« Limping To Victory | Main | Christianity, Darwinism and The Fall »

Why The Superdelegates Won't End It

23 Apr 2008 10:47 am

Because nobody can make them, says Jeff Greenfield:

...who are the brokers? Which political leaders can deliver pocketfuls of delegates? The short answer is, no one. The undecided superdelegates control exactly one vote each (or half a vote)—their own. The idea that a cohort of these folks will unify calls to mind the difficulty of herding cats. To be sure, dozens of House superdelegates will listen to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but the politics of their districts—or their key financial supporters—are likely to matter a lot more to them. As for National Chairman Howard Dean, his office comes with few if any powers of persuasion. Even its fundraising pales in comparison with the party's senatorial and congressional campaign committees, and Dean's political clout has so far proven nonexistent. Al Gore clearly has the respect of his party, but many of the brokered convention fantasies revolve around him as the ultimate nominee, not kingmaker.

Because they don't want to, says John Podhoretz:

Yes. Sure. Because politicians with the most valuable votes in America are just going to choose up sides and not spend three months being courted and feted and promised. They are going to forswear having their feet kissed, their backs massaged, their views requested, their wants fulfilled, their needs anticipated. They are going to throw their vote away rather than milk it for all it’s worth.

... The point here is: A thousand or so people are going to decide this primary. It behooves those people to have this go on as long as possible, because that is how they are going to get the most goodies. Maybe this is what Hillary truly understands.

Comments (12)

Yes, a thousand or so people might decide the primary, and the deciding factor remains, and will remain, that if they do so for Hillary they lose their base and almost certainly the general. So, God bless.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party can't win in November 2008 with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as their nominee since at this point both candidates are damaged goods for a number of reasons.

I am just one person probably among half of the voting population in the US who still hope that Al Gore will be drafted at the Democratic Party convention. I like to suggest that you take a few minutes to read the following thread regarding the coming presidential election. After you read this thread you would understand why it is imperative that the Democratic Party draft Al Gore at the convention as its nominee for the general election.

The discussion on this thread has been going on since August of 2006 and there are almost 600 comments about Al Gore becoming the new US president in November 2008.

If the American people are really interested in real and concrete change that it will place the US economy into the right path for a successful and prosperous future then Al Gore is the real thing.

My screen name on that thread is SouthAmerica. Here is the thread:

Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835

.

*******

I live in New Jersey but only 20 minutes from the George Washington Bridge, and our area in New Jersey for all practical purposes it is a borough of New York City.

I know Mr. Bloomberg is doing a superb job as the Mayor of New York City. But I have to be blunt about one thing, even though Mr. Bloomberg can finance his presidential bid I am sure that he would not be able to win the general election.

But as Mr. Bloomberg mentioned today on the CRS if he were offered to be on the presidential ticket as the vice president my impression from this interview is that Mike Bloomberg left the door open for that option.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party cant win in November with Hillary or Obama as their nominee since at this point both candidates are damaged goods for a number of reasons. I am just one person probably among half of the voting population in the US who still hope that Al Gore will be drafted at the Democratic Party convention. I like to suggest that you take a few minutes to read the following thread regarding the coming presidential election. After you read this thread you would understand why it is imperative that the Democratic Party draft Al Gore at the convention as its nominee for the general election. The discussion on this thread has been going on since August of 2006 and there are almost 600 comments about Al Gore becoming the new US president in November 2008. If the American people are really interested in real and concrete change that it will place the US economy into the right path for a successful and prosperous future then Al Gore is the real thing. Mike Bloomberg would be an excellent choice to be on Al Gore s ticket as the vice president and I am 100 percent sure that Al Gore / Mike Bloomberg ticket can win in November 2008 with a strong mandate. My screen name on that thread is SouthAmerica. Here is the thread:
Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835

.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party can't win in November 2008 with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as their nominee since at this point both candidates are damaged goods for a number of reasons.

