Politics – Barring a huge late turnaround, the deciding votes for the Democratic nomination will come from the approximately 800 "superdelegates," automatically seated and free to vote as they please. Who are these powerful insiders? Why are they there? The story goes back 40 years, to the bloody debacle of the 1968 convention and subsequent loss to Richard Nixon.
And the democratic party thinks their people are just to STUPID to make the right decision.....and the people go along with it.
From what I hear about SDs is that they can change their votes all the way to the time of the convention, is that correct?
Now for some reason every SD decides to go with Hillary and put her over the top, would the Obama Supporters in the Democrat party be OK with that?
I doubt it. Though, to a certain degree they can use their judgement regarding 'electability', Superdelegates cannot decide on whim. If the popular vote favors Obama, the Superdelegates would be hard pressed to justify swinging the primary in Clinton's favor (which is why Clinton now wants FL and MI to be counted).
Unless, of course, Obama is discovered in a hotel room buggering Cheney.
They will be no change, they were and never will be, you on the right wants us to think things are arkaic truth is things are proceeding as they should. With the right you are media drivven, that's not the same for us. All this talk about Hill still in the race and how bad it is for us is comming from the talking heads and they matters as much as flushed turd! Besides you should be worried about McCain and your spin that Obama is calling him old when he said he was out of step. You don't get it on the right your time is UP! people are not buying into your spin.
Sen. Barack Obama plans to claim the Democratic presidential nomination on the evening of May. 20.
Latest W. Va poll May 8 Clinton 63 Obama 23, Clinton up from 56-27 twi days ago. So Clinton up 40 pts. in West Va. and up 34 pts in Kentucky & on the day of the Kentucky primary where he'll lose by astonishing numbers for the 2nd straight week Obama is going to announce victory.
If he does that he'll look as foolish as George Bush did on the Air Craft Carrier announcing victory in Iraq almost 5 years ago. Good fodder for McCain & the 527's.
That's why the superdelegates are there, to prevent an unelectable candidate who for some unknown reason won a few early primaries from embarrassing the party by lopsided loses like those of McGovern, Dukakis & Mondale!
Have you notice that the Media is already claiming Obama the winner? On all the Pundit TV on Sunday, Front Pages of Major Magazines etc. I though the media was suppose to "REPORT" what the news is not PROJECT what they want it to be.
Actually, the media can do whatever the hell it pleases. Serious journalism is gone, gone, gone.
Yeah, many talking heads are saying the Fat Lady has sung. If you look at the delegate math, that's not too far off the mark. Hillary's only hope is wring as many votes out of the FL and MI compromises and continue to suggest that Obama is unelectable, but again, all that really does is make uniting behind the eventual nominee more difficult AND give ammunition to the Reps in the Fall.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
chukajung
alamala
livia1954
babsonkacey
CliffordMackey
HowardGeddinge
harveyditak
hhttgx72
whodey08
ojivux72
Freddsywer
PrettyBalloon
HiHoney
Raiderwall
ETproductions
SunnyDays
Torres54
bibbicletus
schristoforides
idyll
Rigel
Nowalive
Macas
Emmanuel70
raesepis
ind06
Rinty
dissent
funkywallpapers
joedevil
bizexpert
Ratskii
jw.olinger
baddad59
Redneck
parkermark50
nancystanias
thinkingserious
siri.tongsirikul
Pupi
hurr1
meckgo
Amroch
wangyy1980
avpd85
Aidenag
ckurasri
games1989
jovial
99)
"Super delegate" will be choosing Democratic nominee, but Supreme Court will, as usual, chooses Republican president... LOL.
Right one one but I'm not sure of the other. Of course that has happened a couple of times. Screwed up any way one looks at it. The people no longer have a say in which candidate will be, or get the nomination and little to none on who gets elected.
"As usual"? Get over it, already. Bush would have won Florida anyway.
What a party. Obama could have won every state by a landslide and the "Super delegates" could still decide to give John Kerry another go at it.
Oh yeah, Michigan and Florida, just shut up. You don't get a voice.
Nice party.
LOCKY:
"Obama could have won every state by a landslide and the "Super delegates" could still decide to give John Kerry another go at it."
Firstly, a Democratic candidate needs 2025 delegate votes to win the Democratic Party nomination. The number of superdelegates in play is FAR short of that mark.
Secondly, while the idea of superdelegates may seem unsavory at first, it does have its usefulness. Superdelegates can ensure that the candidate supported by most registered Democrats gets the nomination, despite the influence of Republicans and Independents in Open Primaries. This blunting sabotaging efforts, like Limbaugh's so-called "Operation Chaos."
"Superdelgates" is a completely stupid idea as is dividing delegates in statewide primaries based upon localized vote results. I know liberals would LOVE it if presidential elections were done the same way, but all it does is make the process that much more muddied and downright ugly at times. The 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is a perfect example.
Also, you might have read accounts of Democrats possibly scrapping the entire matter and nominating a third candidate, such as Al Gore. It won't happen, but it has been suggested; therefore, it is possible.
LIBS:
""Superdelgates" is a completely stupid idea"
Tell that to your Republican "Automatic Delegates." While the idea of superdelegates might seem initially unsavory, they do serve a useful purpose.
Not that your opinion matters. After all, who are you to meddle in intraparty affairs for a party of which you are not even a member? LOL.
LIBS:
"you might have read accounts of Democrats nominating Al Gore."
