*ahem* So, I have been thinking. (This is a bit of a rant) I'm trying to figure out how exactly the Democratic nomination is going to unfold - and I'm no expert on American politics. Perhaps someone can help me out, if they have the time. If Hillary and Obama are close, does that mean that the leadership will be determined by the number of delegates in their favour? Is that how it works? I can't remember how that works. From what I know, in the 80s the Democratic Party decided that the process was a little 'too' democratic, and people were electing crazy people: Howard-Dean esque people, if you like, although this was obviously decades earlier. So what they did was pile on a shitload of what we in Canada call 'ex-officio' delegates, that is, elected democratic officials, party honchos, and former politicians all get free votes But anyway they're called "Super delegates" and there's like 700 of them, right? I mean, it's, quite frankly, really fucking stupid. Anyway, the problem is the margin of difference between Obama and Clinton is looking like it'll be so tight it could come down to these super delegates. Which would make the victory look super dirty whoever gets it. But, especially if Clinton did. If someone takes a real 'honest seeming' lead the supers can go along with that maybe, and it'll all look okay. If it comes down to a big fistfight trying to wrangle all these frigging party fat cats it could be a real debacle. Obama has always led in earned delegates from the contests. Clinton began with a big advantage in promised superdelegates. Does it depend on whose count you look at that impacts who is 'leading'? And also apparently won on raw super tuesday delegates? If one is a Clinton advocate one can also say that she has a 'democraticness' advantage because she won 'primaries,' which are like elections, whereas Obama has won a lot of 'caucuses,' which are more like... wierdly structured political conventions as opposed to just straight votes, which are called primaries. Caucuses are like Iowa, I mean. People standing around in rooms and shit. Party leadership processes are hellaciously important, no two ways about it. In my opinon, the US would be a lot better off with a national, uniform leadership process than what they have now. But even in Canada, our systems are systemitized, or great. The Liberal leadership process is flashy and traditional compared to what it could be. It isn't as anachronistic as the US circus, but it still isn't one-member-one-vote mail-in or something idiot-proof like that.
Yeah I agree; I'm nervous as hell that the pick will go down to the super delegates. I hope we in Washington state gave Obama a good enough push, and maybe get other dems to realize we need to pick our own guy, and not let someone win by default. This is one reason I can see why the GOP thinks it's sensible to have some winner-take-all states; they want to get their candidate picked early and decisively. So, up in Canada is there essentially a two-tier health care system?; like you can go to to a free clinic and get so so care, or you can pay a lot and get quality health care? Or is it totally different because canadians have better personal preventive care habits? It just scares me that Michael Moore suggest wiping out the insurance industry and unemploying millions of workers from all classes, who have no other training except in insurance. He cites the examples of Canada and Europe, but those places are healthier than America, with totally different health care needs, needs that perhaps can be met at free clinics. I say don't fuck with the way health care is delivered until Americans take care of their damn selves to not need so much reactionary medicine. (this isn't totally irrelevant; my point is that neither dem. candidate is going along with the single-payer system)
From what I understand, a Super delegate is someone, usually a Governor, Senator, or some special personage, which may vote for whomever they please. This is opposed to a standard delegate who is obligated to suppport the candidate they are there to represent. The Democratic Party has about 400 odd "Super" Delegates. Normally, at least for the last 30 or so years, this hasn't been an issue. Both major party candidates were able to garner enough delegate during the Primary season to win the election of their respective party. This may be the case for the Republicans. McClain has over 700 delegates, the next closest-Romney had over 200-prior to dropping from the race, and I think Huckabee has about 25. For the Democratic Party, should neither candidate have whatever the magic number to win election on the first ballot, then the convention is called a broker convention. I believe, but I could be wrong, after a series of voting with no clear winner, then the delegates are free to vote whomever they please. The difference is the "Super" delegates had this ability whether the convention was brokered or not. If I'm wrong, then I hope some will poste a correction.
