commissar on February 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM

I agree. The superdels were to preserve the ability to deal in the smoke filled room while giving the appearance of allowing the people to choose the nominee. After McGovern, the democrats didn’t trust the folks to pick their nominee. It’s further evidence that democrats trust people to make decisions far less than Republicans do.

I think that after their rhetoric in 2000,(which is just rhetoric and not principle. They would have said the opposite if it served them.) and the attention given to the superdels this time around, the DNC will be forced to get rid of this practice soon. Well, they would if the democrats made any effort to be intellecutally consistent.

Of course the superdels were conceived of as anti-democratic (just before JJackson started running, coincidentally). There is no rationale for them otherwise.

BTW, earlier this week, I rounded up a cross-section of the state head-to-head polls (mostly from SUSA). At the moment, Mac looks better against Obama in the battleground states, which reinforces HRC’s argument.

But, with so many Dems claiming the supremacy of the popular vote in 2000, the passage of time, and (I think) some clever positioning or ground-prop by the Obama team, this year the notion that “superdels must respect the will of the people” has gained great currency. Quite rapidly too.

A few months ago, it was understood that Obama would have to overcome The Borg’s likely advantage in superdels. Today, it is, astonishingly, a different case. He merely has to be significantly (unambiguously) ahead in both pledged dels and pop. vote.

The whole shift in the way the superdel struggle is being viewed is THE untold story of this election. It will be the “Donna Brazile election.”

Update: Survey USA has her up 17 in Ohio, Rasmussen has her up 16 in Texas. But storm clouds are a-gatherin’.

Hillary is going all out in TX and the Texans know it. She will probably do OK there. It isn’t a winner take all state though.

Looking forward to ‘12 when the conservatives kick the McCain brand of socialism out of the party!

Yes, I do believe the Clinton’s are capable of just that. Too many people around them have suddenly died under questionable circumstances, to the benefit of the Clintons, for it to be ignored.

Not to be misunderstood here: would love Hillary to run against McCain as the GOP would have a shot to win – and if they win we MIGHT be done with the Clintons for good. If Obama is the nominee the Clintons will just wait to try again as it was a “fluke”.

But regardless of who the Dems put up I will not be voting for McCain.

It comes down to this: the vast majority of US voters make their decision on who to vote for in Nov. They will have two options when they finally start paying attention. The first will be “the same bland old white guy that talks about some war on terror and stuff – just like Bush”, the other will be “that African American young guy I have heard about from my friends. Wow, he really gives great speeches. Voting for the first black president will say so much about me. I could be a part of history.” Etc.

Obama will sweep the black vote, will get all the Dems, and will horde the independents. The only people that will vote McCain vs. him are the ones that are paying attention and actually looking at Obama’s plans. And we all know how very few US citizens are actually paying any attention at all.

Just how I see things playing out.

Sugar Land on February 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM

I don’t agree because if you’ve noticed the big push this election cycle has been change. Voters don’t want the old establishment, and it’s easy to paint McCain as part of that old establishment.

My other argument would be the independent vote. Elections are only won with a large majority of independents, and I think Obama has a better shot at garnering the independent vote.

I think your arguments about the elderly, latinos and the south are spot on though.

Big S on February 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM

I agree. By the way, if Obama runs, expect McCain to run to the center and pick a moderate Republican as a running mate, not a conservative. He needs to run against Obama in the Fall, not Rush.

I’m definitely in the minority here, but I still think Hillary would have a better chance vs. Maverick in the general. B. Hussein Obama is as lightweight a candidate as has ever been on the national stage.

I think the way to look at it is that Obama has a higher ceiling than Hillary, but a lower floor. He could win or lose in a landslide, depending on how he performs, and what happens in the world between now and November. Hillary will maintain the general shape of the electoral map, with a few states like Ohio, Colorado, Missouri, and Virginia taking the roles of important battlegrounds. This year, with a Republican funding disadvantage, the narrowing effect Hillary would have might actually benefit the Republican nominee, since he could concentrate his resources on a few markets.

The idea of a true ‘democracy’ in the eyes of Democrats went of the way of the Dodo some time ago. You must remember that the Dems truly believe that ‘the people’ are too stupid to govern themselves, run a business, raise a family, etc. Why the heck trust them with an election? We did elect Bush TWICE afterall… Sure the Dems will say the right things and give an impersonation of ‘voter’s rights’, but the use of superdelegates helps take that right away. If ‘the people’ start to rally around the wrong person, don’t worry, the SuperDelegates will swoop in to save the day!

We the people are best left debating whether Clemens used steroids or when Britt will ‘AnnaNicole’ herself. Mmmmmmm, that’s good koolaid!

Anyone seriously see that happening, though? They’re going to deny a guy whose popularity has attained cultish levels because he didn’t win the “right” states, especially with the prospect looming of Hillary-hatred tipping independents towards Maverick in the battlegrounds?

If she can manage to keep the pledged delegate count close, I think that a comfortable win in Ohio is a strong argument to superdelegates. I don’t think independents will care as much about the intra-party machinations of the Democrats than their base will. The blue states, with the possible exception of NH and one or two in the upper Midwest, are likely to stay blue in November, so the Democrats will want their strongest candidate in the battleground states that matter. Hillary has won in NH, and nobody knows how Obama would have done in Michigan or Florida. If she wins in Ohio, backing Obama will be a bit of a gamble for superdelegates, whose main goal is to select the nominee who will win in November. Hillary knows this, which is probably why she’s spending so much time in Ohio lately.

Extra credit question: Why do they have superdelegates in the first place?

Because there are always different rules for the elites in the “Democratic” Party. We might as well start referring to them as the Politburo.

Extra credit question: Why do they have superdelegates in the first place? I’ve read this piece and Captain Ed’s post and I still don’t understand.

I have a feeling that superdelgates will not be around come the next elections. The DNC can legislate the Superdelgates away on their own.

I just cannot envision a graceful exit for this vile woman.

As T.O. once said: Get the popcorn ready…

the carrot or the stick.

With Hillary, I think she’s more a stick person.