SuperDelegates Super Scam
College junior Jason Rae's cell phone is blowing up, not with invites to tonight's kegger from the local sorority at Marquette University in Wisconsin, but with calls from the likes of Chelsea Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen. John Kerry and former President Bill Clinton.
Rae is one of 796 superdelegates, or free agents, who are not required to support the choice of primary and caucus voters for the Democratic nomination. And he's only 21 and has never voted in a presidential election.
And now everyone who is anyone has him on speed dial. On the eve of the South Carolina, Rae was out to dinner with friends when he got a call around 6pm. A voice on the other end said, "Hey Jason, its Bill here." And yesterday morning he sat down for a breakfast meeting with possible two-time first daughter, Chelsea Clinton.
Not that we doubt that Rae is a devoted party activist. He was elected as DNC member of the Wisconsin state party in June of 2004, he was just 17-years-old at the time, running against and defeating the president of the state firefighter's union, who is also a state legislator. On my show last night, Rae told us he's been riding his bike to county party meetings since he was about 14-years-old, volunteered for his first campaign at 15, and made his first donation at 16.
But come on, no offense to Jason here, but this is nuts! His vote has the impact of almost 10,000 voters! So that's why I'm calling all the superdelegates to step aside and support whoever the primary and caucus voters have chosen, before this becomes a purely political battle fought behind closed doors or on the cell phone lines in college town Wisconsin.
More on Dan Abrams.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dan, you are wrong and you know it. You are supposedly a lawyer who understands logical reasoning.
The Obama camp is hypocritical on the issue of super-delegates because in this case they want to "break the DNC rules" and go by how important it is that the "voters be heard".
However, on the Michigan and Florida, case they want to "go by the rules" and disenfranchise all the people (millions) that voted in those primaries.
In a similar hypocritical position, they want "go by the rules" for the caucuses, which only 1-10 percent of the voters are practically able to participate (typically thousands in a state as opposed to millions in FL/MI) to count as much as a full voting primary.
The Obama camp is simply cherry-picking the rules to their advantage and are contemptuous to the rest of us. They are trying by bullying with the help of the press such as yourself, by demeaning this and other delegates to impose their will on the party. This is typical of their Republican attitudes fomented by their new-found Republican caucus supporters, that the rest of the Democrats find so offensive and will place a barrier to resolving this situation in respectable manner.
It is clear that you are using your big press megaphone to aid and abet the bullying of the Democratic delegates. You are part of the problem and should be called out for this activity just as David Shuster was.
I agree with you Dan, 100%. For much too long the minority which are the greedy corporate interest groups, one being the media, and then we have the DNC, RNC, and the Super Delegates who have been selecting our President for us. Wee The People, By The People and For The People have not been allowed to have our voices heard in many a year. Wee The People are the majority yet we are being controlled. This is outrageous and not acceptable. Our vote should count, one man one vote! The Super Delegates are politicians who will vote in their best interest not the people's interest. We have 796 of the Super Scooper Dooper Delegates and I am not saying that all of them will vote in serving their best interests but 98% to 99% of them will. In voting in their best interest they will be served with favors, remember this, nothing is free. Is this what our country was founded on? Of course not and this has to be stoped. The people's voice must be returned to them, one man one vote.
Marline Downs
Sumter, SC
sc.rr.comc.rr.com
Dan and marlene. this cuts both ways. not counting FL and MI are issues as well. They voted and now their votes are at risk of being disenfranchised. Also the caucus system is were people get together and try to convince others to vote their way. In essence a few here vote for the many as well.
So we need to be consistant regardless of our favorites. Follow all the rules or count all the votes. All of 'em. one person one vote. We are at risk of 2.3 Million people and no votes in MI and FL.
No. You got the order of things wrong, ntmessage.
Florida and MI. were told if they held their election early, they would not get any delegates. THEN the states went ahead and voted anyway violating the rules that had been clearly laid out. It's not as though the states innocently held elections and then had their votes revoked. The DNC even offered to pay the cost of holding their elections at a later date- or to do a "do-over", now. The states have refused.
