The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[LuvDuke]

Yes, but there are two people running against each other. Unless they end up on the same ticket, one will face McCain. Lots of issues here. Electability, cross over appeal, and the whole super delegate issue that could possibility negate the voting public.

This election has brought into focus some very important issues. It's OK to discuss them openly. It's also OK to open a specific candidate we really love you cheer thread.

Back to the issues....The Super delegates pose a worrisome challenge for the Democratic party now, and in future elections. A good article written by Rahm Emanuel's brother:

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/76685/

Quote: "I want voters to make that decision. The superdelegates, my brother included, have not been elected by anybody to name the nominee. They've either been appointed by the Party or, as in my brother's case, have automatically inherited the role simply because they are elected officials. This isn't the place to debate the entire history of superdelegates. Suffice it to say, however, they were created by the Party machine decades ago for the express purpose of giving Party insiders the ability to thwart the popular will.

After what Democrats went through in Florida in 2000, we should be the first to reject any such funny business. We should be as opposed to superdelegates changing the course of an election as we were to the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president."

I've got to be honest. I think the "super-delegate" fear is waaay out of proportion. Does anyone honestly think that if, for example, Obama wins the majority of the delegates in the primaries, the super-delegates are going to ignore it and nominate Clinton? Seriously, does anyone actually believe that?

Frankly, it would make no sense. Politicians want to get re-elected. The quickest way to not get re-elected is anger your own party. They will be out on their rumps come the next election and they know it. Frankly, at this point, I think Pelosi will be out no matter what happens.

I know the Republicans are having a field day obsessing and wishing and hoping the super-delegates will do the unthinkable. What else do they have to talk about? John McCain and how well the escalation (not surge) is working. Fifty-six Americans have died in Iraq this year. Mike Huckabee and evolution? The only interest there is in the Republican candidates is the mudslinging going on with "Pill-popping Daddy" Limbaugh and the rest of the rightwing gasbags. The Republicans are a ticking timebomb waiting to go off.

So would please give me a good reason why the super-delegates would screw their own constituents?

 

[Laura]

I guess if the superdelegates would follow the general will of the people anyway, what's the point of having them in the first place? I think they should be made obsolete.

 

[lilyv]

I've got to be honest. I think the "super-delegate" fear is waaay out of proportion. Does anyone honestly think that if, for example, Obama wins the majority of the delegates in the primaries, the super-delegates are going to ignore it and nominate Clinton? Seriously, does anyone actually believe that?

Frankly, it would make no sense. Politicians want to get re-elected. The quickest way to not get re-elected is anger your own party. They will be out on their rumps come the next election and they know it. Frankly, at this point, I think Pelosi will be out no matter what happens.

I know the Republicans are having a field day obsessing and wishing and hoping the super-delegates will do the unthinkable. What else do they have to talk about? John McCain and how well the escalation (not surge) is working. Fifty-six Americans have died in Iraq this year. Mike Huckabee and evolution? The only interest there is in the Republican candidates is the mudslinging going on with "Pill-popping Daddy" Limbaugh and the rest of the rightwing gasbags. The Republicans are a ticking timebomb waiting to go off.

So would please give me a good reason why the super-delegates would screw their own constituents?

I guess you'd need to ask the question to Rahm Emanuel and his brother, Ari. I don't think either Rahm or his brother is a Republican.

Personally, I think Ari makes great points, and his op ed is important.

 

[LuvDuke]

I agree the super-delegate should be eliminated, but I'm not going to get all bent out of shape with the what-if's. That's my point.

 

[LuvDuke]

I guess you'd need to ask the question to Rahm Emanuel and his brother, Ari. I don't think either Rahm or his brother is a Republican.

Personally, I think Ari makes great points, and his op ed is important.

He makes wonderful points. But, he can't answer the question "why would the super-delegates screw their own constitutents"?

I have yet to see anyone come up with a logical reason why. That, to me, speaks volumes. There's all this talk about "what-if's", but things go strangely silent when someone asks "why".

 

[churchstein]

I thought you liberals were suppoused to be open, and accepting of everyones opinion and thoughts! Wouldn't believe it after reading this thread?

 

[LuvDuke]

I thought you liberals were suppoused to be open, and accepting of everyones opinion and thoughts! Wouldn't believe it after reading this thread?

Huh?

 

[Laura]

He makes wonderful points. But, he can't answer the question "why would the super-delegates screw their own constitutents"?

I have yet to see anyone come up with a logical reason why. That, to me, speaks volumes. There's all this talk about "what-if's", but things go strangely silent when someone asks "why".

Well, anything can happen. And people are leery of some superdelegates being bought, perhaps. With Obama's building momentum and growing non-superdelegate lead, the supers are just more in focus. And the media does like drama, doesn't it?

 

[lilyv]

He makes wonderful points. But, he can't answer the question "why would the super-delegates screw their own constitutents"?

I have yet to see anyone come up with a logical reason why. That, to me, speaks volumes. There's all this talk about "what-if's", but things go strangely silent when someone asks "why".

Why? One easy answer is political future. People heavily invested in political life may decide on one or the other candidate, because they're looking to their own future, not their constituents votes. On the other hand, the super delegates may take their job especially seriously, and avoid any situation that might appear that they weren't looking out for the individual voters. We'll have to see what happens.

Just for discussion, consider Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado. She's endorsed Hillary, but the state went overwhelmingly for Obama. We'll have to wait and see what path she chooses, but her situations isn't unique by a long shot.

http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-delegates-caucuses-democrats,0,5691695.story

Quote: ""I've supported DeGette for a long time and I'd like to be able to continue to support her," Henderson (precinct Capt. for Obama) said. "But this is a make or break situation. She has a lot of power as a super delegate to silence the voices of the people who came out, who got babysitters, did everything we could to make our voices heard and it doesn't feel right that she [would] override that."

Henderson's words are just speculation. You can see, though, why the super delegate issue may be of immense importance.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Well, anything can happen. And people are leery of some superdelegates being bought, perhaps. With Obama's building momentum and growing non-superdelegate lead, the supers are just more in focus. And the media does like drama, doesn't it?

The media is focusing on the Democrats because it's more interesting over here. It's just more of the same over on the R side.

 

[Laura]

It's just more of the same over on the R side.

It is. What we need is some good old-fashioned McCain bashing!

 

[LuvDuke]

Why? One easy answer is political future. People heavily invested in political life may decide to be on one or the other candidate, because they're looking to their own future, not their constituents votes. On the other hand, the super delegates may take their job especially seriously, and avoid any situation that might appear that they weren't looking out for the individual voters. We'll have to see what happens.

Just for discussion, consider Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado. She's endorsed Hillary, but the state went overwhelmingly for Obama. We'll have to wait and see what path she chooses, but her situations isn't unique by a long shot.

http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-delegates-caucuses-democrats,0,5691695.story

Quote: ""I've supported DeGette for a long time and I'd like to be able to continue to support her," Henderson (precinct Capt. for Obama) said. "But this is a make or break situation. She has a lot of power as a super delegate to silence the voices of the people who came out, who got babysitters, did everything we could to make our voices heard and it doesn't feel right that she [would] override that."

Henderson's words are just speculation. You can see, though, why the super delegate issue may be of immense importance.

What political future would there be for the super-delegates to screw the voters? It sure isn't going to buy them any votes or support among the electorate. There won't be a Democratic party if that happens. Goodbye, political future.

Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen? Unlikely.

As to why there are such things as super delegates: It's a holdover from another era.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It is. What we need is some good old-fashioned McCain bashing!

All anyone has to do is post that picture of him having that Brokeback moment with GW....

I was ready to vote for McCain in 2000 but by the time the Primary came in NJ he was already out. He's not the same person he was then, but then I guess none of us are.

 

[lilyv]

What political future would there be for the super-delegates to screw the voters? It sure isn't going to buy them any votes or support among the electorate. There won't be a Democratic party if that happens. Goodbye, political future.

Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen? Unlikely.

As to why there are such things as super delegates: It's a holdover from another era.

My hope is you're right. I also hope that this election will force the DNC to elminate the whole super delegate process, or at the very least scale it back by 1/2.

 

[LuvDuke]

My hope is you're right. I also hope that this election will force the DNC to elminate the whole super delegate process, or at the very least scale it back by 1/2.

Not to pick on you, but the media has to fill that 24/7 time. Most of that time is BS and speculation because there is nothing going on and nothing to report on. That's why you have Lou Dobbs. He has to resort to opinions, because the real news has been covered ad nausem well before his 7PM time slot. His show would be a rehash of a rehash.

Same with the super-delegates. Donna Brazille, Paul Begala, etc, have to talk about something.

IMO, when one of them can come up with a "why" for their doomsday scenario, is the day it's more than just filler for the news shows.

The only fact here is that the nominee will be either Clinton or Obama. After that, it's cocktail party talk.

 

[KikiFan]

Well this is me doing my part to be a "uniter" Enjoy! It's pretty darn funny and scary.

 

[wvrevy]

It is. What we need is some good old-fashioned McCain bashing!

Nah...too easy. Some of us like a challenge.

As for the superdelegates...yes, I think they individually could decide to screw over the party. That's the whole point of the position: to give more power to the "insiders" so that they can save us all from our ignorance.

You know, it's funny, but there are two things the party could do that would lose them my support: 1) Count the Florida and Michigan delegates without a re-vote, and 2) Allow "super delegates" to decide the nomination....and both of those things benefit Hillary Clinton. Yet, I will have no problem supporting Hillary against any Republican. I guess I just want to see the race won fairly.

And church...maybe you didn't notice my last post, but this isn't the neocon thread. If you'd like to post there, I'm sure you can find it (hint: it usually hangs out around page 4 or 5...guess there aren't as many of them as there used to be ).

 

[LuvDuke]

Well this is me doing my part to be a "uniter" Enjoy! It's pretty darn funny and scary.

John McCain as the Republican nominee? Bring it on.

The real icing on the cake would be if McCain chooses Huckabee as his VP. It would be the perfect marriage between nutty ideas and a discussion over evolution.

Good grief, it's a Democrat's dream come true.

 

[Laura]

All anyone has to do is post that picture of him having that Brokeback moment with GW....

Here you go!

 

[LuvDuke]

Nah...too easy. Some of us like a challenge.

As for the superdelegates...yes, I think they individually could decide to screw over the party. That's the whole point of the position: to give more power to the "insiders" so that they can save us all from our ignorance.

You know, it's funny, but there are two things the party could do that would lose them my support: 1) Count the Florida and Michigan delegates without a re-vote, and 2) Allow "super delegates" to decide the nomination....and both of those things benefit Hillary Clinton. Yet, I will have no problem supporting Hillary against any Republican. I guess I just want to see the race won fairly.

And church...maybe you didn't notice my last post, but this isn't the neocon thread. If you'd like to post there, I'm sure you can find it (hint: it usually hangs out around page 4 or 5...guess there aren't as many of them as there used to be ).

You know, in the interest of fair play and not watching our friends on the other side slide into oblivion, maybe we should post a link to their thread?

Nah, let 'em dig for it.