I am just one person probably among half of the voting population in the US who still hope that Al Gore will be drafted at the Democratic Party convention. I like to suggest that you take a few minutes to read the following thread regarding the coming presidential election. After you read this thread you would understand why it is imperative that the Democratic Party draft Al Gore at the convention as its nominee for the general election.

The discussion on this thread has been going on since August of 2006 and there are almost 600 comments about Al Gore becoming the new US president in November 2008.

If the American people are really interested in real and concrete change that it will place the US economy into the right path for a successful and prosperous future then Al Gore is the real thing.

My screen name on that thread is SouthAmerica. Here is the thread:

Al Gore - Democratic Party candidate in 2008. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74835

.

Sorry I am not trying to spam your comments section I did try to correct my posting and the information was posted again.

I had revelations last night while hearing the PA results and realizing this endless charade would be going on longer that this may be a "Democratic" phenomenom. And by that I mean the party not the obviousness relation to the political theory. Part of me senses that the Republicans would not allow themselves to be in this bind, as their superdelegates would be much more decisive and organized for "the good of the party" had a similar situation arose. The inability to lead (even in the minority) and indisiciveness of the Democrats contributing to the last 5 or so years of problems seems to bolster this. Say what you want about the Rebulicans, at least they have been decisive and leading us somewhere (however good or bad you may consider that somewhere to be).

I should add to my previous post the obvious conclusion to my point. The Democrats continue to seem scared to do anything, including these superdelegates who are obviously scared that they choose the wrong person and dont get the perks from the winner were their horse to be later elected President. Better to not make a choice in their mind then make the wrong one. Unfortunalty, for all of us that is sometimes not the practical result of dilly dally.

Superdelegates need to stop being wimps and endorse.

Who's to say that Hillary won't keep this going AFTER the convention? She still has enough personal money and institutional support to make a sizable chunk of delegates walk out of Denver once it finally looks like it's going to go Obama's way.

I know it's not palatable but Obama needs to finish her off with total negative ad saturation now. Either that or the party will be at an impasse deep into the fall.

I don't understand why Obama won't roll out a more well-organized negative message. I mean, he's running in a populist-themed Dem primary against a former Wal-Mart board member who voted for the war and whose husband wrote NAFTA into law!

And yet all the negative stuff from Obama has been discreet (primarily mail) and totally incoherent.

What is Podhoretz smoking? Seriously. When it comes down to it, the superdelegates, most of all, want to win. Particularly the ones who have to run for reelection.

Wined and dined? No. After the last primary, Reid and Pelosi will lay down the law, the superdelegates will decide, and that will be it, presumably with Obama as the nominee.

Is it not now clear that the whole 'superdelegate' idea that the Democratic party had is one of the worst ideas to come down the political pike ever? Maybe the best reason for supporting Obama is that he no doubt hates the idea by now and will probably kill it if he is the party leader; but if the superdelegates actually choose Hillary as the leader after she loses the pledged delegate count, she will think they are great and cement them in place, and some point down the road we will all have to go through all of this again!?

This has become ludicrous. The democrats are utterly anemic. It's like watching a drugged lab rat get shocked again and again, unable to learn not to go for the cheese. Electability and the idea of electability is the penultimate downfall of Dems. It has been almost 40 years since McGovern. Does anyone, superdelegate or otherwise have any gumption anymore? We have been handed a victory by the Bush legacy and we should be using that to get away with things we haven't been able to before - sneaky, deceptive, hidden agendas like say being honest, principled, running a clean race and actually telling it like it is. The Clinton machine was not necessary this year. It invented a place for itself .

The argument seems sensible: Superdelegates won't commit until they absolutely have to, because they're treated better if they're uncommitted.

Except this doesn't explain why a few hundred already HAVE, and why more keep doing so every few days.

The test of a theory is what it predicts, not what it explains, but this one doesn't even explain the data so far.