The RNC Mocks Superdelegates

Those elites at the Republican National Committee are mocking those elites in the Democratic Party who call themselves superdelegates.

(Ssh. The GOP also has what I'd call "superdelegates," but they're far fewer in number. The elite of the elite.)

Worth noting that the RNC has a point. Superdelegates were created to appease party fundraisers and leaders who felt that the McGovern-Fraser commission gave too much power to activists and believed that the party need a Senate of sorts who could filter out the McGoverns and the Carters of the party.

Comments

How about a running mate for Hillbilly that is very experienced, black, and can attract all of the OBammBamm supporters?

Let's nominate Robert Mugabe for VP with Hillbilly!

He has a fantastic record creating unemployment.

Posted by D | April 1, 2008 11:55 AM

The reality of superdelegates is that they have been used to avoid brokered conventions and put an end to the primary process rather than to deny the nomination to the candidate who is leading among delegates selected by voters. This year won't be any different.

Posted by Ron | April 1, 2008 12:22 PM

Super donkey is kinda cool, I bet he can whoop Elephant man's ass.

Posted by bjd | April 1, 2008 12:28 PM

The RNC is right, and their number of supers (100 or so) is enough to decide a 3-way tie without being the laughably huge portion the Dems have. Though they're also party bosses rather than Senators, governors, etc, which are the more logical super choices--people who've faced elections.

I firmly believe we must require supers to wear tight unitards with giant utility belts and boots throughout the convention. That'll help encourage them to eliminate themselves next time.

Posted by Deborah | April 1, 2008 12:59 PM

They use the erroneous insult of "Democrat Voter" instead of Democratic Voter.

Posted by Beth in VA | April 1, 2008 1:11 PM

If superdelegates are necessary to decide a two-person race, then their decision will be seen as "stealing a nomination" by some supporters of the loser. This can only hurt the party.

The Democratic Party has practically guaranteed that superdelegates will decide any contested two-person race. Their numbers, about 800, form about 20% of the delegate count. In order to get a majority of all delegates without any superdelegates, a contender will have to get about five eights (62.5%) of all elected delegates.

With its proportional system, getting this kind of majority is nearly impossible in a contested race. I would rather get rid of all superdelegates and let the elected delegates worry about a (highly improbable) three person race at a convention. Perhaps if no one gets a majority of elected delegates during the primary campaign, we can add those superdelegates elected by people -- like Senators, Representatives, and Governors -- at the convention itself and get rid of party hacks who are more prone to crappy deals.

Posted by exregis | April 1, 2008 1:22 PM

Superdelegates were created to appease party fundraisers and leaders who ....believed that the party need a Senate of sorts who could filter out the McGoverns and the Carters of the party.

They do. And what's amazing is that the party leadership appears to have forgotten how lethal the liberal candidate has been to their presidential hopes.

Posted by Cal | April 1, 2008 1:36 PM

Cal:
And I imagine you like FDR was some sort of Commie, right? And liberal doesn't matter, since Obama isn't a far lefty(as much as you try to portary him). The more liberal Senators and such never feel the urge to run.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 1, 2008 1:43 PM

I notice a new storyline--a month ago, the supers were there to prevent the election of a candidate who appealed to a core segment of party activists but couldn't attract any Independents or cross-over Republicans. Having noticed that that exactly describes Hillary Clinton, her partisans now insist that the supers are there to vote against any liberals who squeak through.

If Hillary Clinton were winning, she'd be the unelectable disaster the supers were created to stop. I still think that'd be a bad idea, so good on the voters for stopping her themselves.

Posted by Deborah | April 1, 2008 1:44 PM

Another reason to get of superdelegates is the following from Marc's report:

Superdelegates were created to appease party fundraisers ...

This just shows the influence of money in the Democratic Party -- not plain money but big money. The two candidates have raised plenty of their own money from lots of small donors. Using the Internet in sophisticated fashion can replace, in part, large fundraisers and their influence from the party. No one is going to become beholden to a few million $50 donations, except in the most general and utilitarian way.

Exactly!

Posted by exregis | April 1, 2008 1:50 PM