Thought on Superdelegates

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
Do you think the party leaders are going to try to keep them split evenly? At this stage I think its in their best interests because it takes off the pressure they were under for potentially going against the popular vote. And its purely going to be in the hands of the people.
 
I don't know if there is much that party leaders can do about it, but from what I've read, MOST supers think they should fall in line w/ the elected delegates.

I'm concerned, though; I guess it's just my nature. I always feels like Clinton knows something we don't, and she talks to most of these people every week. She's going to absolutely trounce Obama in WV & Kentucky, and I don't know what effect that will have on perception.

I'm glad Obama is acting like it's over, even though I don't feel like it is yet.
 
LadyT said:
Do you think the party leaders are going to try to keep them split evenly? At this stage I think its in their best interests because it takes off the pressure they were under for potentially going against the popular vote. And its purely going to be in the hands of the people.
Click to expand...

My question is this... why have the supers if they are simply going to fall in lockstep with the popular vote split of delegates?
 
Onceler said:
I don't know if there is much that party leaders can do about it, but from what I've read, MOST supers think they should fall in line w/ the elected delegates.

I'm concerned, though; I guess it's just my nature. I always feels like Clinton knows something we don't, and she talks to most of these people every week. She's going to absolutely trounce Obama in WV & Kentucky, and I don't know what effect that will have on perception.

I'm glad Obama is acting like it's over, even though I don't feel like it is yet.
Click to expand...

That's the best part. He's basically lifting his nose at her and going on to bigger and more important things.

What's going to be amusing is how Clinton will cling to victory in those states as though she had a snow balls chance in at winning them in the general.

I wonder if she's going to invoke last saturday night live episode where they called her an evil sore loser.
 
"I wonder if she's going to invoke last saturday night live episode where they called her an evil sore loser."

I caught that; I don't think she is going to be bringing up SNL too much anymore.

I'm also interested, after 3-4 months of saying the election is about the "big states" and the "traditional Dem states", how she is going to spin big wins in WV & Kentucky. My guess is that those kinds of states will be much more important now.

I read an interesting note this morning, saying that it's actually good for Obama that she's in, because he would lose either state anyway, and it's much less embarassing losing either to an actual candidate....
 
Onceler said:
"I wonder if she's going to invoke last saturday night live episode where they called her an evil sore loser."

I caught that; I don't think she is going to be bringing up SNL too much anymore.

I'm also interested, after 3-4 months of saying the election is about the "big states" and the "traditional Dem states", how she is going to spin big wins in WV & Kentucky. My guess is that those kinds of states will be much more important now.

I read an interesting note this morning, saying that it's actually good for Obama that she's in, because he would lose either state anyway, and it's much less embarassing losing either to an actual candidate....
Click to expand...

Well, both are pretty insignificant as far as the general goes.

what do you think of those town hall styled debates that Obama was in favor of doing. He'd give the crypt keeper a stroke.
 
LadyT said:
I suppose in case someone completely unelectable recieved the nomination.
Click to expand...

yes, that is their stated purpose, but would it not totally piss off their electorate to say "you all are dumbshits for thinking person A has a chance of getting elected, therefore we are going with person B."

I don't ever see a time where the Dems are going to exert that kind of backbone.... standing up to their constituents??? I don't think so. (not that the Reps would do anything like that either)
 
Onceler said:
I don't know if there is much that party leaders can do about it, but from what I've read, MOST supers think they should fall in line w/ the elected delegates.

I'm concerned, though; I guess it's just my nature. I always feels like Clinton knows something we don't, and she talks to most of these people every week. She's going to absolutely trounce Obama in WV & Kentucky, and I don't know what effect that will have on perception.

I'm glad Obama is acting like it's over, even though I don't feel like it is yet.
Click to expand...

The nomination process is over, but the battle for the Democratic Party is still going on and will be until the party divests itself from the Clintons and the DLC.
 
Side note of something completely unrelated:
I was watching the traitor commonly referred to as Lieberman on CNN. He just makes my blood boil. He calls himself a democrat and this mf is supporting McCain. you should have heard him licking McCain's @$$.
 
LadyT said:
Side note of something completely unrelated:
I was watching the traitor commonly referred to as Lieberman on CNN. He just makes my blood boil. He calls himself a democrat and this mf is supporting McCain. you should have heard him licking McCain's @$$.
Click to expand...
LOL.

I suspect he may be running as VP again soon... :D
 
LadyT said:
Well, both are pretty insignificant as far as the general goes.

what do you think of those town hall styled debates that Obama was in favor of doing. He'd give the crypt keeper a stroke.
Click to expand...

While West Virginia probably will be inconsequential in the general it is interesting to note for you truly historical political junkies that no Democrat has won the Presidency without winning West Virginia since 1916.
 
cawacko said:
While West Virginia probably will be inconsequential in the general it is interesting to note for you truly historical political junkies that no Democrat has won the Presidency without winning West Virginia since 1916.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, its time for change.
 
Heres another one Senators never get elected to the presidency. That one looks like is bound to fall this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top