Super delegates may sink the Democrats

LA Times ^ | 19 January 2008 | Joshua Spivak

[shrinkermd]

In 1982, party leaders allocated for themselves a heaping portion of the delegates, creating positions called super delegates. Every Democratic member of Congress, every Democratic governor and all of the elected members of the Democratic National Committee (the majority of the super delegates) were each granted a vote at the convention. Party leaders assumed this would help them retain a measure of control over the process -- and of course continue to be granted the bounty of political favors that historically flowed from backing the right horse at the convention. In 2008, the 796 super delegates will make up about 20% of the entire convention. Winning the nomination requires 2,025 delegates.

In creating the super delegates, Democratic Party leaders sought to show that although they respected the popular will as expressed in the primaries and caucuses, they also expected that the super delegates could play a significant if not necessarily decisive role in the selection process. However, it did not work out that way. Popular will has put one candidate far enough ahead by the convention that the super delegates haven't come into play. Every nominee since these reforms has been decided based on the primary and caucus votes.

This year might be different. Because no front-runner has emerged, and the compressed time frame of the election may prevent any candidate from gaining enough momentum, no candidate may have enough delegates by convention time. In that case, the super delegates, the majority of whom currently support Hillary Rodham Clinton -- but who could switch sides at any time -- could well be the decision-makers at the convention. And this could be a real problem for the Democratic Party.

[Acrobat]

Hehe... (See definition of SchadeFreude)

[Hang'emAll]

The problem described in the article of the super delegates choice versus the popular choice may really force a Clinton-Obama ticket whether Hillary likes it or not.

[HangnJudge]

[MarkT]

Well, it is worse than Spivak thought. 796 is not “about 20% of the total[2,025]”, it is nearly 40% (39.31% to be exact.) This large a block could easily control events and, one can only hope, screw the Dems and their MSM shills.

[Casaubon]

soooooooo
the dems in power can screw the voters if they chose someone they dont like?

this from the “democratic” party?

hahahahaha

[samson1097]

The 796 would be about 20% of the total number, but since any candidate would only need half, if they all voted together (however unlikely) they would represent 39.31% of the delegates needed.

[Signalman]

“Sink the Democrats”.

Yeah, I just LOVE that phrase.

[nhoward14]

No matter who the RAT nominee is, if they win the Presidency, we will either have

Clinton - America Held Hostage... Again!

Obama - Obamanation

Edwards - Everybody will be forced to work in a mill like his daddy

[Signalman]

I hope Obama gets the majority of the “regular” Democratic delegates, and the Hildabeast gets the super-delegates who give her the nomination. That ought to be fun to watch.

[TruthConquers]

That was exactly what I was thinking too.

These people are STILL complaining about how the popular vote for the president should count more that our constitution, but here they are and their own party rules won’t allow it!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA is right. Hypocrites.

[counterpunch]

No, it wouldn’t force a Clinton-Obama ticket.
It would steal the nomination from Obama and hand it to Clinton, thus robbing a black man of what is rightfully his and forcing a nominee on the Democrats who was “selected, not elected.”

And the sweet irony of it is that should this come to pass, it will be the Congressional Black Caucus who likely delivers the fatal blow to Barak Obama.

[Paladin2]

May not. Now THAT would be a shame.

[OPS4]

To see the shocking Scandal Index of the Clinton years, as compiled by the liberal Progressive Review (http://prorev.com) is to appreciate the Clinton's 24/7/365 belief that any progress in their leftist domestic and foreign affairs agenda could only be realized through the most nefarious activity – much of which fit neatly into the criminal category. Under the listing of "Records Set'" by the Clinton administration (read: co-presidency), Progressive Review cites the following, of which I will only list a sampling: ▪ Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates. ▪ Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation. ▪ Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify. ▪ Most number of witnesses to die suddenly. ▪ First president sued for sexual harassment. ▪ First president accused of rape. ▪ First president to be held in contempt of court. ▪ First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance. ▪ First first lady to come under criminal investigation. ▪ Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case. ▪ Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions. ▪ Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14. ▪ Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5. ▪ Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47. ▪ Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33. ▪ Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61. ▪ Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122. ▪ Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6. ▪ Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al. ▪ Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250. Believe it or not, this exhaustive list omits even lengthier lists – on public record – of crimes investigated, public officials and reporters intimidated, threatened and muzzled, and the raft of dead people associated with the Clintons who died by guns, knives, alleged suicides, etc. See http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html and http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.

[Steely Tom]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1956195/posts

[digger48]

Things worth knowing about Hillary Clinton

[Casaubon]

just out of curiosity

are the repub delegate rules simular??

IDK...bettah check

[djf]

I see that word all over the place.

It’s got to be the stupidest word in the English language. Well, I mean if it was in the English language!!

I’m not sure what it means, but whatever it is, it can’t possibly make any sense!!

Germans oughta stick to beer and blondes and forget about literature.

[fso301]

I’m not sure what it means, but whatever it is, it can’t possibly make any sense!!

It means taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune. There is no exact English equivalent and I think it's a great addition to the English language.

[neverdem]

BTTT!