newsobserver.com projects - North Carolina's superdelegates - Comments

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

ryanteaguebeckwith — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:45:23 -0400

Comment deleted for profanity.

— RTB

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

Proctor — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:25:30 -0400

The superdelegates are to be commended for carrying out their responsibilities conscientiously under occasionally stressful circumstances and often without clear logic governing their choices one way or the other.

The Democratic Party has evolved so many special rules and conditions that it often winds up having a party nominating contest which is not even of the same political or constitutional category or character as the general election. So in the fall, the Democratic Party is often proceeding "without a trial run" whereas the Republicans head into the general election with at least some indications of what can constitute a statewide electoral college victory.

In future nominating contests, constitution-minded Democrats ought to challenge the right of the Democratic National Committee to penalize states for seeking to determine the times, places and manners of choosing members of Congress, which is precisely what Article I, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution empowers the states to do.

In the general election, for the most part, the Democratic Party cannot go chipping off a few electoral votes here and there by making a good showing in a state but instead will have to win a statewide majority in each state in order to receive that state's electoral votes.

So the Democratic Party seems to have evolved a constitutional outlook which says: we'll do whatever the heck we want in our nominating process and then in the general election, we'll agree to observe the U.S. and state constitutions. Thus you wind up with candidates who are able to receive majority popular votes in their campaigns who nonetheless are unable to bring home victories in primary or general elections (HIllary Clinton, 2008, Al Gore, 2000).

You start a general election with a campaign organization which is 0-1 in almost all of the major industrial states just so folks in Iowa and New Hampshire will not take offense at some other state holding an early primary election.

It's a heckuva way to run a political party. It keeps all the competing interest groups happy for most of the year, then in November it hands victory over to the Republicans except when the Democratic presidential nominee demonstrates exceptional popularity and adaptability.

It's like an auto race or a horse race when your team agrees to start the final race four or five lengths back. It's tough enough to win a competitive race when you start out even-steven. But as long as the Democratic Party wants to maintain a separate track for its own trial heats, then in presidential contests it will lose more often than it wins in general elections.

And if the Democrats in Congress, who won a majority in both houses in the 2006 elections, fail to act on their own initiative on an entire array of important issues facing the country, then the Republican presidential campaign may wind up running effectively against an obstructionist Democratic Congress for the rest of 2008 just as Democratic President Harry Truman successfully ran against the "Do-Nothing" Republican Congress in 1948.

David McKnight

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

rlferg1 — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:43:58 -0400

Who knows what goes into the decision of a superdelegate? My mind, as a lowly voter, is make up. Either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. After suffering through the Carter years, I'd rather have anyone (short of W that is) than a beginner. Obama might be ok after a few years of experience, rather than too few, but I won't take a chance on him now. And this thinking is overwhelming in the Clinton camp. Anyone that thinks buzz words like Party Unity will cut it is delusional. Maybe in ordinary election circumstances. These are extrordinary times requiring specific experienced action, not generalized calls for change. Should John McCain win election over Barak Obama, the Democrat Leadership has to take the credit.

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

FFC1304 — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:23:13 -0400

where are the Republican Super Delegates...why do we never hear about them?
anyone know?

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

FFC1304 — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:20:20 -0400

Delusion and Illusion you can believe in...he is an empty suit...not much there...pitiful

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

michelle63 — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:01:38 -0400

Greetings, Fellow North Carolina!

My name is Michelle, a White forty year old woman who for the first time, EXCITED about a candidate, his name is "BARACK OBAMA".

Super Delegates, I hope you see that "Barack Obama" is the only viable Presidential Candidate.

Barack Obama has brought younger Americans and new Democrats who are voting for the first time. This new influx of enthusiasm is because of "BARACK OBAMA".

Change we can believe in.

BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

UNChockeygirl — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:18:27 -0400

dahedgehog, that article is about earmarks (like the one Obama gave his wife's hospital after they gave her a huge raise), and it misrepresents the truth by saying that companies gave Clinton's campaign money. Companies can not give money directly, only individuals can give money,and they are limited to $2300 each per year. A company PAC which collects contributions from individuals can also give money, but is again limited to $5000 a year or campaign. What Obama has done is use bundlers who are not subject to the PAC limitations, and they have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals who head various industries.

I was talking about the HOPE PAC that Obama controls. He has taken corporate big wigs' money for this PAC and has been doling it out to those who endorse him and help him, which is far different from taking money from corporate sources via PACs (like Clinton) and using it in your own campaign or earmarks that create jobs for your district.

To my knowledge, no one has doled out cash to endorsers from a PAC the way Obama has, but I'd be happy to look at a website that says otherwise if you point me to it. And no one has used their own PAC to fund their campaign organization and train their workers because that would be illegal. Obama gets away with it because he said at the time that he had no intent to run for a national office, even though he was already beginning his campaign.

You are correct thatI had not read that opinion piece, and it apparently has not yet been published since it has a pub date of May 1, 2008.

For info on campaign finance I prefer a more neutral source, although it has not been updated to reflect all the additional money Obama and Clinton and McCain have taken in.

To read about how Obama is using his Hope PAC, including the way he lied to use it when he set up his campaign organization and trained his workers, go to

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama/Campaign_Financing

and click on the links to the HOPE PAC.

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

pradeepscool — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:56:34 -0400

There is a reason why Bill Clinton is mad at the media. The only time he gets a coverage is when he makes a mistake or says something controversial. The media doesn't report all the adulation he gets on the campaign trail from people who still love the former president because they associate him with the good economy and plentiful jobs of the 1990s.

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

dahedgehog — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:48:41 -0400

UNChockeygirl, you've obviously still failed to read this article. Hillary (and McCain) does the same thing:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20306341/the_queen_of_pork

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

UNChockeygirl — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:22:15 -0400

Have those that have declared their support for Obama gotten money from Obama's Hope PAC? He's been using it that way, but I couldn't find an update on it to see if he had used it to give NC democrats money too.

See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama%27s_contributions_to_campaign_endorsers

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

UNChockeygirl — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:18:58 -0400

Funny that one of those supporting Obama is a lobbyist since Obama claims he doesn't want lobbyists' support.

Stellar indeed

James_Protzman — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:35:03 -0400

Masters of sleaze, so to speak.

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

blculbre — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:31:42 -0400

I hope Hillary's web "volunteers" receive well paying positions on the McCain campaign after Obama wins the nomination. Their credentials are stellar!

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

jjsmith2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:23:32 -0400

Can we do something about people who do nothing but post chain emails here?

Re: North Carolina's superdelegates

blculbre — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:19:53 -0400

Grandpa's at the keyboard again...

re:FF1304

North Carolina's superdelegates

ryanteaguebeckwith — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:57:05 -0400

The superdelegates in North Carolina mostly backed Barack.

Here's a breakdown of the state's 19 superdelegates in the Democratic presidential primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Clinton

Gov. Mike Easley
U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler
Susan Burgess, Charlotte Councilwoman

Obama

U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield
U.S. Rep. David Price
U.S. Rep. Mel Watt
U.S. Rep. Brad Miller
Jerry Meek, N.C. Democratic Party chair
Dannie Montgomery, N.C. Democratic Party vice chair
Everett Ward, former Democratic Party director
Joyce Brayboy, public policy lobbyist
Jeanette Council, Cumberland County commissioner
Muriel K. Offerman, Democratic National Committee
David Parker, Statesville attorney
U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge
U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre

Uncommitted

Carol Peterson, Buncombe County commissioner
Two delegates to be named at the state convention.