Super delegates are the most prominent Democratic leaders, as well as all the members of the DNC. They are free agents and aren't committed to either candidate. The winning candidate must have 50% of the vote plus 1. The super delegates are the insurance that someone will win. There are 796 super delegates (only Democrats have them). This may be the first time they will make a difference in a contest, although there is no specific guidelines for who they choose. BTW, delegates are often people who are involved in the campaigns of the winner, those who donate money for a certain candidate. So if you volunteer for Obama and donate some money, you too could become a delegate for Obama! If the Democratic race drags on over the summer, McCain and the Republicans will have a significant advantage b/c they will be focused against the Democrats. The Democrats need to decide on a candidate so they can focus on a national campaign against McCain. The race can go on for another couple months, but there needs to be a decisive choice by May or June at the latest. Peace and love
There is a conventional two-tiered system, per se, but it hasn't resulted in seperate systems of medical care for the rich and the poor. The funding of our universal medicare is public, yet its delivery is almost entirely private. There is a great distinction between financing and delivery. In most provinces, if you walk into a private health clinic with your health card - you're going to be treated without having to pay for the minor costs. Things like vaccines, birth control, blood tests, and all kinds of prescriptions drugs and forms of treatment are marginally free of charge when you are treated. We call our system 'public' becaus the government ensures its universality by paying most of the bills. As long as there is a single player---the government---and individuals cannot pay to jump the queue, we do not have a two-tier system with superior services for the wealthy.
Back on topic, I'm a bit confused. How does the DNC come into play? And does the winning candidate need to have 50% + 1 delegates in order to win? Is that how it is really determined? Let's say Hillary gets 50% + 1, can Obama still win the nomination?
If Clinton gets 50%+1 of the delegates' votes at any balloting at the convention, she has the majority (more than half) of the votes and wins. Similarly if Obama gets that many, he wins. The numbers being tossed about now are combintions of guarenteed votes and predictions of the super-delegate votes. If no decision is made on the first round of voting at the convention, (something like:Obama 40%, Clinton 40%, Edwards 7%, Kusinich 3% may be unavoidable depending on the laws of the states where Edwards and Kusinich picked up delegates.) If the nomination is not settled after the first ballot, no delegates are bound by their commitments before the convention started. I trust that the super delegates will have the political savey to see that Obama is more likely to win in November than Clinton is. They want a Dem. in the White House.
When they were keeping the issue of race foregrounded in SC without ever saying anything really bad I told friends "The whole point is to let Obama win South Carolina but to turn him into 'the black candidate' who wins black votes," so that they could make him Jesse Jackson '08. And then the DAY of the South Carolina primary Bill Clinton said, on tv, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988". When he said that I turned off the TV and basically said, fuck you Bill. I like Obama but I still think Clinton has the edge. And I'm kind of really limiting myself in terms of engagement both so as not to be crushed, and also so I can try to get behind Clinton when the election happens. Not to mention, it's hard to say if Clinton could actually win against McCain. I mean, it's a hell of an interesting question. I think intellectually either could win but my gut says McCain would. Americans are very comfy voting on gender bias in a way they wouldn't on race bias. And obviously Clinton would fix McCain's problems with his whole party hating him because the people who hate him hate her a thousand times worse and half of them have a crush on Obama. The Republican Obama man-crush is a sight to behold. It's a bit of an embarrassment for him, fawning George S Will editorials.
If it comes down to the super delegates and the super delegates alone you will probably see one of two things. The first would be the candidate with the most delegates would recieve the most superdelegates to put them over the threshold of 2,025 even if it means some delegates changing their vote. These are promised delegates but about three or four people have switched their votes over to Obama in the last week, they are not bound to stick by any candidate. The second thing that may happen is that you may see certain officials changing their delegate and giving it to the candidate that won the popular vote or most delegates in their district. If a senator in Vermont had pledged to give his/her vote to Hillary, but Obama wound up winning the most delegates in the state, he/she would most likely change the vote to Obama. Personally I like both options, because I feel that Obama would come out on top in either scenario, and I am all about an Obama presidency!
Well, it looks like you got your wish, because it is my assumption that Obama will win the nomination at this point in the circus.
