February 12, 2008

Not so super scenario revisited

OK, here's the hypothetical (though likely) scenario:

The fierce and hard fought battle between Obama and Clinton continues until just prior to the convention.

Obama emerges with more of the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses, has more pledged regular delegates, and has won many more states than Clinton.

But due in large part to her and Bill's development of relationships with party pros and establishment types, nurtured over decades of campaigns and two presidential terms, they're able to call in debts, favors, or otherwise wheel and deal and bring in many more establishment party pooh-bahs and elected officials, otherwise known as superdelegates, and due to this factor alone, Clinton is named the Democratic nominee to face McCain.

What would you feel like?

Would you accept the process? Or feel it was very unfair?

Would it help or hurt your enthusiasm for supporting Clinton?

How would you react?

What would be the effect on the general election which, after all, would at this point be looming only a few short weeks away?


At 2/12/2008 12:52 PM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Well, history has shown us that any reason at all is a good one for the youth vote to declare itself disaffected and, thus, not show up. Despite protests to the contrary, over time, the youth vote can be counted on to be somewhere else.

Illinois history has some very unfortunate instances of the Cook County African-American vote either boycotting or just allowing itself to be suppressed. Perhaps the best example of that was 1990 when the beautiful and talented Eugene Pincham cobbled together for the general election the "Harold Washington Party" which had, as its sole purpose, the prevention of the otherwise inevitable utterance of the words "Governor Neil Hartigan."
(Ol' Jim still thinks he won on the merit of his brilliant campaign.)

If we know anything from past campaigns it's that disaffected interest groups self-suppress, which is both depressing and suppressing.

That's my little ray of sunshine for the day.

As an aside, these rules (including awarding of SuperDels)have been proposed since '06 and out for discussion through the summer of '07. If someone had a problem with the power of SuperDels, those would have been fine times to voice one's objections.

If some folks object to changing the Rules of Engagement viz. Florida and Michigan, how is it those same folks justify their objection to keeping them the same viz. SuperDels?

But, of course, equity and consistency play no role whatsoever in interest groups self-suppressing and blaming it on some behemoth beyond the control of that interest group.

If anyone out there actually understands this rant, he needs to either seek some balance in his life or find a way to get paid for political action. In way too deep.

Continued success

At 2/12/2008 1:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only Super Delegates are capable of dispensing the wisdom of the Party Leadership. anyone that quibbles with he Party leaders is doing so at their own peril. Look how wise the Democratic Leadership was to appoint Phil Hare to Congress. Voters would have never made this choice and would have suffered if they did. Party Leaders have the courage, life-experience and ability to choose the proper leader.

Phil Hare's appointment is proof of the pudding.

At 2/12/2008 5:56 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 1:09

Thanks for more of your warped humor.

At 2/13/2008 9:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I for one would feel robbed if the super delegates went against the will of the people. The party leadership for the most part isn't representative of the regular party. They generally are the extremists of the party.

At 2/13/2008 11:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am in total disagreement with this county and the super delegates. What happened to the "voters" electing the candidate?

At 2/14/2008 12:36 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 9:42.

Not sure where you're getting your information, but you have things exactly wrong.

The super-delegates are high elected officials, longtime party officials and activists.

They are definitely NOT extremists in any way, shape, or form.

In fact, they were given a say in electing nominees exactly to prevent voters nominating anyone too radical or extreme to stand a chance of winning the presidency.

The super-delegates are the establishment of the party, not the extremists.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home