Democratic Primary Question

[BigheadTodd]

Hopefully some one has an answer, maybe Dan ... I have heard about "superdelegates" that are not voted on in the primary. How does this work? Why is it just the Democrats? Does it have to do with florida's democratic primary votes not counting?

[laxfan25]

I'm postulating here, but I believe superdelegates are state party officials that are not beholden to anyone based on the primary results, which elect the slate of regular delegates. As with the electoral college, even the elected delegates are not required to vote for their nominee, but it would be bad form, at least in the early nomination rounds.
The primaries are strictly party functions, they can make up their own rules, hence the GOP has gone primarily with winner-take-all results while the Dems are apportioning them based on percentage results, and on almost a precinct by precinct basis. A candidate could win the popular vote in a state and still get fewer delegates, which I think was the result in Nevada.
This guarantees that the Democratic contest will likely go to the very end before determining whether our next president will be the first female or minority POTUS.
The superdelegate setup has been there all along, it is not a result of the MI/FL issue. By the way, even before those primaries, they were saying that those delegates would get recognized at the convention in order to avoid antagonizing the populations in those great states.
Well, a little search on the notorious Wikipedia on Superdelegates turned up the following (I wasn't too far off!)...

Superdelegates are delegates to a presidential nominating convention in the United States who are not bound by the decisions of party primaries or caucuses. Superdelegates are elected officeholders and party officials. They are sometimes referred to as "unpledged delegates", but some unpledged delegates are not superdelegates.

Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s, after control of the nomination process in the Democratic Party effectively moved out of the hands of party officials into the primary and caucus process. The aim was to grant some say in the process to people who had been playing roles in the party before the election year.

The Republican Party has 123 similarly automatically appointed delegates, members of the Republican National Committee. Including these appointees, the Republican Party has 463 unpledged delegates out of a total of 2,380 delegates.

[Zamboni_Driver]

Slow day so I have a question to add...

The Republicans have a similar feature on their side.

Is there any possibility that these delegates that are not bound to the people's voting is a safeguard by the establishments to make sure their candidates get delegates in case the "naive masses" go against who they want?

This is poorly worded, but does anyone get what I'm asking?

[Jolly Roger]

Not as poorly worded as this statement

This guarantees that the Democratic contest will likely go to the very end before determining whether our next president will be the first female or minority POTUS.

Let's not forget, we have 10 months left for the candidates to be determined and America, not the democratic convention, vote to elect a new POTUS

[laxfan25]

Not as poorly worded as this statement

This guarantees that the Democratic contest will likely go to the very end before determining whether our next president will be the first female or minority POTUS.

Let's not forget, we have 10 months left for the candidates to be determined and America, not the democratic convention, vote to elect a new POTUS

Ahh, you took the bait! It will be an interesting 10 months, no?

[peterwho]

If you read further in the wikipedia reference:

The 2008 Democratic National Convention, where the Democratic presidential ticket is formally agreed upon, has 796 superdelegates, although the number is not final until March 1, 2008. Superdelegates to the Democratic Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, members of the Democratic National Committee, as well as "all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee."

This is important, since it appears that the delegates committed to a particular candidate through the primary process will be insufficient to declare a clear winner ahead of the August convention. It has been reported that black politicians back Clinton as constituents go for Obama. Based on the makeup of the superdelegation, this may bode well for Clinton.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbmeekalcee0205sbfeb05,0,4132499.story

[Zeuslax]

Definitely not a clear or concise process that's for sure. Super delegates are almost always party big wigs. This was the key in many respects for Clinton. In the odd number districts she had a double digit lead with endorsements. Don't let the media fool you and say that endorsements don't mean much. They do, and especially when they come from the local party level. Endorsements mean support and mobilization.....and when a delegate or super delegate is a result of the voting and voting effort it can be huge. We saw this on Tuesday in 44 districts. However, Obama is well with in striking distance of Clinton.