Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats

pudge's Journal: I Think You're Super, Superdelegate 12

Journal by pudge

I really don't care one way or another about the superdelegates. But when inspiration strikes, you gotta strike back. Hence, this ode, called, simply, "Superdelegate."

Chorus:
Superdelegate, I don't know you, but I love you
Superdelegate, you make me feel warm inside
Superdelegate, I didn't vote for you
But I really think you're super, Superdelegate

We can't trust ourselves to choose
'Coz we've got so much to lose
So we ask you, please
Protect us from ourselves

Chorus

I will use my voice
I will state my choice
I will stand up and be counted
But not as much as you

Chorus

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I Think You're Super, Superdelegate

Comments Filter:
  • by sulli (195030) * on Wednesday May 07, 2008 @12:53PM (#23325920) Journal
    Thanks for asking!
  • ...I would probably be saying "I for one welcome our superdelegate overlords". Okay maybe not.

    But I'm under the impression that the Dems have more primaries that are (stupidly) open to non- "registered as Dems", so maybe that's why they give "the will of the people" less emphasis than the GOP does.
    • by jdavidb (449077) *

      Usually the openness or closedness or exact arrangements of a primary are decided by the state and are identical for the two major parties. The main reason you're seeing crossover now is not so much because the Democratic primaries work differently, but because there's a strategic advantage to doing so that outweighs the benefits of voting in one's own party's primary, if one is a Republican. In other years, it has been the other way around.

      • by Bill Dog (726542)
        Usually the openness or closedness or exact arrangements of a primary are decided by the state....

        That's like saying how people drive on freeways is decided by the drivers. In some misrepresentative sense it's true.

        On the rest of that, yes, I've heard of "Operation Chaos" and I find it a little unsettling. I can see the point that if Dems are stupid enough to open their primaries, why not take advantage of them. I can also see the point that the mainstream news media (i.e. Dems) did their best and were wild
        • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

          Usually the openness or closedness or exact arrangements of a primary are decided by the state....

          That's like saying how people drive on freeways is decided by the drivers. In some misrepresentative sense it's true.

          I don't think it is misrepresentation. In Washington, we have no party registration, so all primaries are necessarily open by default. We have had in the past some "declarations" that link a voter to party, but state law, passed by initiative and recently upheld by the Supreme Court of the U.S., is that no one can be required to show or claim party affiliation in order to vote in any election (although this may not apply to the Presidential primary, even though by its language it necessarily does ... I

        • by jdavidb (449077) *

          That's like saying how people drive on freeways is decided by the drivers. In some misrepresentative sense it's true.

          I'm at a loss as to what sense in which it is not true. In Texas, the Texas legislature set things up such that anyone may go to vote in ONE primary of their choice. There is no party registration. There is no party membership other than what you consider yourself to be (or, I suppose, what you run as if you're a candidate). Your registration card used to get stamped with the name of the primary you voted in; I'm not sure if that's true any more, and in any case, it still doesn't reflect party members

        • by jdavidb (449077) *

          Judging by Wikipedia's article on the subject [wikipedia.org], I'm correct; this is pretty much a state government decision, not a party decision. Where did you hear that the Democrats had more open primaries than the Republicans? I'm sure there could be a couple of states where the parties get to make their own decision, but I doubt there are many.

          Hmm, I do see that California [fairvote.org] allows some latitude to the parties, giving the Democratic party a primary that's more open than the Republican. But they still have a party r

          • by Bill Dog (726542)
            Where did you hear that the Democrats had more open primaries than the Republicans?

            I counted 5 in your 2nd link. I don't know what to make of that description of IL's rule.

            I have another impression that you may disagree with, and it looks like Pudge will too, and that is that the parties sue the states, and primarily (pun intended) win, when states try to have primaries more open (or closed) than the parties wish. But maybe my impression originates more from wishful thinking than actuality -- states dictati
            • by jdavidb (449077) *

              I counted 5 in your 2nd link

              I think you're right. Interesting how it always seems to be the Democrats. I guess that's cause they "believe in democracy" so much they want everyone to be able to vote to control their private affairs, even if you're not a democrat.

              Some of those were in states where you'd still have obstacles if you were registered Republican and didn't change in time.

              states dictating political party rules is so backwards and un-American to me that it would be hard for me to accept as the reality

              I understand; it is an unAmerican interference in a private matter. But it's also the reality in, apparently, about 45 states or so.

            • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot

              states dictating political party rules is so backwards and un-American to me that it would be hard for me to accept as the reality.

              Well, again, it's a matter of the fact that states pay for the primaries. So they have a say in the matter. What a state CANNOT do -- although many states do it! -- is say "the party must have as its nominee the person who wins according to the process we define." So they can say "anyone can participate in the primary we pay for" but they can't say the primary has to have any meaning for the party.

              And unfortunately, the Supreme Court just ruled that allowing a candidate on the ballot to say "I prefer th

  • by jdavidb (449077) *

    I love the lyrics. For those of us on crippled Free Software OSes with no Flash plugin, when can we get an MP3 on PudgeTunes?

    • by pudge (3605) * Works for Slashdot
      I don't recreate them for PudgeTunes. But I do have them posted as MPEG-4 files in a special video feed [pudge.net] (which was a bit behind, but I just updated it).

All constants are variables.

Working...