# If Superdelegates Decide the Democratic Nomination Fight…



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

&#8230;then this historic contest, full of firsts, will be decided the old way:

*by powerful white men.*

Interesting stuff...

Ryan

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

White men hold superdelegate power balance

By: Josephine Hearn 
Feb 15, 2008 06:05 AM EST 

In an ironic twist to the historic Democratic nominating contest between an African-American and a woman, the balance of power may be held by a more familiar face: the white male.










According to a Politico analysis, close to half of the 700-plus Democratic superdelegates who could end up determining the party nominee are white men.

One Obama superdelegate, a House member, had sharp criticism for the superdelegate racial and gender makeup, a reaction that reflects the sensitivities surrounding the issue.

"It's still the old guard, the white men. They always want to control the outcome," the superdelegate said. "But this time, they won't be able to do it."

That strong response could portend a messy intraparty fight in the event that superdelegates cast the decisive votes for the nominee.

The exact percentage of white males varies slightly depending on whether the penalized Michigan and Florida delegation superdelegates are counted, but the overall percentage is at least 46 percent. Overall, men of all races represent 64 percent of the party's superdelegates.

Unlike traditional pledged delegates, superdelegates are unbound by the outcome of any primary vote or caucus. They are allowed to make their own choice for the nomination, and this year, the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are aggressively courting their support in the event that superdelegate votes are needed to determine which candidate wins the nomination.

Representing about 20 percent of all delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the superdelegate roster is composed of members of Congress, other elected officeholders and party officials.

The percentage of white male superdelegates is disproportionate to the share of white males who make up the overall Democratic electorate. According to a January 2008 national poll by Zogby International, 28 percent of Democratic voters are white men. Women account for 55 percent of Democratic voters.

But superdelegates have never reflected the diversity of the Democratic party as a whole, nor were they designed to. They represent the party insiders, a group that white men still dominate.

Among the superdelegates, including Michigan's and Florida's, there are 28 governors (21 white men), 49 senators (33 white men) and 228 representatives (137 white men). Members of the Democratic National Committee are also superdelegates, and among this group, there is more diversity.

Many superdelegates were not surprised that there were so many white males in their ranks.

"Obviously it's an imperfect system. It smacks a lot of the old state legislatures electing senators," said Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter. "I do think you'll see some kind of reform after this to make it binding with the majority of votes."

Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.), a Clinton backer, noted that delegates were much more diverse than they were in 1972, when she first became a delegate under party rules that specifically required more participation by women.

"I remember how excited we were to stop stuffing envelopes and go to the convention," she recalled. "I'm not surprised that there are still a lot of men. It's just staying power. We still have a ways to go."

Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.), also a Clinton supporter, said she was more concerned about the decisions of the superdelegates than their gender and racial identities.

"Women and minorities often have a diminished presence," she said. "But what really matters to me is who they're lining up with."

Among the more than 700 superdelegates named by the Democratic National Committee, Clinton leads Obama by 231 to 140.5 (the eight members of Democrats Abroad receive a half vote.). Among white men, at least 81 were supporting Clinton and at least 63 were backing Obama. Many more remain uncommitted.

Stacie Paxton, a DNC spokeswoman, said that DNC members represent the party's rich diversity and include African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people.

"Superdelegates are a diverse group of people from all parts of the country and all walks of life," said Paxton.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

I don't like the whole superdelegate system. Let the people elect who they want, and leave it at that! Is that so much to ask?

The ONLY way I could see them being of use, is if it was an exact tie.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Actually the superdelegates represent their state or district,not just their party.Women and minorities can run for those offices just as easily as white males.I think this is a good system,states that elect them are rewarded at the convention with more delegates.

I've been at state conventions where delegates are chosen.It is done by voting in each caucus and most of the time the winners are people with name recognition and high positions from a group.Each group is allocated so many delegates and can combine with others to form larger groups and send more people.

It should be interesting if neither Clinton or Obama have enough delegates when the primaries are over.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i can tell you this, if Obama holds sway the regular delegates by 100 or more and the super-D's take the nomination away from him and support Billary, they will totally disinfranchise a bunch of young dems who they so desperately need to energize their party.

if they are that stupid they deserve to lose the general election.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

hunter I agree with you, but it will be funny if they do. I don't think they will be that dumb though, as Obama is much more electable than Hillary.

I wish I would have done what many democrats did. I know many liberals personally that went to the primaries and voted for McCain. I was surprised and asked why. They said even if the democrats lost they still get a liberal. It's kind of dirty pool, but we should all have gone and voted for Hillary.

