ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I think the spirit of theyoungdem's argument is that the Super delegate system is undemocratic. His ideal would be to not have the system at all or at least not let it be the determining factor in who wins the primary. I agree. If Obama gets the popular vote, but the super delegate system enables Hilary to win the nomination, then all of us that voted for Obama are going to feel like the system took our choice away from us - that the decision for the nomination was not up to the "people" but determined by a select few. I guess your point, Donkey Dude, is that the system is just how the democratic party decides to run the nomination process. That may be true, but I can still complain that we'd feel more democratic in a different system. I guess you can tell me to just go join another party that does things differently. I'd rather stick with this party and just complain that it's super delegate system sucks and should be abolished like theyoungdem said.

sallyjames | 04/20/08

Sally: the Democrat party is a private organization. They needn't concern themselves with the strictest standards of democracy in the nomination process. Indeed, they have absolute discretion to put forth Axl Rose as the nominee in August if they want to. I understand that wouldn't be "democratic," but that's not really what's at issue here. You have to realize the context of theyoungdem's argument. We are not really talking about abolishing the superdelegate system in the future (which I would suggest and agree with), but debating what to do right now re: Obama v. Clinton. That said, theyoungdem is repeating Obama's notion that the supers must vote according to the pledged count. My point is that no, they are not required to do that. According to party rules, they may vote for whomever they want. I agree it would be unwise and do the party damage if they overturn the will of the voters, but they are perfectly free to do that if they wish.

DonkeyDude | 04/20/08

Yes, they are "free" to overturn the will of the voters. No one said that they weren't - not even theyoungdem. He knows that the super delegates are "free" to vote in any way. He just thinks the system should be changed so that next time, they won't be "free." Accordingly, in the ideal and most democratic world, we wouldn't have this super system in the current election. This is the first election that I have even heard about the issue of super delegates. I think that goes for a lot of people. Maybe it's our fault for not caring enough about the primary rules or maybe its just that we haven't had a close primary like this in a long time where the super delegates could actually be the deciding factor. Even if Obama got the nomination because of the super delegates while Clinton got the popular vote, I would STILL think the super delegate system sucks. And I think theyoungdem would too (although we would both be happy Obama won). You are assuming that theyoungdem is just saying this for his own personal interest in Obama winning.

sallyjames | 04/20/08

Um, no, I am saying this because theyoungdem is not the most critical thinker on this site, and I suspect he is merely regurgitating "the party line" because he's viewing the nomination process through Obama-colored lenses. We are talking about the current Democratic nomination and what the superdelegates should do. If you read theyoungdem's statement, he is really just providing a normative statement - that he thinks the supers SHOULD vote in accordance with the people. That makes it hard to have a clear debate. But for what it's worth, I am saying that nothing says definitively that they SHOULD do anything in particular, because the very purpose of their existence is so that they can overturn the pledged delegates if the party thinks they should.

DonkeyDude | 04/20/08

DonkeyDude you need to get over your pitty self. Your arrogance and venting anger at the guests and/or members of this site does not make you the "most critical thinker" on this site. In fact some of us think of you as dumb and trying to disguise that by screeming at others. I see you are accepting every debate available... I wonder what are you trying to make up for.

CRISP | 04/20/08

P&L, I'd love to take what you said to heart, but I searched my dictionary for the words "pitty" and "screeming" and could not find them. There are only three people I make condescending remarks towards on this site, and I suspect that at least two of these users are in fact the same person: you, theyoungdem, and alexon96. The debates you put forth all share the same qualities: mindless advocacy of your favorite candidate; horrible spelling and grammar; a terrible grasp of logic and debate; and opinion and hyperbole instead of fact. I never said I am the most critical thinker on this site; far from it. But you three are deplorable. For you to call me "dumb" is pathetic and wholly unsupported, especially by our performances and relative debate records on this site (which, unfortunately, are all we have to go on here). As for my accepting a lot of debate challenges, I suppose I am interested in a lot of topics. Don't know what your point is. But for what it's worth, that is the pot calling the kettle black.

DonkeyDude | 04/20/08

Update - I have to take theyoungdem off of the list I just mentioned. He's really not that bad, and I doubt he is the same person as the other two. My apologies, youngdem.

DonkeyDude | 04/20/08

"Off (of) the list"?? Ha! Its sad that someone OK under the skull can over rate himself in the manner in which you do. I'm sorry but you are so obsessed with yourself, you cant even realise it. This overstated view of our own importance is laughable. YOu're pathetic and cant even hold a decent discussion. I think you've brought nothing but chaos and anarchy, but what can we say, we have to welcome everyone. I suppose you must credit Fry for telling you what this site is (the argument you posted on the debate about voting more than once). But knowing you, just like Obama, you will not credit the source, because you want to sound intelligent. Oh, pls correct my spelling again, seeing that thats all you can do. I'm sorry I have to focus on content.

CRISP | 04/20/08

CORRECTION: This overstated view of YOUR own importance...

CRISP | 04/20/08

That's not the only correction you could have made, and it doesn't make your comment any more meaningful. Resorting to calling someone unintelligent or pathetic without any grounds whatsoever is not persuasive. But then, if you understood such basic rules of logic and debate, perhaps you'd be winning some of your debates. And I have no idea, as usual, what you are talking about re: your ridiculous statement that people should be allowed to vote more than once on this site. I checked that debate, and the only thing I said is that you don't bother to finish debates if the vote differential is too great (always against you, as if that needs to be clarified). Please do us all a favor and stop talking to me. I'm sure other people on this site are sick of our back & forth even more than we are.

DonkeyDude | 04/20/08

PEACE&LOVE, can you please stop with all these attacks against DonkeyDude on every god damned page? He is right to say that your debates generally suck. And while I disagree with his political perspective (and yours), he is clearly a better debater than you. If you're going to attack him for something, make it about his big ego, not his brainpower. That's a battle you will lose.

majestik | 04/20/08

DD is absoulty correct about the private nature of both political parties and correct in his conclussion concerning the free will of super or unpledged delegates. The people who vote in the nominating process are, at best, transient members of the parties and as such the full time party members should get a weighted vote. It is thier party therefore thier opinion matters more than yours or mine. Please note that I have voted Democratic since I was able vote several election cycles ago. The nominating process serves to test the contenders, but the real choice of who the contenders will be (an actual Nomination) is not left to the populace at large. That choice is largely made by large money financial backers and it is at this level that we the people lose all real representation and the eventual nominee is bought and paid for. The people who made the election possible for the candidate elect are the ones who will be represented. In practical application, super or unpledged delegates and our vote currently matter little. Niether BHO, HRC or JMc will change these issues, but must fall prey to them.

forreasonsake | 04/20/08

The Democraps should have forseen this issue in setting up the super del. system. They have to reap what they sow. This whole thing will drive voters away from the party, which will only benefit us (Repubs). Thank you Hillary for setting this one up!

majestik | 04/21/08

Hmm. "forreasonsake" takes a pessimistic angle on my arguments, but I'm not sure I disagree. You kind of characterize the primaries/caucuses as focus groups, and you might be right. Certainly party rules allow Dean & Co. to put anyone they wish on that ticket. Whether they "should" or not is really just a matter of self-preservation. If Gap, Inc. holds an online survey, the results of which reveal that 96% of potential customers only want to buy neon green jeans this season, "should" the Gap produce neon green jeans? I mean, the moral imperative theyoungdem puts forth re: democracy reveals that he naively believes that the party's primaries are actual elections.

DonkeyDude | 04/21/08