jdanton

I have been thinking about why we have super delegates, and why they would be able to undo the will of the voters.

My conclusion is they form a good back up. The primaries, unlike the general, are spread out over a long time. A lot can happen during that time.

I believe the super delegates ought not pledge their support to, or endorse anyone.

Here's the purpose, I believe they serve. Before I get responses, I am neither hoping for or expecting this, but it's a very possible scenario.

We have a front runner voted for by the people back on super Tuesday. In May, long after those votes were cast, something comes up that wasn't known about that front runner.

Then the superdelegates can determine if they think this previously unknown information will affect that candidates ability to win in November.

This is why they are there.

Just to put a set of different names here, suppose this was a republican primary, and Larry Craig won most states on Super Tuesday, then, come May, we learn about his mens room problem

__________________
Author: Memoirs of a Sleepless Mind, a book you CAN judge by its cover.

RK77

I am sure that was hard, hard work for you!

And NOTHING could possibly happen in the months between the primary and the General---Right? Like Hillary can't find her butt tied up in court testifying in a case where she is charged with campaign fraud----right?

JD----this has been said HUNDREDS of times all over the news---WHAT IS YOUR POINT???? Why do you keep starting threads rehashing what everyone else already KNOWS?

Can't you keep up?????

Yes or just speculate what is going to happen when Hillary's trial starts!

This has been discussed in threads that already exist you started two of them didn't you? Did you forget? Are you having another Senior moment??

CosmicRocker

that's the theory:
sorte like the Senate is the " cooling saucer for Legislation"
It would be better to have winner take all delegates in the states, and remove the super-delegates , in my humble.

__________________

Traveling Wilburys (l to r)

Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison

jdanton

Yes, that would be better. However, this is not like the general election, so I think something needs to be in place in case of something really nasty surfacing about the one most people voted for.

I go back to my Larry Craig example. Suppose you voted for him in Feb. and he was ahead and actually had the votes/delegates to be the nominee, then the bathroom stall problems comes out.

Now you'd like to take your vote back, no?

the extent to which I have a problem with the super delegates is that they should remain publicly neutral until/unless they are needed.

__________________
Author: Memoirs of a Sleepless Mind, a book you CAN judge by its cover.

RK77

That could be resolved without superdelegates and with the delegates voting at the convention to release their pledges leaving delegates to vote as they see fit. DUH!!!

HarperLee

Or what if there are videos all over YouTube showing Hillary and Bill and Chelsea at a fundraiser given by Peter Paul to make money for her first Senate campaign, of Hillary sitting by Peter Paul at a lunch in her honor at Spagos, Hillary at a garden party with Peter Paul and
others -- and yet, what if we find a statement in which Hillary denies that she knows Peter Paul. Like she her denial to Matt Lauer that she knew Lezko.

There are no YouTubes of Larry Craig in the men's room.

There are plenty of YouTube videos showing that Hillary certainly knew Peter Paul, i.e.:


The 20/20 is obviously from 2001, but Peter Paul's lawsuit is still pending and the trial was just recently continued.

Peter Paul is a slimebag -- which is the point. Why were the Clintons
so chummy with this slimebag? How does Hillary get away with
denying that she ever knew him?

From Wikipedia, Hillary officially denying that she even knows who Peter Paul is:

Two days after the gala, the Washington Post publicized Paul's criminal record, and Hillary Clinton denied knowing Paul and "vowed not to take any contributions from him". Through her official spokesman, Howard Wolfson, Hillary stated on August 16, 2000 that she would return $2,000 she reported receiving from Paul in June 2000,[30] and would not have anything further to do with him.

Jonesy

More like, because political parties are unnecessary. They make their own goon rules, followed potentially retardedly by naive, robot voters.

HarperLee

Instead of fantasizing about imaginary Obama scandals, perhaps we should heed potential Clinton scandals.

Former Democratic Senator Bill Bradley on PBS's NewsHour with
Jim Lehrer:

"I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.
And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain."


----------------------------------------------

jdanton

You go ahead, if you'd like, I'm gonna try to concentrate on the system and where it fails.

One of those failures, in my opinion, is that super delegates should voice NO opinion until/unless they are needed.

As to what scandals Obama has, that not for me to decide. The media will determine what is or is not a scandal. The media made Whitewater a scandal for 8 years; then Ken Starr cleared both the Clintons.

YOu and your friends may continue to debate the merits, or lack thereof, between Clinton and Obama if you wish. I see no further point in it. I will support whomever ends up with the nomination. which I have no control over.

__________________
Author: Memoirs of a Sleepless Mind, a book you CAN judge by its cover.

winthrop

Yet thread after thread after thread all on the same basic subject, started by you and others of the same mindset is....fine? More hypocrisy disguised as...what was HarperLee's word, fired from behind her "ignore" bunker...oh yes, "self-righteousness".

Yes, gratuitous insults are fun. What degree is required for those?