As far as their superdelegates, who gives a rip, it's their party. If they make a bad mistake, oh well.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Actually the superdelegates represent their state or district,not just their party.Women and minorities can run for those offices just as easily as white males.I think this is a good system,states that elect them are rewarded at the convention with more delegates.


This isn't entirely true... you are speaking about how to become a delegate it would appear?

Super Delegates are much much different... and much more arbitrary and very unfair...

*Super delegates can vote for any candidate in the Democratic nominating process. They are not tied to a candidate based on voter preferences in any state.* Super delegates may also announce their support for any candidate prior to an election. But because they are "unpledged" delegates to the convention, they may shift their support to another candidate at any time.

The 1972 Democratic National Convention produced George McGovern as the Democratic presidential nominee. Although he won the nomination by a wide margin, he lost the presidency in a landslide to Richard Nixon, winning only one state and 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Because of this, the Democratic Party instituted super delegates as a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process.

*Political experts say this system was put in place so the party "could avoid a mistake by voters" in nominating a candidate. * ya know... like voting who they want 

Democrats created the super-delegate system in 1982 to give certain party officials, based on the positions they hold, a greater voice in the nominating process. In 1984, they backed eventual nominee Walter Mondale over Gary Hart by wide margins. Republicans do not have a similar system.

This year's batch of super delegates is a high-powered group -including Democratic governors, members of Congress and former presidents. It also includes lesser-known DNC members, such as Awais Khaleel, a 23-year-old college student who hails from Kenosha, Wis who is the vice president of the 75,000-member College Democrats.



> *Q&A: Making sense of delegates and superdelegates*
> By JEFFREY GOLD | Associated Press Writer
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/34hnko
> ...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Ryan.....Everything I said in the quote you used is true......I was also talking about both......why shouldn't a state get more delegates to the national convention if they elect senators,representatives and gonernors from their party.Super delegates are a reward system for electing people to high offices from their party.They are elected from the general electorate.....not just from the party members.

And they don't discriminate between male,female,black,brown,or white.

As for the intent of the article you posted.......anyone can find some statistics that favor their point of view.....means absolutely nothing.That's why all these stats. from exit polling on election nights are garbage.I'm sure we could find some stats that would put us white males in a minority somewhere.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cool Ken thanks for the clarification. 

:thumb:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Ryan you were correct the first time. Super delegates/Unpledged or regular delegates for that matter are not elected by the general electorate but are appointed by their respective parties. The two parties have different rules as to how the appointments are made but elected by the people they are not.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> Ryan you were correct the first time. Super delegates/Unpledged or regular delegates for that matter are not elected by the general electorate but are appointed by their respective parties. The two parties have different rules as to how the appointments are made but elected by the people they are not.


Reps.Senators,and Governors are super delegates......where do you live that they aren't elected by the general electorate?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Reps.Senators,and Governors are super delegates......where do you live that they aren't elected by the general electorate


Now you are trying to spin. You said the super delegates were elected by general electorate. That is not true now is it. Governors are only a Super delegate if they are a Democrat. The super delegates were not installed to support the people but to support the party. Their goal is to keep the convention from going into a free for all if there is a tie of the regular delegates. That is the reason for all the uproar this year with the Democrats. If for example Clinton went into the convention with 1950 delegates and Obama had 2000 delegates, the super delegates could block vote for Clinton even though she was not the popular will of the people and make her the winner. That means as a voting block these delegates can over ride the wishes of the people from any state they choose.

Didn't Obama win North Dakota? Are the people of North Dakota represented if the super delegates throw their weight behind Clinton?

Sorry but the super delegates are not elected and they are not there with the peoples interest. Only the regular delegates are mandated to vote the popular vote at the convention. As the first post alluded to, a bunch of white men could very well pick your candidate for you whether you like it or not.

Super delegates or unpledged delegates as they are known in the Republican party are a product designed by fat cats in Washington to control the party and could care less about the people.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

absolutely correct.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

this is what you said....."_*Super delegates*_/Unpledged or regular delegates for that matter are not elected by the general electorate but are appointed by their respective parties."

I'm not talking about party officials that are appointed.They aren't elected.But you sure can't make the blanket statement that All Super delegates are not elected.

That is clearly not true.....talk about spinning it your own way????

