Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Superdelegates A Rube Goldberg Process?
TC makes a great point; the Dems came up with this Superdelegate idea. What they have done is basically grant Superdelegate status to almost any and every person who is, or was, a politician with a "D" behind their name. These Superdelegates get to cast a vote for the Dem candidate, whether it be Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy's Poodle.
Here is a list of
Superdelegates, according to the link, are Democrat governors, former and current Democrat Senators and Congressmen as well as Former Worst Vice President Ever Walter Mondale, former White House Occupant Bill "I can't keep my pants on" Clinton and other Democrat Party toadies like Hillary Clinton's campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe.
I'm sure if they could have, the Dems would have named former Dems who are now dead as Superdelegates as well. Perhaps they tried, but lost in this endeavor.
The 2008 DemocRAT Convention will have "approximately 796 Superdelegates."
So, let's say all the rank and file delegates pledge to support "Democrat Candidate A." If the Superdelegates don't agree with the rank and file, they can shift their support to "Democrat Candidate B," in effect giving the candidacy to someone not supported by the rank and file.
Nice - huh? Fair - yes? Representing the will of the people - right?
This is where the WSJ story hits a Grand Slamerino:
For over seven years the Democratic Party has fulminated against the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush the presidency over popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000. But they have designed a Rube Goldberg nominating process that could easily produce a result much like the Electoral College result in 2000: a winner of the delegate count, and thus the nominee, over the candidate favored by a majority of the party's primary voters.
Imagine that as the convention approaches, Sen. Clinton is leading in the popular vote, but Sen. Obama has the delegate lead. Surely no one familiar with her history would doubt that her take-no-prisoners campaign team would do whatever it took to capture the nomination, including all manner of challenges to Obama delegates and tidal waves of litigation.
Indeed, it has already been reported that Sen. Clinton will demand that the convention seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, two states whose delegates have been disqualified by the party for holding January primaries in defiance of party rules.
In short, the way things are going so far, Sens. Obama and Clinton will probably be so close to one another in delegate count by the time of the convention that all those primary votes may be tabulated, but will turn out to be irrelevant to the outcome. Those 796 superdelegate politicians will decide who the candidate will be. Maybe no cigar or cigarette smoke this time, but back-room politics all the same. All those primary voters and millions in campaign expenses locked out of the room.
I wonder what kind of "dirt" the Clintons have on their fellow Democrats to
Who is calling the shots in nominating who will become the Democrat Candidate for president? 796 selected Superdelegates. Why, that sounds like Fascism to me. Where have I heard that type of allegation before?
If you're a Democrat, you should be screaming like a banshee over the amount of power the Superdelegates have over the rank and file. But you won't, you're good little sheeple and you'll do whatever Democrat Politburo Central commands you to do.
Besides, real good true little Democrats, Liberals and Progressives know that Big Daddy Government knows what is best for them, they should be perfectly fine with 796 Superdelegates telling them what to do and ignoring their primary and caucus voices. The Dems preach this mentality all the time - that the government knows what is best for you. Let's see how well they take their own medicine from their own so-called leaders, the Superdelegates.
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.