Based on polls Clintons wins nomination

"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.
It is designed so that people who register on that day could not create a candidate that the party wouldn't normally support. In this case the frontrunners are both pretty much somebody the party would support, I doubt they'd go that way.
 
"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.

Right…I believe that electoral votes don’t necessarily have to go to the winner of the popular vote in the states either? I know it’s that way at least in some states, I’m not sure how many. But when was the last time they went against the popular vote? I just don’t believe it’s anywhere near as feasible as certain blogs and outlets are making it out to be. You know there can be a freaking uprising in this country, and Obama has a huge amount of support from this country’s youth.
 
the point is, there super delegates count for a lot. More than some Joe Blow delegate from Iowa. Superdelegates bring money, recognition, and influence.

Noboby to my knoweldge has suggested throwing up their hands and giving up. the point is, there are two parallel tracks candidates have to compete on: the primaries, and the super delegates.

I emailed my senators and my Rep, asking them to endorse John Edwards months ago. Its the system we have, so we have to deal with it. Ignoring the importance of superdelegates is foolhardy
 
as it stands now obama is beating hillary in regular delegates and votes but hillary is crushing obama in super delegates.

if there is every a situation for a first where super delegates vote against the wishes of the voters.. i have feeling Clinton will be it
 
as it stands now obama is beating hillary in regular delegates and votes but hillary is crushing obama in super delegates.

if there is every a situation for a first where super delegates vote against the wishes of the voters.. i have feeling Clinton will be it

Of course you do! You were the first person to jump onto this and embrace it as destiny! This plays right into the Hillary is a monster/witch and is going to steal this thing by hook or by crook. It’s hopeless. She’s that powerful. Just like your mommy used to be.
The people pushing this in the blogosphere, in my opinion, also have this Hillary virus and it has made them prone to paranoid conspiracy theories.
I guess it could happen. But is it going to? Is Obama going to win the popular vote and be denied the nomination? Well, that I’ll believe when I see it.
And none of this is new information Chap.
 
The article Chap posted already talked about Claire McCaskill endorsing Obama, and Ted Kennedy is endorsing him today.

If he wins the most regular delegates, I don't see any way that the supers oppose that...
 
Of course you do! You were the first person to jump onto this and embrace it as destiny! This plays right into the Hillary is a monster/witch and is going to steal this thing by hook or by crook. It’s hopeless. She’s that powerful. Just like your mommy used to be.
The people pushing this in the blogosphere, in my opinion, also have this Hillary virus and it has made them prone to paranoid conspiracy theories.
I guess it could happen. But is it going to? Is Obama going to win the popular vote and be denied the nomination? Well, that I’ll believe when I see it.
And none of this is new information Chap.

Bush being a screw up isn't new information either, yet you and many lefty lemmings continue posting threads on the topic.

:tongout:
 
Of course you do! You were the first person to jump onto this and embrace it as destiny! This plays right into the Hillary is a monster/witch and is going to steal this thing by hook or by crook. It’s hopeless. She’s that powerful. Just like your mommy used to be.
The people pushing this in the blogosphere, in my opinion, also have this Hillary virus and it has made them prone to paranoid conspiracy theories.
I guess it could happen. But is it going to? Is Obama going to win the popular vote and be denied the nomination? Well, that I’ll believe when I see it.
And none of this is new information Chap.

actually it started with me looking at the polls and seeing hillary in the lead in CA, NJ, NY, and a few other big delegate states. then cypress talked about the super delegates.. which i am not familiar with.. so this has been a learning experience for me.

i dont need anything to play into my hands as some master grand scheme. Hillary is a crook and a cheat and will eventually expose herself.
 
The article Chap posted already talked about Claire McCaskill endorsing Obama, and Ted Kennedy is endorsing him today.

If he wins the most regular delegates, I don't see any way that the supers oppose that...

I agree.

And I think it holds even if Hillary gets out her cauldron and cackles over it as she drops in little dolls of the Super-delegates, and maybe even one of Chap.
 
as it stands now obama is beating hillary in regular delegates and votes but hillary is crushing obama in super delegates.

if there is every a situation for a first where super delegates vote against the wishes of the voters.. i have feeling Clinton will be it


I think Obama is enough of an establishment figure to compete on super delegates.

I'm talking about somebody like Howard Dean, or Dennis Kucinich. The establishment and super delegates would fight tooth and nail to keep them from getting the nomination.

And not just in a 'horse race" kind of way. Like I said earlier, I doubt the super delegates would ever overturn the will of the voters. But, by virtue of their influence in money, media, influence, and recognition, they play as much - if not MORE - of a role, than some Jane Doe delegate from New Hampshire.

That's why Obama probably spends as much time wooing super delegates, as he does wooing voters.

I threw this out as a simple statement of fact. Don't panic yet.
 
actually it started with me looking at the polls and seeing hillary in the lead in CA, NJ, NY, and a few other big delegate states. then cypress talked about the super delegates.. which i am not familiar with.. so this has been a learning experience for me.

i dont need anything to play into my hands as some master grand scheme. Hillary is a crook and a cheat and will eventually expose herself.


Hillary isn't going to steal anything. She's a shrewd, skilled politician who has the support of much of the establishement. That's just a fact, not a crime.

The establishment - in this case the super delegates - brings money and influence, and media exposure. I guarantee you that if Edwards was winning among the super delegates he wouldn't be in a distant third place, nor would he be begging for media coverage and money. That's the true insidious nature of the establishment.

Obama is not an idiot. He's going to spend a ton of time, trying to collect superdelegate sponsors. Because he knows the race doesn't simply come down to the voters.
 
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

The super delegates are 15%-20% of the total. The 40% figure is extremely misleading - you need half of the delegates to win, so basically the super delegates are 40% of half of the convention.

But the Democrats are a political party, and they get to decide their own candidate by their own rules. They've decided to give voters a chance in some areas to fill in the blanks, but they are under no requirement to do so. The general election is what will punish them with voters if they choose badly.
 
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".

The Republicans don't have superdelegates, but due to their winner-take-all nomination process one guy usually has a landslide in delegates anyway, so superdelegates wouldn't make a difference.
 
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.

I don't think, since the proportional system was put into place in 1970, the race has ever been close enough for superdelegates to make a difference.
 
Right…I believe that electoral votes don’t necessarily have to go to the winner of the popular vote in the states either? I know it’s that way at least in some states, I’m not sure how many. But when was the last time they went against the popular vote? I just don’t believe it’s anywhere near as feasible as certain blogs and outlets are making it out to be. You know there can be a freaking uprising in this country, and Obama has a huge amount of support from this country’s youth.

The last time the state legislature elected a slate of electoral votes was, I believe, in 1800.
 
And what about whenever Edwards gives his delegates to Obama?
In order to do that he'll need to win some of the full blown ones. He'll need 15% of the delegates. You can't get that if you don't win one of the states that give 100% of their delegates to the winner. He won't be a broker because he won't win 15%.
 
In order to do that he'll need to win some of the full blown ones. He'll need 15% of the delegates. You can't get that if you don't win one of the states that give 100% of their delegates to the winner. He won't be a broker because he won't win 15%.

None of the Democratic primaries give 100% of the delegates to the winner. Only Republicans disfranchise the minority in that way.
 
None of the Democratic primaries give 100% of the delegates to the winner. Only Republicans disfranchise the minority in that way.
As far as I understand Florida does exactly that. However, he'll still need more than he has to be a broker. In a few he got a bit less than 15%. I predict he will not be a broker at the convention.
 
Back
Top