<p>The point made by epiphany is also a good enough reason why the superdelegates should come around to Obama. </p>
<p>The superdelegates are most concerned about their own elections. It is a well known fact of politics that during a Presidential election year the vast majority of voters are only thinking about who they want to vote for President. Once they make this decision, many of them will simply vote for the entire slate of candidates under that presidential candidate. These “down-ticket” candidates are now superdelegates and for once they will get to affect which candidate is on the top of their ticket. If Obama is at the top of the ticket, it may be induce some independents and republicans to vote democratic down ticket as well. Hillary at the top might have an opposite effect.</p>
<p>bedhead,
I guess many many anti-Hillary voters have been infected. Good grief.
The elections of 1996 or the year 1998 have nothing to do with anything.
Yup, it’s all a right wing conspiracy against Hillary. You win.</p>
<p>vicarious parent: many of the superdelegtes are not elected officials, BTW.</p>
<p>They include, according to Wikipedia: members of the Democratic National Committee, as well as all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee</p>
<p>Donna Brazile said, “If 795 superdelegates decide the Democratic nominee, I will quit the Democratic Party.” Or something to that effect. </p>
<p>Amen to that. </p>
<p>If Obama’s got more delegates after all the dust settles, the superdelegates ought to proportionally back Obama (and Clinton). Same case if Clinton has more superdelegates. Otherwise the whole process will lose all legitimacy.</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is in the best interests of the party and/or the country. I don’t think they should vote in proportion to the popular vote because then it would defeat the entire purpose of having superdelegates. </p>
<p>mafool, I was aware of that, but many others are elected representatives, and many of those are seeking re-election.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that the superdelegate system was established essentially because during the '72 campaign California a winner-take-all-delegates state came out for McGovern and overwhelmed the voting for the Democratic candidate. Now that there is proportional allocation of delegates, there is really no need for the system.</p>
<p>I can’t see how ceding the choice of nominee to 756 (I think it is) superdelegates to divine what’s best for the country and the party is anything other than anti-democratic. Please explain for me what superior wisdom these people would impart that the electorate would not have. The race is likely to be quite close, at least according to the media. You are telling me that you would countenance a candidate who lost the popular and delegate count by quite some to be chosen over the manifest winner? Do you realize how illegitimate that would seem? Do you realize how people would react?</p>
<p>You are right about that, vicariousparent! I wanted to make the clarification in for the sake of the general discussion. And I agree with your analysis of the superdelegates’ role.</p>
<p>My admittedly simple understanding of the superdelegates’ role is to be able to adjust to changing circumstances and real-world political reality. Many of the primaries, after all, take place many months prior to the convention. The dems have a history of nominating great people who have no chance to win. I’m not saying that that is the case at hand today, but that is, I believe, a good part of the reason the superdelegates exist.</p>
<p>No one knows what may transpire between now and the convention that may alter the political playing field.</p>
<p>I am actually astonished that some people see no problem with ceding the right to choose a nominee on the basis of some expediency to a group of people who themselves are unelected.</p>
<p>According to this article, “The Democratic Party introduced superdelegates after the 1980 election to give elected officials and party leaders a greater voice in the process. In 1984, Walter Mondale relied on them to get the edge over Gary Hart and win the nomination.”</p>
<p>Also states: “Superdelegates, meanwhile, have their own politics to worry about. If they are elected officials, they do not want to anger their constituents.”</p>
<p>But as to “popular votes” determining the nominees, I feel I should mention that these are Party nominations (for good or ill, both Rep. and Dem.) and that the Parties made the rules. </p>
<p>The state parties made the rules about who could vote (open or closed primary) how they would “vote” (primary or caucus) and how the votes translate into delegates (winner take all, proportionate by congressional district, proportionate by state…) and many other variables. So the results vary in their meanings and are not necessarily equivalent.</p>
<p>The parties also made these delegate rules. The Dems have superdelegates. The repubs have at-large delegates and bonus delegates.</p>
<p>In the case of the dems, this whole business was actually initiated as a “reform.”</p>
<p>And lest we forget, we do not even have direct election in the general election, what with the electoral college. Now, to me, THAT’S the selection process that should have our attention!</p>
<p>If Obama (or Clinton) is unhappy with the result of the nomination, he (or she) has the right to contest as an independent. It would make a very interesting election if we had 4 candidates on the ballot in November:</p>
<p>Yes, but there’s no money in independent campaigns. No party backing. No media coverage. It would effectively be running with your hands tied behind your back.</p>
<p>poetsheart: I believe Obama would have no problem raising money for an independent campaign without party backing. And he would have no problem with media coverage, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>AP News: "Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton’s deputy campaign manager has stepped down amid a string of losses to rival Barack Obama.</p>
<p>Mike Henry announced his departure Tuesday, a day after Maggie Williams replaced Patti Solis Doyle as Clinton’s campaign manager. Solis Doyle had recruited Henry to join the team last year."</p>