These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee....
But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.
Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.
So there are Democrats and then there are Democrats. The Super Delegates are in place to determine who are the authentic Democrats.
The conspiracy argument on the second page is also nice: It's the Republicans who are choosing our nominee because the Dems have open primaries.
I just love the party of the people.
2 comments:
Call it conspiracy theory, but it is very credible to argue that Open Primaries ARE a distorting influence.
Those, in tandem with the heavily distorting Caucuses, subordinate Democratic voters' preferences to other, tactical considerations.
I am not sure about this. After looking at the exit polling from MSNBC, there have only been two states in which the independent votes have made a direct difference: Connecticut and Missouri. Consequently, Senator Obama won a total of four delegates from them. (And, this is exit polling and not data from the voting results.)
I think that the most you can say is that the independent vote may be giving Senator Obama an advantage because it has reduced the number of delegates Senator Clinton received, but the math on that would be almost impossible since you would have to look at data at a district by district level, not a state level.
For example, Senator Clinton won the following states by winning the Dem vote even though she lost the Independent vote: Arizona, California, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee. (But also note that New York was closed yet people identified as being Independent & Republican). The exit polling shows that at best, Senator Obama reduced her delegate count but to find out for sure, you would need to look at the results from registered voters at the district level, which I do not think people have done since it would be soooooo tedious.
Another argument is that the independent vote is increasing the total popular vote for Senator Obama. Yet, so what? The total popular vote means nothing, only delegate count.
On other sites, I keep reading that from Wisconsin 9% of the voters identified themselves Republican (through exit polls, splitting 72% - 28% in favor of Senator Obama). Yet, it did not alter the outcome of the election as Senator Obama beat Senator Clinton 53% - 46% with Democratic voters).
I think this is a misleading argument.
Post a Comment