Iowa's Tom Harkin is a fat, fat cat
Wants to be rid of superdelegates... next time.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Democrats | superdelegates — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a Dem, is livid about the notion of superdelegates to his party's convention.
"I am convinced this idea of superdelegates has to be done away with," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "It gives these superdelegates too much power to decide things at the end and it should not be that way."
Harkin, who is a Dem superdelegate, has not yet chosen between Hillary and Obama, although one would think, given Harkin's outrage, he would support the winner of his State's Presidential caucuses: Barack Obama. But no, Harkin wants to do away with superdelegates in the future, not while he can override the choice of his party voters to select the nominee he and his fellow fatcats in the smoke-filled Dem back rooms think should be the party's pick.
"You shouldn’t change (the rules) in the middle of the game," said Harkin.
So if the Dem voters make what he believes to be a dangerous choice, he can join the Dem movers-and-shakers and push Hillary over the top.
Indeed, Tom Harkin is a fat cat.
Four terms in the Senate, can't find his hat.
Or his shoes, for that matter. Imagine that.
That Tom Harkin is a fat, fat cat.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | To answer Bob (and Glenn's) question... — Comments (21) »
Iowa's Tom Harkin is a fat, fat cat 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It could be argued that the "game" does not begin until the delegates vote and are counted officially. I don't see any possible harm to their party of the process if the superdelegates were told before the convention that they had to vote for the person who received the most votes in their States' nominating contest.
I'd call it "changing the rules in the middle of the game" if they changed it during or after the first ballot.
Personally, I could care less. I just love seeing this so called "party of the people" dwarfed by this debate over the power of the elites vs. power of the electorate.
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg
I think retroactively changing the number of delegates each state carries would be totally unfair. We ARE in the middle of the game. Each candidate campaigned in each state under the assumption that states held a fixed number of delegates. To retroactively change those numbers would greatly affect each candidate's campaign strategy. Unfortunately, because of the retroactive change, the candidate's would be helpless to do anything about it, and that would be a complete farce.
However, I agree the current system is screwy.
The game begins when each candidate enacts a campaign strategy to collect as many delegates as possible. The game has already begun.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Isn't it equally as possible that Harkin is holding out his endorsement until all state delegates are counted and a clear favorite has emerged, in order to align his vote with the will of the majority?
Changing the role of superdelegates before a delegate vote is not a case of changing the nominating rules in midstream. The Party would merely be agree that all "superdelegates" would become delegates committed to the winner of their State's nominating contest.
Look, I've no dog in this race; rather, I'm pointing out that if Harkin thinks the superdelegate notion is deleterious to his party, he should work to eliminate it without compromising the results of the contest.
But to change the role of Super Delegates in such a way would retroactively change the delegate count for each state. So for example, all "Blue" states (ie states with Democratic Representatives, Senators, Governors, etc.) would all of a sudden gain a much bigger piece of the overall pie, while all "Red" states (ie few Democratic reps) would all of a sudden become much less relevant. Armed with this knowledge beforehand, don't you think this info could have, at least possibly, changed each candidate's campaign strategy? Since the candidate's can't go back and campaign under this proposed change (and it is a BIG change), it would be completely unfair to change things now.
That wouldn't change the relative values of the states at all.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That would seem to leave the integrity of the current campaign intact. But I've not been arguing against that. In my mind, retroactively changing the percentage of the pie each state receives would be wrong.
The Dem superdelegates are already named, and the Dem superdelegates are going to the convention. None of this changes.
All that changes is that the superdelegates would be committed to the winner of the State's Dem nominating process.
I think you're missing my point. If you all of a sudden FORCE delegates to vote for their state's nominee, then you retroactively all of a sudden make blue states MUCH more important while making red states MUCH less important (because they have proportionally far fewer Super Delegates). Don't you think Obama at least MIGHT have campaigned much harder in California had he known the blue state's delegate count would be retroactively increased by 70, that's right, seven-zero delegates?
Likewise, the District of Columbia would have increased it's delegate count by 250% and might no longer have been a throw away district for Clinton. Don't you think this at least MIGHT have changed her strategy there?
Meanwhile, Alaska, a state that currently has more delegates than the District of Columbia, would retroactively become half as important as DC under your proposed change.
The problem with your proposed retroactive change is that it GREATLY alters the success rate of each candidate's campaign strategy. If you're not willing to allow each candidate to recampaign in each state, with a new strategy designed to game the new rules, then you can't change the rules mid stream.
What is the matter with you people? I'm talking to all the people above me in this comment stream. You are writing about this as if (A) Democrats ever do anything because it's the logical or right thing to do, (B) it matters, and (C) Tom Harkin is a sentient being.
Tom Harkin is one of the class of human beings who should never be trusted with a gun, a pen, or a microphone. Unfortunately, the people of Iowa have entrusted him with one of their two precious Senate seats. To pretend that his opinion about anything goes any farther than consideration of the political possibilities for him is to give him way too much credit.
The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.
A) Do not underestimate them
B) It definitely DOES matter
C) I don't know him, I'll have to take your word
A) Do not underestimate them
B) It definitely DOES matter
C) I don't know him, I'll have to take your word
To me Tom Harkin will always be the guy behind Howard Dean when he let loose his infamous "scream".AAARRRGGGHHH!
I despise Tom Harkin and everything he stands for, starting with ethanol subsidies and just about every farm program out there. I could go on and on.
But, just to argue a bit, if the party were to abandon the superdelegate structure for this convention, wouldn't it not appear to be changing the rules in the middle of the game?
I think this is what Harkin's getting at. Although, in my view, anything that gets him riled up has to have an element of good in it.
---
According to Democrats, it’s greedy to want to keep your own money, but it’s “justice” to demand someone else’s.
--Jonah Goldberg