To punish Obama for following the DNC's rules by taking his name off the ballot, and for honoring his pledge not to campaign in these states, is reprehensible. (and a national ad, run on cable channels- that he tried to stop from airing in Florida, is not the equivalent of campaigning there)
There are only 2 superdelegates in all of Canada. They are Robert Bell and Toby Condliffe. Both men are 63, and retired U.S. citizens. They live near each other in Toronto and are best friends. Bell says that he gets 3 calls a day since late last year. Bill Clinton and Senator Clinton and Obama supporter Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois have called. He has been polled by CNN, NY Times and AP. There was a call from Obama and his campaign manager.
Both get together and compare notes. Condliffe is going to vote for Obama and Bell will vote for Hillary Clinton cancelling each other out.
I hate when political pundits with no party affiliation try to tell the Democratic Party what their rules should be. If Mr. Abrams wants to join up we would be happy to have him and he can work to get the rules change for 2012. Sen. Clinton put her strategy together to win the blue states and count on the super delegates to vote for whomever they wish. I'm sure she would have used a different strategy if the rule was to win the most contests. As far as FL. & MI., the rules state that delegates have to be allocated based on a primary or caucus which both states held. The MI & FL Dem Parties have met and allocated their delegates based on the primary results. It was the committee to seat the delegates that striped the states from seating these delegates at the convention because they moved their primaries up. The rules allow for the states to petition the seating committee to get their delegates into the convention. It will be the seating committee’s decision and nobody else’s. I don't think any of this will matter after March 4th. If Sen. Obama wins OH & TX, then I think the contest is over. If not I think he would be better off cutting a deal because the core of the Dem. Party (blue states) will have rejected him as their nominee, the super delegates will not fall his way, and the remaining primaries do not favor him. He doesn't want to end up like Eugene McCarthy.
Great Post, Obama has not won any of the BLUE states except Illinois, and many of his wins are in RED states with Republican crossover. November is a long way off, most of the Republicans will go home and Utah and Idaho will always be RED
Hank, just wanted to remind you that since Illinois, Obama won Maryland, which is as blue a state as they come. He also won D.C., and Virginia is fast becoming a truly blue state (and will be totally converted once John Warner finishes his term, and Mark Warner wins the election for his Senate seat).
Hi Hank - Very correct. We did some detailed analysis and discovered that many of the large Blue and Purple states are already or will become swing states in the general. This includes FL, MI, OH, NJ and PA. Without the majorty of those voters to believe that their votes and selections will count, they are likely loses in the general election. Even NJ gets real close. Main reason is that these states are more centrist, traditional democratic and have Reagan Democrats we need to keep home in the party.
If these superdelegates blow it, then, I will leave the dem. party for good. Let the repubs. stay in power, start a war with Iran, bring back the draft, bankrupt the country, appoint more crazies to the Supreme Court. I was ticked off about giving the telecoms a free pass to listen to our phone calls. That Harry Reid and Pelosi should be booted out of the dem. party, like yesterday. Thanks for the post and I enjoy your show, along with Keith O. Rachel Maddow should be given her own show, as she is the only one that sets ol' Pat's hair on fire. I love it. Is she ever brilliant!
Maybe you should leave if you don't like the Democratic Party rules, don't like the Party leaders, don't trust the super delegates and would let the Republicans win because your candidate was not the nominee. It makes one wonder if you really are a Democrat after all.
If they are able to stop the NEXT JIMMY CARTER they will be doing their job, what's the point of getting 4 years of power only to be thrown out by the voters because yopur guy wasn't ready, just like Carter
"His vote has the impact of almost 10,000 voters!"
We here highly resolve that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the 796 SUPERDELEGATES, by the 796 SUPERDELEGATES, for the 796 SUPERDELEGATES, shall not perish from the earth.
(And Mrs. Clinton's Corporate Campaign Contributions WILL NOT influence her decision-making.)
BARACK OBAMA for President!
Stay safe, healthy and happy,
Love, Loretta
If you watched Dan's show, you would know his ONLY point is that voters should elect the nominee, not super delegates pressured by people with no business calling them, i.e., Bill and Chelsea (poor picked on little girl). Dan is right, and I for one thanks hem VERY MUCH for this discussion.
Maybe Dan should have his father give him a history lesson about 1976 and how the big-money David Rockerfeller crowd pushed Jimmy Carter on them destroying the DEMOCRATIC PARTY for the next 14 years with the failed leadership he provided because he was weak and indecisive, JUST LIKE OBAMA. Now these very same people are doing it again with their money,connections and media power. If you see Ziggy Brzezinski involved, Obama Advisor and National Security Advisor for Carter, you know were the ultra-rich Internationalists are, and they won't be looking out for the little guy, they don't know any.
The DEMS have these Super-Delegates to prevent another 1976, they are looking out for the LONG TERM HEALTH of the PARTY, not just the next year.
So by election day he will have sold his sold, and voted for the first time before he's 22. Good job Democracy.
Dan, I'm a fan, but come on, ... enough already with the spin; we get it, ... super-delegates aren't the way to go about picking Dem presidential nominees. You are a legal expert. Give us an actual legal argument in this 2008 presidential election that makes sense! Expressing that super-delegates need to be done away with is all well and good, but we currently have political pundits in the media that are expressing that super-delegate votes can't decide the final outcome in this '08 Dem presidential nominee race; some say they should be ignored all together. But since super-delegate rules were agreed upon before this '08 election began, ... before the Obama camp and the M$M started whining about it, where is your legal argument that the detractors of super-delegates make a worthy case for changing DNC rules in mid-election game??? All I am seeing is flimsy spin. I have yet to see one credible legal argument that super-delegates should be thrown out of the final '08 Dem presidential nominee selection process. I ask you again, where's the legal beef??? Can you actually cite any noted judicial opinions that would lend credence to a possible legal maneuvering that would allow the DNC to throw out super-delegates in deciding this '08 Dem nominee outcome??? I don't think you can. If you could, you would have done so by now. Once again, please, ... you are the legal expert;give us an actual legal argument in this '08 Election ... that makes sense! :)
Dan, I caught your show last night on MSNBC. In my opinion, so far, it was the best episode I've seen this year. I sincerely appreciate you bringing in the legal experts to make their arguments over the DNC rules in this presidential election. Now, I obviously don't know what your demographic data in viewership is, and you probably don't want to turn-off your viewers that don't have academic backgrounds in law, but I have to express that, I crave that kind of legal argumentation on your show!!! The main reason why you are my favorite T.V. news commentator *IS* because you are an attorney! You, for the most part, are the most objective commentator at MSNBC, who brings the most balanced logic in argumentation. In my opinion, you are *the* heart -&- soul of MSNBC; I was very pleased when you were promoted big cheese at MSNBC. But commentating legalese, breaking it down into a language that we all can understand, in my opinion, is where you shine the best, and I am glad you are back on the tube! I've been a big fan of yours since you began commentating on other cable stations. In college, I took pre-law classes. It opened a great many doors in appreciation of whole new world that I never new existed. As I enjoy playing chess, I also enjoy solving symbolic logic problems; it's nerdy stuff, but fun nonetheless! Granted, obviously,... not all of my comments at Huffington Post are all that substantive in making an argument; sometimes I just want to have fun in posting nonsensical political banter with other HuffPost commenters. But because of my brief academic background in pre-law classes, I *have* developed a greater appreciation for presenting evidence to support assertions. I have also gained a greater appreciation for people, such as yourself, who are legal professionals, in whom I know I can depend on to get a balanced set of arguments based on the legal facts, over spin! Keep up the great work! :)
OhPlease2007 all you need to do is read above. Thanks.
Marline Downs
Sumter, SC
sc.rr.comc.rr.com
I do not believe I am doing this *smack self*
As a moderate Republcian this is what you need to do to win in November.
HRC - will energize the Right-wing base like no-ones business. She will get demolished.
BO - will be ripped to shreds because truthfully for all his talk of hope he has done really nothing in the Senate.
The one bill he introduced failed due to his being to busy running for President to submit the redraft in time last October. ( the nuclear energy bill he touted as passing! and interestingly the Nuclear Power plant company in Indiana has contributed $200k to his campaigns ).
So what should the super delegates do if there is not a clear winner?
Abstain abstain abstain until the delegates are free to vote on thier own in 3rd or 4th rounds?
Nope.
Vote Gore, Gore, Gore until the delegates are freed from their obligations and get the clue that GORE would probably demolish McCain.
And Gore would accept the nomination too.
Obama supporters wouldn't hate, Clinton supporters will have to accept. And actually i suspect the whole Democratic Party would love to unit behind Gore.
You sold me.
Interesting idea, I'd vote for Gore in Nov. I might vote for Obama. I will never vote for Hillary!
