No matter who ends up with the popular vote in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the likelihood is that it's going to be close — close enough to be decided by the all-too-powerful superdeleagates come convention-time. Since this is a real possibility, it presents a very controversial question. Will the superdelegates go along with the will of the Democratic voters? The answer to that question might depend on who ends up with the most pledged delegates. As of now, Hillary Clinton has 234 superdelegates in her corner, while Barack Obama has 157. There are nearly 800 of them, and many have not yet chosen sides.
If the superdelegates were to tip the balance against the popular vote, the turmoil would last long beyond the convention, longtime Democratic Party strategist Tad Devine said.
"If a perception develops that somehow this decision has been made not by voters participating in primaries or caucuses, but by politicians in some mythical backroom, I think that the public could react strongly against that," Devine said.
"The problem is [if] people perceive that voters have not made the decision — instead, insiders have made the decision — then all of these new people who are being attracted to the process, particularly the young people who are voting for the first time, will feel disenfranchised or in some way alienated," he said.
Eliminating any bias you have toward one candidate or another, how would you feel if the candidate with the most pledged delegates loses because of superdelegates? It's certainly not against the rules for superdelegates to do this, but how would it effect the Democratic party and voter morale during the general election? [CNN]
You know that this can not end well. If Obama continues his sweep but there are super delegates committed to Hillary and they stick to her, black folks will be HOT. If it goes the other way, women will be hot. Not a good scenario either way. I hope this resolves cleanly before the convention.
The country, let a lone the party would be in utter chaos. Especially if Obama won popular vote, and Clinton won the nomination due to super delegates. The average Joe doesn't know what a super delegate is and would be irate.
Obama can't catch up with Hillary's popular vote, she's over by almost 2 million.
BUT - Obama's counting & praying/preying on those delegates because he did not nor will beat Hillary's popular vote - FLORIDA INCLUDED. Yes I said it!
AND THAT AIN'T MOMOFUKU FAIR! WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE PEOPLE'S VOICE THROUGH VOTE?
(sorry for caps, I'm a mad-as-hell Florida voter.)
I would be very upset. This is the reason(electoral college) that Bush lost. I am telling you that they can not pull this madness in France because they French people would take it to the streets.
Mama..you might want to double check your numbers. And while I FEEL on not having your vote counted, that is something to more apropriately air your grievances with your state party, because, the repub moved the date knowing the Dems would be sanctioned - they were too but not as harshly - but all he dems in the state voted FOR it. I think there would be a much stronger disenfrichisment argument had your elected officials not gone along with it.
The fact remains that the candidates AGREED, rightly or wrongly, not to participate, not to campaign and not to go on the ballot PRIOR to the election. It would be patently unfair to simply seat them after the fact. If the Florida/Mich delegations want to be seated, they need to do a re-vote or caucus where each eligible candidate has the opportunity to meet/greet/educate the voters to their ideas and then allow the voters to vote.
again..to be clear,while I am on Team Obama, I DO NOT Dislike Hilary, and would be happy with either as a candidate but ruls are rules and fair is fair.