Superdelegate is just another word for unpledged delegate, that is, a delegate who is not locked into a position until the actual vote is taken in August. Unlike pledged delegates, a superdelegate can change his or her mind multiple times before the actual vote (and some have done just that - flip-flopping between Clinton and Obama). So, even though Mr. O has a slim majority of superdelegates who have committed to him, this does not mean a loss for Hillary, as their commitment has about as much weight as any other promise by a common politician. Furthermore, there are still several hundred "uncommitted" superdelegates who are likely sitting on their hands for fear of damaging backlash to their political careers (i.e.: John Kerry committed to Obama despite Massachusetts voting for Hillary, and now he has a primary challenger for his senate seat who, last I checked, is pulling in 40 points in the polls - not a sure thing, but not good for Kerry). With the uncommitted ones still in play, and the committed ones not really having a locked commitment, this thing could easy swing back and forth like an unlatched barn door on a windy day.
I agree that the system needs to be overhauled. For one thing, I am sick of the popular vote not counting (to the extent that the mainstream media is excluding voter totals for MI and FL from reports when the votes still count - only delegates were stripped, the voters still exist). I am also sick of states having undue influence over who the nominee is - yeah, I'm talking about Iowa and New Hampshire. Finally, I want to see caucuses scrapped - this is 2008, not 1789! Everyone should get a chance to vote for their party leaders in a closed primary, so everyone has a voice. Making grandma and her disabled grandson stand around a table in Iowa for hours on end just to make their candidate preference known is not only attempted voter disenfranchisement, but cruel and unusual punishment as well.
McCain would be worth looking into if he brought back the heyday of the Republican party, but I disagree with the Reagan association. For him to get my vote, he'd have to turn into Theodore Roosevelt. Now, THERE was a maverick!
By the way, I still have those Obama buttons. If you're going to be out this weekend, we could meet up and I could give them to you. I have no use for them, and I figure they're better off in the hands of actual supporters.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
No one has won or lost yet...
Date: 2008-05-14 08:30 pm (UTC)I agree that the system needs to be overhauled. For one thing, I am sick of the popular vote not counting (to the extent that the mainstream media is excluding voter totals for MI and FL from reports when the votes still count - only delegates were stripped, the voters still exist). I am also sick of states having undue influence over who the nominee is - yeah, I'm talking about Iowa and New Hampshire. Finally, I want to see caucuses scrapped - this is 2008, not 1789! Everyone should get a chance to vote for their party leaders in a closed primary, so everyone has a voice. Making grandma and her disabled grandson stand around a table in Iowa for hours on end just to make their candidate preference known is not only attempted voter disenfranchisement, but cruel and unusual punishment as well.
McCain would be worth looking into if he brought back the heyday of the Republican party, but I disagree with the Reagan association. For him to get my vote, he'd have to turn into Theodore Roosevelt. Now, THERE was a maverick!
By the way, I still have those Obama buttons. If you're going to be out this weekend, we could meet up and I could give them to you. I have no use for them, and I figure they're better off in the hands of actual supporters.