Pelosi's Delegate Stance Boosts Obama

Pelosi's Delegate Stance Boosts Obama

blogs.abcnews.com

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on Friday that it would be "harmful" to Democrats if superdelegates were to give the party's presidential nomination to a candidate who is trailing in the delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections," said Pelosi, "it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.huffingtonpost.com

I'll bet Hillary's head about exploded when she heard this!

I do believe what Pelosi is saying though, if the majority Democrat delegates voted in favor of one candidate, it shouldn't be in the hands of the super-delegates who the people can have to run for president.

This may thwart 'ole Hillary's "new" campaign plan, because from various things I've read, it seems she was really trying to woo the super-delagates to vote for her.

blogs.abcnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit= to add new found info]

Hillary has also lost a super-delegate vote when NY Governor Spitzer resigned.

Spitzer Does a Number on Hillary’s Superdelegate Count

n a race where every vote for the Democratic nomination for president counts, Hillary Clinton lost one on Wednesday when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned amid media reports linking him to a prostitution ring.

****SKIP****

Each Democratic governor is given superdelegate status automatically, meaning they can make their own choices about which candidate to support at the Democratic National Convention in August.

****SKIP****

Lieutenant Gov. David Paterson will replace Spitzer as governor on Monday, but he already holds superdelegate status as a member-at-large. Paterson, who spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, is also committed to Clinton, but he only gets one vote.

Spitzer lost his super-delegate status when he resigned. Paterson, who is replacing Spitzer is already a super-delegate, super-delegates get only 1 vote per person, you can't be a "double" super delegate and get 2 votes, each super delegate gets only one vote, and Hillary lost Spitzer's.

[edit on 15/3/08 by Keyhole]

Pelosi is the leader of the Democrat House of Representatives and she doesn't understand the Democrat Presidential selection process?

Democrats have "Super Delegates" for one reason. They don't trust the average Democrat voter. Super Delegates are in place to ensure the parties pick in close races like this.

Ever wonder why Democrats have Super Delegates and Republicans don't?

There may be something of the queen bee syndrom going on here as well. As it stands, Speaker Pelosi is the most politically powerful democrat around, and she may not want to be overshadowed by a President who's a woman. Any opinions on this? Anyone?

reply to post by RRconservative


Once again you are WRONG. At least you're consistant.

The original idea behind super delagates was rooted in how the parties allot delegates... in the Republican party its winner take all, in the Democratic party they are alloted based on precentage of votes won. The idea was to prevent deadlock at a convention if none of candiates had enough delegates to win.

It had nothing to do with distrust of voters.

BTW Pelosi is right.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Ever wonder why Democrats have Super Delegates and Republicans don't?

Yes, and I still do. I've read and read .. and I still don't get it. I don't understand why the special honor was given. Doesn't that take away from 'the people' picking? Or is that the point .. keep it the 'smoke filled back room' thing.

Seriously. .. WHY?

BTW .. grover ... I read what you said .. but I still don't get it. I'm not being a wise-acre ... I really really don't get it. I mean, I understand the 'if there is a deadlock' thing .. but they seem to get to come into play even when there IS NOT a deadlock. Ya' know??

Someone, please exlain this ... pleeeeeeeeeeeease!

Flyersfan... I really don't like the idea of super delegates either but like I said in the Republican party its winner take all which I consider unfair as well.... at the very least alloting delegates by the precentage of the votes they won reflects the will of the voters, however I beleive both parties should play by the same rules.

Both winner take all and superdelegates serve pretty much the same purpose... to prevent brokered conventions... which we still might end up with this time around.

It's going to be a fight on the convention floor, IMHO.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, if my math is correct, can't win at the Primary level.

I just can't help but feel that Clintonistas are going to attempt to steal the convention with the help of the SD's. They're going to promise the moon and all the stars to get their way.

Hope I'm wrong.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by RRconservative

 

Once again you are WRONG. At least you're consistant.

The original idea behind super delagates was rooted in how the parties allot delegates... in the Republican party its winner take all, in the Democratic party they are alloted based on precentage of votes won. The idea was to prevent deadlock at a convention if none of candiates had enough delegates to win.

It had nothing to do with distrust of voters.

BTW Pelosi is right.

If the Republican Party is winner take all, how did Ron Paul Fantasy get 21 Delegates? What state did he win?

If the idea, as you stated, was to prevent deadlock then why not go with winner take all? The Super Delegate idea was not created to prevent a deadlock at the convention. It was created in case there was deadlock then the party elite could pick the nominee. What is so hard to understand about this? You really expect the Democrat Party to leave such a huge decision to average voters?

Originally posted by RRconservative
The Super Delegate idea was not created to prevent a deadlock at the convention. It was created in case there was deadlock then the party elite could pick the nominee.

HUH? You just said the same thing. Preventing a deadlock and breaking a deadlock is the same thing.