Do Dem party leaders want Super Delegates to decide the race? YES or NO?

[RiverStone]

The question really is that simple.

Hillary said last night she is going all the way.

Every political pundit on the M$M has finally worked out the math formula - Hillary must win by a 56% to 62% average in every remaining contest to catch Obama (depending on which pundit you listen to - if any). But don't take my word for it, figure it out for yourself using this cool delegate calculator:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

There are a dozen contests still to come after today, starting with Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi next Tuesday. Then you have Pennsylvania on April 22, followed over the next few weeks by Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and finally Puerto Rico. Working the Slate calculator, she would need to win 62 percent in each of those states to pass Obama in pledged delegates, giving her a total of 1,605 to 1,604.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/04/clinton_down_but_not_out_for_t.html?hpid=topnews

Hillary is behind by double digits currently in North Carolina and Mississippi and at least somewhat behind in 2-3 other states. With all due respect to Hillary supporters, the only way she can win this thing is if Super Delegates pull rank and go against the collective will of the popular vote.

As many have noted already on DU, if Super Delegates decide on a nominee that does not mirror the will of the popular vote, many Dems would walk away from our party in disgust. It would disenfranchise everybody that worked like hell to elect who ever (the popular vote) decided upon.

So Democratic leaders leaders, do you want Super Delegates to decide our nominee? YES or NO? :shrug:

This question has to be answered --- sooner or later.

[mudesi]

1. Hillary supporters want it

I don't really know why.

[RiverStone]

5. It is the only way she can win

I empathize with how tough it is to let go and I won't ever diss them for it, but if you give Hillary a victory in EVERY battle ahead - she still loses.

I don't understand how one escapes the mathematical reality.

[daa]

6. Its the only way Obama wins also

[RiverStone]

8. Yes, but Obama wins with a delegate majority...

Hillary only wins if Super Delegates manipulate the majority.

[BeatleBoot]

12. Neither can win without Super Delegates

End of story.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. Dems da rules! n/t

[blocker]

3. If they do, theres gonna a war and the end of the party!

No way they are going against the total delegates and total poular votes, every democrats Obama or Clinton will win the big states like california and new york.

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. Nah. We lived through the 60's and learned to ignore the fringe

You don't win elections in the general. That's why the delegates are tailored to each state and the super delegates exist. Look up George McGovern if you need more historical perspective.

[IsItJustMe]

16. The super delegates didn't come about until the 80's, long after McGovern.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. We have long memories.

The Democratic Party established this system in part in response to the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. McGovern took only one state and had only 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter was a dark-horse candidate with little national experience. Super-delegates were implemented in 1984.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/super_delegates.htm

[mjg540]

14. That isn't exactly what would happen...

The Super Delegates were seated for a reason. They are Party Loyalist and have the party in mind as opposed to any candidate. They should vote based on their convictions. No matter who is in the lead at convention, the fact is, they are not the nominee because they did not get enough delegates to seal the deal. Now that means....and read carefully....the Super Delegates would not be deciding the election. They are voting based on the rules and if Hillary or Obama don't want Super Delegates to hold so much power....get out there are get the number of delegates it takes to win without question...otherwise quit whining and let the race continue.

[RiverStone]

15. But no candidate will get the needed number to win...

Without Super Delegates in 2008.

The difference is, Obama already has the plurality of delegates locked up (call at a 95% chance).

If SD's are party loyalists, why would they want to throw the party into a massive clusterfuck? Can't fathom why?

[GoldieAZ49]

4. The Super Delegates WILL decide it, no choice about it

neither candidate can reach 2025 without them

Some are elected others are not

Now either they vote for who they think is best for the party (which is why this freakin system was set up to begin with) or they vote the way THEIR constituents voted.

I favor the latter, but, who has the map of where each of these supers are from and how their 'particular' (ie; voters that elected them) voted?

And who tells the super D's that are not elected how they should vote?

A classic clusterfuck for the history books. Nice.

[peacebird]

7. they want it decided before the convention so it doesn't "look" like the smoke filled rooms decided

That doesn't mean the power brokers don't have a vested interest in preserving status quo.... How else do you explain Pelosi and Reid's miserable performances? They are protecting status quo, the same wealthy interests that support them - screw the constitution and the American people.

I had so much hope when we won in November, but the dismal performance can ONLY be attributed to moronic "leadership" or a desire not to bite the hand that feeds them.

[gravity]

10. Not in this race

If one of the candidates was an extremists, then maybe the party leaders will want to overturn the pledge count. Both Hillary and Obama are capable presidential candidates so there is no way the SD's are going to damage the party over this.

[BeatleBoot]

11. Neither Candidate Can Win Without Super Delegates Deciding Now

[HooptieWagon]

13. Since SDs are about 20% of the total

they almost have to "decide" the nomination in the situation of two candidates separated by less than 20% of the total delegates. However, if you mean overturn the delegate leader and give the nomination to the candidate with fewer delegates, then I can't see that as good, except in very unusual circumstances. It would absolutely split the party, and make the whole primary system pointless. So, if Obama is the pledged delegate leader in Denver, enough SDs better line up behind him to give him the nod - unless he's been indicted, or caught getting a BJ from an intern, or the like.

[RiverStone]

19. Yes, that is exactly what I mean...

However, if you mean overturn the delegate leader and give the nomination to the candidate with fewer delegates, then I can't see that as good, except in very unusual circumstances. It would absolutely split the party, and make the whole primary system pointless.

Let me know if you see it another way. :hi:

[mjg540]

20. THINK ABOUT THIS.....

If, and I say if, you want the Super Delegates to vote based on their state, then all Super Delegates that have already pledged to a candidate are to rescind their vote and go with their state....That's dumb. I don't know why you all don't get the concept of the Super Delegates...THEY ARE THE PARTY LOYALIST AND WILL DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PARTY. It DOES NOT MATTER who is ahead at the convention...THE WINNER IS THE ONE WITH 2025 DELEGATES...Get it!!!!!!!! If you think this will disenfranchise the new voters or any other voting block, then they are not true Democrats. It is the Party and our platform that will long survive past Hillary or Obama...That is what the Super Delegates understand.

[cottonseed]

17. Super Delegates should remember 1994.

Another Clinton, another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution