Duh, nobody wants to get rid of the rules midstream, Josh. This superdelegate-goes-with-the-state idea is just a lobbying effort, nothing more. And constituents are certainly allowed to ask their elected representatives (if not their amorphous party insiders) to act like they care about the will of the people.

Quite so. If Murray and Cantwell switch, it won't be because of a rule change; it'll be because they decided to switch -- which the rules say they can do any old time they please. They could switch to Christopher Dodd if they wanted to.

Superdelegates take power away from the people, and having the same states go first in every primary gives those states too much power and other states too little to decide the primary result (well, usually) in a world with near-instantaneous communication. I think the rules should be changed for both, but not in the middle of a primary (and not by just ignoring the rules).

I assume these figures are based on allocating the superdelegates on a "winner-take-all" basis rather than a proportional basis. How would the numbers look if you awarded the superdelegates in the same proportional manner as the regular delegates are awarded for the same state? Just curious.

If you awarded the superdelegates in the same proportional manner I image the race woukd be the same, but each candidate would have 20% more votes.

Two words: Voter Reform!

Would be a better idea to have Senators and Governors tied to the results of their state, and congress-critters assigned on how their congressional district voted (and, as far as that goes, have Ron Sims voting for Obama - King County went overwhelmingly for Barack - and Sims' posturing for an ambassadorship is just kinda sad, and doesn't reflect the views of his constituents at all).

I'm not looking for any wholesale rule changes. I am just hoping that our two state senators take a good look at the fact that the people they represent want Obama and that by voting for Clinton they are usurping the will of the people they represent.

If they continue to vote for Clinton, then it just means they don't truly represent their constituents. That should be considered by voters when they are up for re-election. It certainly will be something I consider, and will probably be the single deciding factor in my vote.

@2 - I agree, Dodd would be a great choice, since he or Richardson would be a great VP for Obama.

I'd love to see how proportional allocation would work -- "Patty, we're already full up on Clinton delegates, you'll have to go for Obama".

It's not about who benefits more, Josh. It's about an elected official doing the right thing to represent their constituency.

If it helps Clinton in MA and Obama in WA, so be it.

Shut up, Will.

yes -- it's asking them to change, not forcing them. seriously, our representatives should consider who they, you know, represent. but they don't have to. if they have a strong conviction they should vote that conviction, understanding that there may or may not be consequences as a result.

the florida and michigan are just fiascoes that i sincerely hope won't come into play. if they do, how do you solve that one? the only fair way is to not include them (play by the original rules), or have another primary vote in those states (which is still slightly unfair).

Yeah, Josh, we would like Michigan and Florida counted...after they hold a caucus. You see, Obama ran no campaign and wasn't on the ballot in either state, as he pledged, whereas Hillary was on the ballot and did campaign (at least in Florida), in violation of her pledge. Let's have a fair fight in those two states, then let them seat their delegates.

Dude.

HRC's implicit billboard campaign message is this: "you don't really know what is best for you, we do, so do as we say". People are tired of hearing that shit. We've heard it from GWB going on 8 years now. It's coming from her messages, as well as some of her supporters.

(please note: "some").

Will HRC burn what's left of any integrity and try to include FL and MI? Will super delegates burn theirs and subvert the will of the rank and file?

Those questions are on the folks at Hillary Clinton Campaign. Not rank and file Obama supporters.

Nobody wants to change the superdelegate rules in midstream, Josh. Nice straw man you got there.

As for lobbying Murray and Cantwell, I encourage everybody to do it, nicely and respectfully -- but do it.

See, they're your employees, and mine. and it's every citizen's responsibility to make our wishes known to those who we elected to represent us.

#16: Exactly! I haven't heard any "change the rules" talk from Obama supporters regarding the Superdelegates. Encourage, plead, cajole, or shame them into changing their commitment if Obama continues sweeping more states and popular vote %? Sure.

There is no rule Superdelegates' votes are set in stone.

A lot of you seem to think this is a democratic process. Its not. This process resembles an employer hiring staff rather than an electorate choosing a leader. That part comes later in the general election. If the parties choose to allow activists to help select their candidate, then fine, but its not one of your civil rights.

Obama's lead depends upon caucusers who are not party loyalists - they're either fickle swing-voters or usually lazy non-voters. Why should the party hand over its future to a fractious, disloyal, sometimes hostile minority, when it can't count on their support in the long-term?

If the superdelegates pick Clinton, despite Obama getting the popular vote, that's fine with me. O-fans will have lost interest by November anyway.

# 9 - are you nuts .... really just not the expert you profess to be?

Obama MUST choose a woman for VP. He must, or he is an utter fool.

Mc Cain will choose a woman, and I think it will be Kay Bailey of Texas.

How sweet it would be for the Dems to spend the whole campaign explaining, circa 1840, that women are not qualified.

And talk change and new society and not strike a blow to sexism .... more women vote than men ... duh.

Folks, set aside your provincial favorites, the game is moving rapidly by a new set of rules, and Mc Cain is a fast learner.

Essex

I'd rather we did away with superdelegates altogether the next time around.

Josh Feit:

And for O fans who want to get rid of the superdelegate rules…do you also want to scrap the current Party rule that Florida and Michigan shouldn’t count? Can’t have it both ways.

