Superdelegates split on rolecmsimg.honoluluad...
Superdelegates split on role
Added 1889 days ago in Opinion
honoluluadvertiser.com — U.S. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye said he would counsel Hawai'i's undecided superdelegates to trust their own initiative and experience, and not necessarily the results of the Hawai'i caucuses, when choosing which Democratic presidential candidate to support.

"It's up to them. It's their decision," said Inouye, D-Hawai'i, a superdelegate who has endorsed U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. "But if they were going to appoint us to follow the votes of the state, you don't need superdelegates, right? We were designated as superdelegates to use our initiative and experience to do what is right."

Report This Post
Posted by JoshMadison
Add To Favorites
40 Votes
Similar Issues
1 Comment
ShareThis
Bottom Line Democratic Superdelegates must chose the nominee they believe can win back the White House?
Agree, they must chose the candidate they believe can win
55%
Disagree, they must chose according to the will of the people
45%
This is not a scientific survey, click here to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding and voting descrepencies.
User Comments
bish66
Posted 1888 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
A large number of people mistake the primaries of the Democratic PARTY with a DEMOCRATIC process.
Well, it is not. The PARTY is out there, picking its candidate and the voters are asked to join the fun. The purpose of primaries is to energize the basis, ralley support for the candidates, test issues for the General Election and to look for strengths and weaknesses in a candidate or campaign and to kick out the candidates that are too weak to even mobilize their own basis. Only a few candidates run for President, some, like Richardson, Dodd, Biden or Edwards run for VP. The PARTY could do without primaries in the different states if it was not for the media coverage and cheap advertising for the PARTY. The PARTY could not do it without the superdelegates. They are the party elders, congressmen, head honchos, governors, senators, in short, people who know more than ordinary people.

Their job was to evaluate the chances of a chandidate and they were supposed to ignore the media hype surrounding the candidates. Because they know more.
Obama changed that role by demanding that the super delegates should vote for the leader in the popular votes in the states. They should vote for him, claiming that the will of the voter is what counts.

Yeah, right. You have lots of caucuses where only a small fraction of the voters participate, where you have no secret ballot, but harrassment of voters. Look at Alaska: 606 voters decided about the Democratic candidate, while 11.600 voters had their say for the Republican candidate. Some states have closed primaries, others allow Republicans and independent voters to participate and some of these "outsiders" have their own agenda, like supporting the weakest candidate to hurt the strongest one.

In the end, the whole thing boils down to the question: Will the candidate win the election or is he/she just spent after winning the nomination. Do you want to win the battles and lose the war or do you want the person that is able to pull a win out of the hat and win the thing on the finishing line. The general election is winner takes all, so you have to look at who has the best chances to win the necessary number of state votes. Currently, that person is Clinton and I hope that she is able to show strength in the remaining contests in order to convince superdelegates that she is the one...
You will have 2 minutes to edit your comment.

Add your comments