POLITICS -- Normally I defend us media types...

Does it seem to anyone else that the media is making too big a deal right now out of the delegates vs. superdelegates thing?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/17/2008.dems/index.html

I realize this could make for a strange showdown, but doesn't it seem awfully soon to be writing that neither Democratic candidate is expected to have the nomination sewn up before the convention?
I mean, a few months ago, McCain was dead in the water and Guliani was supposed to cruise. How did that turn out?
A potential big story, sure, but let's focus a little more on what is happening instead of what could happen four months from now. There could be plenty of twists and turns before then.

 

Exactly, though I prefer this pic...

 

There's no stopping the Superdelegate train ... TV loves buzz words like Superdelegates - kinda like hanging chad - they'll use it over and over until the election's over. It makes them sound important to themselves.

 

I should have been a little more clear.
It's not the talk of delegates vs. superdelegates that bothers me.
It's lines like this: "Neither is expected to have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination before the party's convention in August."
That is from the CNN story.
First, I was wrong before. The convention is in August, so it's six months away.
Second, how the hell do we know neither one will have it wrapped up before then? Maybe Obama's momentum continues and he destroy Clinton.
Maybe he says or does something incredibly stupid and fizzles out like Howard Dean.
We just don't know.
It's the surety of the quoted statement that I don't like.

 

Those foofs do it all the time. I've gotten to the point I try to tune it out now.

 

At this point, all I need to know is, "We won't know until August."

I could care less about the specifics. Give me two choices, I'll pick one. Sadly, so will most Americans.

 

The supers (a system which is absolutely absurd, IMO) make up something like 20 percent of all delegates, right? So if Obama and Clinton stay even close to neck and neck, and the supers don't have to declare until the convention, they can swing the whole thing.

All election coverage in this age is overblown, but I don't think this subject is out of proportion. It's a huge factor in the most important election in a generation.

In reality, the Dems would be out of their minds to leave their candidate unclear until the convention while the GOP entrenches its candidate's message. You have to assume superdelegates, who supposedly exist to protect the good of the party, will make sure it doesn't come to that.

 

Honestly, I think a lot of it is that political reporters are hoping and praying this all comes down to the convention, just so the convention isn't such a crashing bore to cover.

Every election season I hear that this is the year it may finally come down to a brokered convention. It's been 56 years since it has actually happened. I'm not holding my breath this time around.

(For that matter, every election is the one where the youth vote is really going to make the difference. I was 21 when Michael Dukakis was the Democratic nominee, and I was one of the young people who was going to really make a difference and "create change" and put Dukakis in office. Ask Zorba the Clerk how that worked out for him. I assume you'll find him in a soup kitchen in Massachusetts somewhere, mumbling to himself.)

 

I understand the media discussing it, because there hasn't been a party convention that has been so close in generations. And they kind-of have to discuss it, because it is a possiblity that it might happen and they don't want to spring it on people at the last minute before the convention.

Like the others on here have said, however, the media loves to focus on controversy. They love to predict what's going to happen before it actually happens. Nevermind that any circumstance can change things.

 

The only way this thing isn't brokered is if Obama sweeps Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by a huge margin. To get to the majority threshold without the superdelegates or Edwards' unpledged delegates swinging the final result.

However, it doesn't look like that's going to happen, with the way those three states apportion delegates. The Democratic system doesn't allow for much separation to take place if separation doesn't happen early, which had always been the case before now.

When it gets to Denver, you'll have to look at how each of the superdelegates' respective constituencies voted and guess whether or not they'll "respect their wishes." That'll be the fun part.

Brokered convention or not, I guarantee you the Dems will have a different system in place by 2012.

Till then ... get the chips and dip ready, brutha.

 

I would say they are much like us -- they are expected to have something to say, even when there is little left to say. Not only that, they are expected to dress up what they have to say and imbue it with "meaning" much as we are at certain times ... I remember sitting at the Super Bowl media brunch earlier this month, watching an endless FOX "debate" over whether Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback ever (by that evening, not so much), as part of the endless pregame show. Blah, blah, blah.
I don't think "we'll just have to see what happens here" is considered viable political commentary anymore, for better or worse.