Saturday, February 09, 2008

We Want F*#king Change! Super Delegates Should Reconsider Their Support Of Clinton

Well the people have spoken and Clinton has won Douglas County.

Let me be one of the first to call for Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell and Jay Inslee et al to reconsider your pre-caucus endorsement and be willing now to support Barak Obama who has won the Washington State Democratic caucuses overwhelmingly and decisively. There is no doubt now who most Democrats in Washington State want to be the party's nominee. You as our elected leaders and subject to the will of the voters should be willing to support the peoples choice.

With massive turnouts and a festival atmosphere at many of the larger caucus sites democracy was amazing. This was almost, but not quite, better then sex. The Democratic Party in Washington should begin today to get the method of choosing a candidate straightened out so that it is either a statewide primary election or a caucus system. Congratulations to most of the voters who were able to figure the current system out in time to participate fully.

The election would indicate that voters overwhelmingly want a split from the politics and the political personalities of the passed and desire a CHANGE in the way the business of the government has been conducted in the passed.


  1. There is no doubt now who most Democrats in Washington State want to be the party's nominee.

    Really? I was chair of an area caucus in eastern Washington. As an example of how things go in rural areas, we had one precinct, allocated two delegates (not, of course, state-level delegates, but not inconsequential in the process), represented by one street person who literally could not, even with help, spell "Adams", the name of his county of residence. But, by gum, he all alone is sending two Obama delegates (both him!) to the legislative-district caucus.

    We had several other precincts represented by one or two voters; the biggest representation was six people for one precinct.

    This entire caucus process is a sad laugh. "Most Democrats in Washington State" think they have expressed their choice in their primary vote--that is not a guess, it's what those we saw show up all said (so guess what those who didn't show up had to be thinking).

    The "super delegates" at least represent a process in which the majority of some large area--sometimes the entire state--actually voted for them. Whatever were they dreaming of with the caucus system? Another goo-goo idea (Google the term) gone where most goo-goo ideas go: seriously astray.

  2. Eric,
    The caucuses on the west side had record turnouts and were packed virtually everywhere. I'm sorry that wasn't the case in your precinct.

    Funny how a homeless guy shows up and no regular folks. How he get the information on where to caucus?

    I think the system is broken when it comes to selecting our nominee. I also agree that the super delegate system is not really very democratic. It protects the establishment. Which is why they were created. It is ripe for abuse.

    Your point is well taken though. I hope we can get the system fixed. Over here on the west side of the state it is remarkable that the huge number of people that did participate were able to figure out the confusion about the caucus vs the primary and participate as they did.

  3. First of all let me state that I think the caucus system sucks! This was my 2nd go round as an Area Caucus Coordinator for a dozen precincts in Yakima. While the attendance increased 60% from 2004 the actual numbers were 127 this year to 71 in 2004. (For a dozen precincts) Enthusiasm was very high and Obama supporters were highly organized.
    So now there is a call for Super Delegates to vote for the will of a small, enthusiastic, and highly organized group of Obama supporters? Even if we don't like the rules we must follow them. Lets take the statement that WA state not follow the rules and insist super delegates should vote the "will of the people".
    In that case Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy should vote for Hillary because she won their state primary despite their endorsement. And going a step further; Nationally, perhaps all delegates should vote for the top vote getter (which is Hillary). You want Washington state super delegates to dance to your tune then why not California and New York super delegates ALL commit to Hillary? (Clinton won both primaries).
    Enthusiasm isn't enough to change the rules in midstream. You can hit the ball hard every time and still not get a hit. If you want to win, play within the framework that we have.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Ron,
    You make some good points. I'd like to say that if we get to the convention and there is not a clear winner with enough pledged delegates to nominate I think that whomever has the majority or delegates and votes nationally should then be supported by the super delegates.

    By the way Obama not Clinton has the lead in both those categories as of yesterday.

    Here a link to a good story on the subject:

  6. Re: [I]f we get to the convention and there is not a clear winner with enough pledged delegates to nominate . . .

    That misses the point that I and Ron are trying to make: pledged delegates do not represent Democratic voters. "Pledged delegates' represent a small--often, in his and my actual experience--frighteningly small fraction of Democrats as a whole. Let us remember what actual Washington State law says:

    The…presidential nominating caucus system in Washington State is unnecessarily restrictive of voter participation in that it discriminates against the elderly, the infirm, women, the disabled, evening workers, and others who are unable to attend caucuses and therefore unable to fully participate in this most important quadrennial event that occurs in our democratic system of government.

    I found that the great majority of even Democrats attending the caucuses believed that their primary vote would somehow count. Consider what those who did not appear (the great, indeed, the vast majority) believed.

    If super delegates are supposed to just follow the delegate counts from their jurisdictions, whyever was the role invented? It is expressly because they are not and should not be so bound that they have a useful function. In this case, that function, properly exercised, is to stop a small, non-representative but highly motivated and organized cadre from putting forth a candidate on behalf of Democrats statewide and nationally which candidate does not in fact represent the wishes of the great majority of Democrats.

    That is not empty partisan handwaving: it is simple fact. Look at the states that had actual primaries. Look to your own experiences with caucuses. Look at the ratio right here in Washington of turnout for the caucuses versus turnout for the absolutely meaningless primaries.

    I like Barack Obama, as a person and as a politician; I even think he is probably as electable as Hillary Clinton. What I do not believe is that he can be the strong, tough, take-charge-at-once president that this nation needs right now to pull out of the nose dive Bush, Inc. has left us in. And I believe that most Democrats know or sense that. And finally, I believe that he will be ramrodded out there as the candidate anyway, owing almost entirely to these imbecilic caucuses.

    What boots it for Dems to win in 2008 if that win almost guarantees losses for two or three or more electoral cycles beyond it?