I agree with Dan BUT, there are slew of super delegates that never ran for office, nor do they represent a specific state or congressional district.
Basically, the super-delegate vote should be used in the case of a pledged delegate tie. Also, the DNC should fund a new primary for Michigan and Florida.
The only fair way out of this mess is to go by electoral college votes per state. If you won the state, you get all the delegates from that state. And the proportion of delegates in each state to the total delegates in the convention must equal the proportion of electoral college votes of that state to the total electoral college votes in the US.
Anything else is not representative of how our election system works. Otherwise, slug it out with the existing rules.
BTW, the electoral college is a fine system. It prevents one state full of mind-controlled zealots from having a disproportionate impact on other states.
The electoral college seems fine only to those contemptuous of democracy.
It is so funny how Clintonistas rail about "What has Obama ever done." What Obama has done is knock flat on its ass one of the most powerful political dynasties this country has ever seen. That's all. If you don't think that takes someone with gifted leadership skills, you haven't been paying attention.
When you have the ultra-rich eastern liberals with all their media power on your side it's not very hard. Obama is doing it the same way a totally unknown peanut farmer from Georgia did it, with the help of the powerful machine of the David Rockerfeller branch of the party. Read a piece at the NEW YORK MAG. nymag.comm) April 16, 2007 called "Money Chooses Sides" and see the photo of George Soros at an Obama fudraiser. Soros is a big-money man for the DEMS, pumps in tons of cash and people owe him. They pushed Carter on them in 1976 and they are doing it again.
Good article, here's the link:
http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/
It certainly is one more example of how Obama has misrepresented his underdog status. Reading thru that article shows this was a dogfight 11 months ago and it has been close to a stalemate ever since.
Thankfully, the MSM appears to slowed down on their ooohing and aaahing about hope and change and is starting to scratch under Obama's surface. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is nothing under the surface except ducking controversial votes and lobbying reforms about whether one has to be standing or sitting at a dinner in order to contribute to a candidate.
Would that mean Hillary would gain both Kennedy and Kerry's votes?
Just askin'.
that talking point has been floating around awhile, but it doesn't make any sense because we're not talking about super-delegates going to the winner of more state delegates for each state. we're talking about super-delegates going to the winner of more pledged delegates in the whole country. So Kennedy, Kerry, Mondale and even Bill Clinton himself would go to the candidate with the most delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses.
one can debate the fairness of using one voting method over another, but ultimately, those pledged delegates represent how that state voted in the nomination process. the super-delegates, on the other hand, are not required to represent anyone's vote but their own.
The Super-Delegates are not a RUBBER STAMP for Republicans from Idaho, they are INDEPENDENT and will vote for the best long term interest of the Party. Who cares if Obama can win in Utah, he can't win in Ca, NY, or MA where he had Teddy and Kerry's help too.
Let me see if I understand this. The super-delegate rule hasn't been a problem for over 25 years - since 1982, but now it is because they might not vote for your guy? I think it's a little late to move the goal-posts after the game has started.
No - it was a bad system in 1982...(let's see - who won that election again?) and it's a bad system today. The party, by elevating "insiders" to the status of "super-delegate" is turning inward and running the risk of alienating those of us who are less than super. Look at the results - what have super-delegates done FOR the Democratic party? To think that the will of the popular (primary) vote can be subverted by back-room deals is disgusting and very disheartening. If you want a healthy Democratic party, the super-delegates need to go bye-bye. If you want to raise ire and suspicion, then by all means - keep the system. You'll see a lot of disenfranchised progressives, moderates, etc...head for the doors, though. It has nothing to do with which candidate benefits...it's about WHY there is a primary process in the first place - to pick a candidate that the majority of Democrats think can carry the November elections.
Who won the election in 1982? Please, tell me, because I wasn't aware that there was a presidential election that superdelegates played a part in in 1982...
As for what have they done for the democratic party, superdelegates earn that position by being party activists, fundraising for the party, and actually being the party's elected officials. Clearly, none of these people have done anything.
They invented the SUPERS to prevent another 1976 and Jimmy Carter. They were a LOCK to win in 1976, this was right after Watergate, they could have had a long run with some decent leadership, instead they were thrown out on their ear after 4 years the leadership was so failed it caused the REAGAN REVOLUTION. Go read your history books or something, this site has a collective memory of about 10 years
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
