

:rofl:

[CaptJasHook]

28. You are a sad person if you think this only about Obama or Hillary.

I don't even support either of them. Though I will end up voting for them in the GE (Fuck Nader).

This is about whether or not the Democratic party is... well... democratic.

[CaptJasHook]

24. PS since we can't recommend this thread, can we just copy and post it,

This is incredibly important to consider.

[bigtree]

25. Be sure to follow what the folks at the Super Delegate Transparency Project are doing

See if you can organize a list of SD's to target with your activism. The more light on what they're doing, the better. I don't want MY candidate to win on just the nod of party insiders.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. You are correct

That would be the wise choice, even if it means, as it should, not being hypocritical about blasting the Clinton campaign for trying to do the same.

I did not see a single Obama supporter on this board, not one, complain about the system that Nevada used to give out delegates when Clinton won the popular vote there and Obama still got more delgates from Nevada than she did. Not a single complaint was raised from Obama supporters about how undemocratic it was that Obama won more Nevada delegates than Hilary did even though the will of the people chose Clinton over Obama. And hardly any Clinton supporters complained about that system either, we just complained when Obama supporters claimed that Obama actually WON Nevada because he WON MORE DELEGATES than her despite Clinton winning the popular vote there.

The Super Delegate process has been in place FOR DECADES inside the Democrtic Party; they are not a set of rules designed to help Hillary in this election. They may be good rules, they may be bad rules, but they are the rules that all sides went into this contest agreeing to play by.