Deft use of a straw man. Almost Clintonian I might say. In fact, neither the Obama campaign nor the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters wants to change the superdelegate rules in midstream.

If Obama ends up winning a clear majority of rank-and-file delegates, the Clinton machine is free to wrest the election away by defying the will of the people. And we're free to say that would not be a good idea--for the Democratic Party or for this nation.

#14 another Obama Know Nothing (maybe that should be the name of his third party some of his supporters have been threatening)

Obama ran ads in FL in violation of the agreement of the candidates. His name was on the ballot. Clinton had fundraisers in FL within the terms of the agreement. Obama's campaign claims running ads in FL were OK'd by SC's Dem chair not the other candidates or the DNC. He violated the agreement.

Cressona what will you do if Edwards' 25 delegates puts Hillary over the top? What is a clear majority?

You really think young voters will remember for 2 to 4 years to defeat either Senator?

Obama supporters have been all about threats on the Slog. We'll stay home, we'll not vote for Hillary, we'll start a third party, we'll vote any super delegate out of office if they don't vote they way we think they should, on and on.

If the delegates from MI and FL are not seated because of votes of Omaba's delegates, think they'll go Republican just maybe, huh?

Just an idea for the convention: States that voted Dem last time should have their delegates doubled. States that haven't voted Dem for in three cycles should get none.

Super Delegates' job is to vote for the strongest candidate in their opinion. If either candidate had something come out that dropped them in polls by 20%, I would hope all the SDs would vote for the other candidate.

"Just an idea for the convention: States that voted Dem last time should have their delegates doubled. States that haven't voted Dem for in three cycles should get none."

Terrible idea.

@14:

Um Yeah every candidate was on the ballot in Florida. And only Obama had ads playing there. They were national ads on cable.

Clinton still won big time.

So, if Obama is the nominee he will get there by getting independent voters while losing Democratic voters. Great general election strategy by the way (sarcasm).

I'm looking forward to the first "swift boat" style ad against Obama. If he fights back, like Bill Clinton would, then we know Democrats have a fighting chance. If he doesn't fight back, like John Kerry, and talks about hope and change and coming together as one people, then we know that McCain is the next president.

Only then will the Democratic Party know if it has buyer's remorse.

@14

Oh yeah here is Florida's primary vote. Clinton did not campaign there while Obama had ads up on cable. Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Kucinich were all on the ballot.

24,000 more people voted in the Democratic primary than in the Republican primary.

Clinton had more votes than McCain. McCain and Huckabee both had more votes than Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#FL

Josh and Annie:
thanks for reporting some facts on this issue.

@21 you are apparently backing off your proto-fascistic claim that winning via superdelegates amounts to "stealing" the nomination. A good thing to back off of.

I guess the math of the situation convinced you.

To the rest of the thread: gee, lots of silence now that the much vaunted follow your state principle doesn't seem to help Obama.

I guess the interest is not to find and be consistent about just principles, just to argue anythign at all that leads to Obama winning.

And to the others on this thread:
Please. You're hurting our heads with "facts" about Florida. Don't you get it?

It's all about Obama. So whether or not he broke the agreement by running TV ads doesn't matter, whether or not his claim that Clinton is breaking the agreement by seating the FL delegates is total malarkey doesn't matter. Just keep on telling us facts, and we will keep on ignoring them!

Becaue hope change hope change unity unity hope change ommmmmmmmmmmmm unity ommmmm unity (unless you're against Obama you dirty election stealing mf!!!!!)

I was going to say something, but blank12357@18 already said it. A lot of you seem to think the system that is set up is something it's not. It might seem like we're voting for the next president in the primaries, since the Republicans have little chance of winning the general election, but that's not the case. You'll get your say in November.

All roads of failure run through the DNC. The only successful presidential bid engineered by the DNC in the last 20 years has been for Clinton. As an Obama supporter I still think Florida and Michigan should have a say in who the nomination is. As somebody that believes grassroots democracy is important, I hate the fact that party insiders have a 40% say in who the nomination is. The Stalinism of the DNC in stripping Florida and Michigan of their voting rights is retarded, and it could of already delivered those states to “Mavrick McCain.” Good move Josh in embracing the worst of both situations.

@27. super-delegates can vote how they want. when someone suggested they should vote to reflect the popular choice of the people, it took hardly any time for that to change to they should vote to reflect their state. very subtle, and effective.

Holy Shit! Is this actually an original -- and insightful -- thought by the Stranger political staff? I suppose in this year of firsts -- first woman, first black -- it was bound to happen. But it's only Feb. The over/under on something astute and interesting coming from Josh or Eli was Sept. 22...but Annie was involved in this so maybe it doesnt count?

josh, is there a "rule" that citizens can't attempt to influence superdelegates to reconsider their votes?

I'm not saying they should - I just can't see equating that attempt with the decree by the DNC that FL and MI be stripped of their delegates as a consequence for defying the party plan.

Aren't citizens free to email, call or petition anyone they want to, elected or not, to state their minds and/or make a request?

It's still worthwhile for Obama supporters to contact superdelegates, but due to those delegates' job description, the most *relevant* argument to make is that you think Obama would be more likely to get Dems to the White House than Clinton would. And that personal loyalty should take a back seat.