As I said above.....Governors,Senators,and Representives are elected here in ND.The 2 Senators and our 1 Representative will go to the National Convention as Super Delegates because.....they are elected by the general electorate.So it is clearly a misstatement to say they aren't.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Now lets talk about your critism of the way they are given out.It is a reward system for electing members of your party.As far as I'm concerned.....all primaries should be party members only.No crossing over.....that is a joke.If you want to have a say in who they are.....join one of the parties or start your own.

Name me 1 organization that allows non-members to vote for their officers.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Ken I have never cast a vote for any representative to have the authority to decide who I can vote for. Maybe you don't mind giving up that right but I do. I have no intention of ever giving someone else the right to decide for me and I don't think most others would either. They are not elected by the general electorate with deciding what your vote should be and you know it. They were originally put in office for a completely different reason. You have decided that Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts or Charles Rangel of New York will select your candidate for you. If your two Senators and one Representative cast a vote for Clinton then the majority of your voters that cast ballots in the primary was for nothing. Is that what you think is so great?

It is a scheme designed to control the party without your input. If you like that then you will most certainly love the rest of their socialist ideas planned for you by the rest of the 700 plus super delegates that will control the outcome of your primary. Why bother to even have a primary?

Yes I can say super delegates are not elected by the general electorate as you claim. There is no spin, it is simple fact. You like the system, I don't.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

cwoparson,I guess I like the idea of rewarding states that elect people from their party.The best thing about this situation is that the common party member gets the chance to represent their state at the national convention.Otherwise the super delegates would most likely get most of those spots.I know.....I've seen it happen at state conventions.You know that you won't get strongarmed by your senator or governor to get some of those delegate positions and leave the everyday party member like myself on the outside looking in.

I'm not saying you are giving up your right to vote.But unless you belong to the group that is picking the candidate why should you get a say in who that candidate is?Join the group or start you own group.Allowing Republicans or Democrats to cross over and vote in the others primary is ridiculous.

That candidate is the representaive of his or her party,.....not the opposing party or the general electorate.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> But unless you belong to the group that is picking the candidate why should you get a say in who that candidate is


Ken with all due respect I don't fully understand what you are saying in the quote above. If I read correctly what you just said then there is never a reason to have a primary where you can vote for the candidate of your choice to be on the ticket.

Regular delegates are people just like you and I. They are not members of the party. Anyone who wants can file a letter of request or petition to be a delegate for that particular primary year and if selected by party members you go to the convention, get to wave signs, blow horns, shout, and be a part of the convention festivities. You'll get a little letter of appreciation to take home with you after the convention is over with to prove you were a delegate and then you go home and continue to be John Doe with no ties to the party membership. You will be told when you go to the convention whom your vote will be cast for and it will be for the person who received the most votes in the primary unless your state has split delegates, but even then you are instructed whom you are representing and voting for. So for the regular delegates it is not the group picking the candidate but the voters of your state.

Then enter the Super delegates. There are only around 300 of them in the Democratic party that are automatic such as Senators, Representatives and Governors. The rest are mysteriously hand picked by the party. They are bound by nothing and may vote for whom ever they please regardless of what the party or people want. As I said, if they so choose and vote as a block they will void your primary choice. I can't think of anything that is more non democratic.

I'm not arguing with you as to whether it is good or bad system as we both disagree on that but I do believe you are not fully understanding the reason for the Super Delegates or the power they have over your vote which is they can make you a non issue.

As far as cross over voting I have given no real thought that subject. Your state I believe sets those standards and it is usually done so the Independent voter has a chance to voice their selection for a primary candidate. Without that the Independent voter has no choice on who they would like to see run for President. I can see both good and bad in that set up but since Independent voters represent 40% of the vote and are only allowed one vote just like everyone else it seems democratic to me.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

OK.....I guess what I am saying is join the party and then you can vote.I think here in ND you could decide what you are and then go to that primary.So some crossover is inevitable.It just doesn't seem right to me that if I am a republican,that a democrat can vote in our party election and skew the results by saying....."we can vote in the easiest canditate to face in November."


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

KEN W said:


> OK.....I guess what I am saying is join the party and then you can vote.I think here in ND you could decide what you are and then go to that primary.So some crossover is inevitable.It just doesn't seem right to me that if I am a republican,that a democrat can vote in our party election and skew the results by saying....."we can vote in the easiest canditate to face in November."


I agree with you on that but I don't know of a solution to stop it unless like in a lot of states Independents are not allowed to vote in Primaries and only registered voters can vote in the party they are registered for.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That's the way it should be.Only registered voters can vote in the party they are registered for.We agree on that part.

As far as the Super delegates are concerened.....I guess we will just disagree on if they should be counted.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

ttt


----------

