Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With Obama seemingly going to be the Presidential nominee of the party, how do y'all feel about the process by which the nominee is selected? Specifically, the use of delegates and superdelegates who vote independent of the actual voters in the primaries. I'm just interested to hear opinions on the matter. As a Republican, a process like that would absolutely infuriate me.
In the 1960s, when the Dem. party didn't trust the people to pick a candidate, they created the superdelegates. Personally, I think it is demeaning... but it only comes into play in a situation where no one is going to be the winner. I am still a democrat (they are very good locally) but I vote my conscience. And...My area is all pledged to hillary for the convention.
In the 1960s, when the Dem. party didn't trust the people to pick a candidate, they created the superdelegates. Personally, I think it is demeaning... but it only comes into play in a situation where no one is going to be the winner. I am still a democrat (they are very good locally) but I vote my conscience. And...My area is all pledged to hillary for the convention.
It was actually in 1984 that they created the superdelegates. In the 60's the delegates were almost all party insiders with freedom to do as they wanted. In '68 there were only 15 primaries held and Humphrey got the nomination without running in any of them. After '68 they tried to open it up to the voters and moved toward delegates being committed on the basis of primary results, but in 1984 they figured they had to have some "professionals" step in to make a "wise" choice in cases where they had a close race (that year it was initally tight between Mondale and Gary Hart). It is true that usually they don't come into play as a clear winner generally emerges. Where things are very tight, as this year, effectively they did not trust the idealists in their own party's voter base to select good candidates. Given the way the Democratic pros have handled most recent presidential elections, they don't have much to claim superior strategic knowledge about.
It is interesting because of the longtime meaning of the terms; Democratic means giving virtually all power to the people (something like a New England town meeting where the citizens actually make the laws) while Republican refers to government by proxy or representative.
With Obama seemingly going to be the Presidential nominee of the party, how do y'all feel about the process by which the nominee is selected? Specifically, the use of delegates and superdelegates who vote independent of the actual voters in the primaries. I'm just interested to hear opinions on the matter. As a Republican, a process like that would absolutely infuriate me.
What are you talking about? Stop buying into that bs. The superdelegates had to step in because Florida and Michican messed the whole process up.
Just because Hillary Clinton's camp says they won the popular vote doesn't make it true. If you pay attention, even the media and vote tabulators are still very skeptical and not buying into this illusion that Hillary had more popular votes.
Barack Obama actually had more popular vote, when you include the caucus states. His name was not even on the ballot in Michican but Hillary's was, and he is still slightly ahead of her. If his name actually was on the ballot he would have a more significant lead over Hillary Clinton.
What are you talking about? The superdelegates had to step in because Florida and Michican messed the whole process up.
Just because Hillary Clinton's camp says they won the popular vote doesn't make it true. If you pay attention, even the media and vote tabulators are still very skeptical and not buying into this illusion that Hillary had more popular votes.
Barack Obama actually had more popular vote, when you include the caucus states. His name was not even on the ballot in Michigan but Hillary's was, and he is still slightly ahead of her. If his name actually was on the ballot he would be much ahead of Hillary Clinton.
I think that if Florida and Michigan had followed the rules, had primaries in which everyone was on the ballot and competed to win, and had full delegate votes awarded, we would still be close enough that the superdelegates would be needed this time. Obama certainly would have gotten plenty of votes in Michigan and more than he got in Florida, which he paid little attention to since it wasn't supposed to count, and I don't buy Hillary's claim of more popular votes (for those reasons and as caucus states count too), but it would still have been close in terms of delegates.
It's probably worth noting that over the years, the Republicans have opened their nomination process only after the Democrats made the move first. They were no more open than the Dems through '68. When the Dems brought more actual, everyday voters into the nominating process through primaries and voter-centered caucuses, Repubs did likewise.
I agree with the concept of superDs. There are not enough of them to override the popular choice when it is clear cut, but if we were to go to the convention with three viable candidates, they would have the savvy to know who was likely to have skeletons, who was likely to appeal to swing voters, who would, for a variety of reasons, run the strongest campaign against the other party.
Since Edwards suspended his campaign, I have supported Obama, but I think Hillary's staying in the race through Tuesday was potentially a positive thing. It enabled marginal or first-time primary voters to feel empowered. I hope she and other leaders can keep them motivated through November.
I also can't imagine what the legislatures of Florida and Michigan must have been thinking. Even Repub legislatures want to make their state's citizens voices count. Ironic, isn't it, that NYS voters for years had no voice because by the time our late primary rolled around, the nomination was wrapped up (or nearly so), and this year, the last states were as important, voter for voter, as the first ones!
Also, why is this in the NYC forum? Isn't this a national topic?
For those who support Obama, can I ask why? The reason I want to know is because throughout all of this, it's pretty difficult to understand where he stands on anything. Also, his tie-ins with that church seems very questionable, especially with the anti-white and anti-America rhetoric that seems to come from that camp. I'm sorry but as a white person, it absolutely infuriates me the seeming double-standard that applies with racism re: blacks and whites.
In the 1960s, when the Dem. party didn't trust the people to pick a candidate, they created the superdelegates. Personally, I think it is demeaning... but it only comes into play in a situation where no one is going to be the winner. I am still a democrat (they are very good locally) but I vote my conscience. And...My area is all pledged to hillary for the convention.
Well twice America's put a uneducated buffoon in office so can you blame the Dem party for doubting peoples ability to do research and make decision based facts and reason etc. etc.?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Republican primaries "winner-take-all" by state-- as opposed to the proportional method used by the Democratic primaries? I think that's a worse affront to the democratic process than the use of superdelegates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
