Based on polls Clintons wins nomination

She's the favorite right now, but there aren't any polls that reflect the last few days yet. The margin of Obama's victory in SC should affect his national #'s somewhat, and the margin also indicates that something happened last week in the campaign that might seep into other states as they gear up for 2/5.

Ted Kennedy is also going to campaign hard for Obama this week, according to some reports I've read, which will really help him w/ primary voters....
 
Onceler said:
She's the favorite right now, but there aren't any polls that reflect the last few days yet. The margin of Obama's victory in SC should affect his national #'s somewhat, and the margin also indicates that something happened last week in the campaign that might seep into other states as they gear up for 2/5.

Ted Kennedy is also going to campaign hard for Obama this week, according to some reports I've read, which will really help him w/ primary voters....
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to you, but in a close nomination race, it's entirely possible that the voters won't choose the nominee. The veneer of "democracy" is more or less a charade.

In a close race, the only thing that count are the "super delegates"; i.e., democratic members of congress and democratic governors. If the race is super close, the one who racks up the most endorsements of establishment Dems - the super delegates - wins the cookie. In theory, it's entirely possible that one candidate could win the most delegates and the most votes, but the establishment super delegates could throw their weight behind the second place candidate.
 
Cypress said:
I hate to break it to you, but in a close nomination race, it's entirely possible that the voters won't choose the nominee. The veneer of "democracy" is more or less a charade.

In a close race, the only thing that count are the "super delegates"; i.e., democratic members of congress and democratic governors. If the race is super close, the one who racks up the most endorsements of establishment Dems - the super delegates - wins the cookie. In theory, it's entirely possible that one candidate could win the most delegates and the most votes, but the establishment super delegates could throw their weight behind the second place candidate.
Click to expand...

So how do you see this play out?
 
Chapdog said:
So how do you see this play out?
Click to expand...

I think the establishment would like to maintain the veneer of the "democratic" proces, and they would like to avoid the super delegates over ruling the wishes of primary voters. But, the system is in place, in theory, to make sure the establishment can short circuit a candidate that's not to their liking.

But, I'll say this. I don't know what the super delegate count is right now, but if they throw their weight behind Hillary, Obama's got a much tougher uphill climb than merely worrying about polls and delegates chosen by voters.
 
I'm not so sure that the establishment isn't starting to turn on the Clintons a little bit.

Kennedy is certainly a part of that establishment, so his endorsement bodes well. I think the superdelegates would have a very difficult time over-riding the will of the voters, if it came to that. My only uncertainty is whether Obama can muster enough votes on Tuesday to at least stay even with Hillary.
 
Onceler said:
I'm not so sure that the establishment isn't starting to turn on the Clintons a little bit.

Kennedy is certainly a part of that establishment, so his endorsement bodes well. I think the superdelegates would have a very difficult time over-riding the will of the voters, if it came to that. My only uncertainty is whether Obama can muster enough votes on Tuesday to at least stay even with Hillary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think Obama could start racking up a decent super delegate count. Which is encouraging for Obama supporters, because I think Hillary was killing him in the super delegate count.

And I don't know what the exact formula is, but I think a super delegate counts much, much more than a regular delegate in the nomination process.
 
"but I think a super delegate counts much, much more than a regular delegate in the nomination process."

Well, they are "super."

Friggin' hell - you never really hear about the "supers" unless the race is close like this; then, like you said, you realize that we don't live in a democracy after all.
 
Chapdog said:
ok i read up on it. what a crock of shit.. obama hasnt got a chance. my excitement at the prospect of obama as president is gone. guess i have to vote for mccain or romney now.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-endorse14jan14,0,2183509.story?coll=la-home-center
Click to expand...


bingo. told ya.

Obama needs to crank it up and rack up super delegates. I'm afraid we all let ourselves be bamboozled by "polls" and delegate counts. Color me not suprised that the corporate media doesn't inform people that the alleged "democratic" primary process is, more or less, a potempkin village.


edit:

from your article:

"So there are essentially two campaigns unfolding simultaneously: one for rank-and-file voters; the other for the 796 super delegates who account for nearly 40% of the total needed to win. "


Holy crap, I didn't know it was that much
 
Last edited:
Chapdog said:
is it like this on the republican side as well?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

But, the GOP virtually always nominates the establishment figure, or the guy "who's turn it is". Every candidate they've nominated in my life time, was the guy who had been waiting in the wings for years, and "who's turn it was".
 
Damocles said:
I think so, only we have about half the delegate count, thus half the supers...
Click to expand...


the system is designed to keep insurgent candidates from winning. It's why we'll rarely ever see a non-establishment candidate get nominated.

Jimmy Carter was kind of an exception.
 
This whole thread is making me sick in so many ways, some of which I could articulate, and some of which I really can’t because the BS I’d have to endure after doing so isn’t worth it.

Vote for who you want to win, and don’t listen too much to the conventional wisdom. There’s nothing new on this thread, it’s been all over cyberspace and even MSM for weeks now.

Is it an undemocratic system? Yeah. Vote anyway. Don’t make it easy for them.
 
Darla said:
This whole thread is making me sick in so many ways, some of which I could articulate, and some of which I really can’t because the BS I’d have to endure after doing so isn’t worth it.

Vote for who you want to win, and don’t listen too much to the conventional wisdom. There’s nothing new on this thread, it’s been all over cyberspace and even MSM for weeks now.

Is it an undemocratic system? Yeah. Vote anyway. Don’t make it easy for them.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
"Is it an undemocratic system? Yeah. Vote anyway. Don’t make it easy for them."

Very true. If the regular delegates are in favor of one candidate, there would be a pretty significant uproar & a ton of scrutiny on the superdelegates if they went the other way.

It's actually kind of hard to imagine it transpiring that way. I have to believe that the supers will follow the regular delegates, and shy away from opposing the will of the voters.
 
Onceler said:
"Is it an undemocratic system? Yeah. Vote anyway. Don’t make it easy for them."

Very true. If the regular delegates are in favor of one candidate, there would be a pretty significant uproar & a ton of scrutiny on the superdelegates if they went the other way.

It's actually kind of hard to imagine it transpiring that way. I have to believe that the supers will follow the regular delegates, and shy away from opposing the will of the voters.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the supers are for the most part (if not all) elected officials. Going against the will of the voters is therefore done at their own peril.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top