Not all media rumors are considered "possible." Perhaps you didn't finish reading your own story because EVEN THAT unlikely scenario would require Obama surrending the nearly 1900 delegates he has won.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859...
"Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along."
There is NO such scenario whereby the Democratic leadership could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from them unwillingly. Clearly reading comprehension is not your forte.
"There is NO such scenario whereby the Democratic leadership could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from them unwillingly. Clearly reading comprehension is not your forte."
I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?
Your parents still upset they wasted all that cash on your degree? You still pretending you have done peer-reviewed research but think "sampling" is somehow tied to math? LOL. friggin' looney.
Truth be told, the committed delegates in BOTH parties are actually free to vote their will. Since they are selected for their strong support of the candidate that won their state, they rarely do other than the voters directed them to do, but they can.
One scenario where that might happen, and where BTW it ought to happen, is if a horrendous corruption or vote-rigging scam was discovered after the primaries but before the convention. In such a case, the delegates (super or not) would all be crazy to just vote for the soiled candidate anyway. They could reasonably assume that, had the voters known then what is known now, they would have cast their votes differently.
LIBS:
"I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?"
Wow. You truly are illiterate. FYI, I did NOT cite this article to demonstrate that I was magically able to locate the exact article on which you are basing your misconceptions--in fact, with your blatant disregard for documentation, I question whether you can read at all. What is at issue are the rules for nomination stated in that article. The article clearly states that there is NO such scenario whereby superdelegates could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from then unwillingly. In order to nominate Gore, Obama would have to willingly surrender the 1900 votes he has already won.
What are these rules so difficult for you to comprehend?
LOL.
I guess I shouldn't expect so much from a Safety School reject with a degree in Paparazzi.
Pathetic.
despite the influence of Republicans and Independents in Open Primaries.
Oh but the fun the Dems had in the early open Republican primaries didn't bother the likes of you on the Left.... stop whining,,,,, people can do with their vote as they wish,,, even if that means voting for a Democrat,,,
Or a Republican, lol. Seriously though, the last time Virginia had a caucus instead of a primary, the Republicans nominated Olie North for Senate! Thank God the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans wouldn't go for that one. We've had primaries for both parties ever since.
SLATE:
"Oh but the fun the Dems had in the early open Republican primaries didn't bother the likes of you on the Left."
Sure it bothers me. Where did I say it didn't? Go ahead and quote my exact words back to me, if you can.
SLATE:
"stop whining,,,,, people can do with their vote as they wish,"
I suggest you take your own advice and stop your whining. The Party primaries are INTRAPARTY AFFAIRS, and since you're NOT a registered Democrat, your opinion is even more inconsequential than usual.
Your sense of self-righteousness is laughable considering the fact that the Republican Party also has Superdelegates; they just call them "Automatic Delegates."
LOL. Pathetic.
I agree you are quite pathetic indeed with the attitude you have on the subject at hand.
I am registered with no party, would that mean to you that I can't or don't deserve a vote? Or that I'm not allowed to vote any way I want? On a closed elitist mind would thnk that way.
If you had one candidate worthy to actually win without going all the way to this late in the game and the supers not have to come to play then you'd not have to have so many sleepless nights pondering the possibility that you may not get what you demand.
If the primaries in question are OPEN then they are OPEN to all Dems, Repubs and INDs., not just those you feel are worthy to cast a vote,,,,
You call me Self Righteousness? hehehe then why is it You are the ones upset because your lttle parade isn't going well. Heck I think it's fun to watch you guys freak out about it.
SLATE:
"I am registered with no party, would that mean to you that I can't or don't deserve a vote? Or that I'm not allowed to vote any way I want?"
Actually, that would mean to me that you are clearly illiterate, as I ALREADY stated below: "Of course, it would also be possible to close all primary elections, but I think disenfranchising Independents would be a graver injustice."
You can vote in any open primary you wish, but that should not override the Democrats' ability to choose their own candidate. This is NOT a general election; it is a PARTY PRIMARY and the PARTY chooses its nominee.
The fact that you continue to confuse the goals of the general election with the goals of a party primary comes as no surprise.
LOL.
"I agree you are quite pathetic indeed with the attitude you have on the subject at hand."
Can't say I disagree with you, Slate. He's a perfect example of the pompous, elitist a$$ produced by Yale, as is Al Gore. They must loathe the fact Bush went to Yale and did better than Gore.
What's the matter? Can't find a substantive argument to counter my own document-supported logic?
Why don't you cry about it?
I guess they didn't teach you that in Paparazzi school.
LOL.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05...
"There were anecdotal reports of big turnout in Republican precincts in Indiana – with, presumably, Republican voters asking for Democratic presidential ballots. 11% of the voters in Indiana tonight were Republican-- and they went for Clinton over Obama 52% to 46%."
Of course, it would also be possible to close all primary elections, but I think disenfranchising Independents would be a graver injustice.
Thirdly, the nomination process represents INTRAPARTY BUSINESS. As you're obviously not a member of the party, your opinion doesn't matter anyway. Democrats are free to choose their nominee any way they see fit.
Fourthly, after the neocons' collective disgust at McCain's nomination (Independents and Crossover voters flocking to McCain), it sounds like you would have liked similar rules to prevent McCain from winning the nomination.
LOL.
And fifthly, your partisan hypocrisy prevents you for acknowledging the fact that Republicans have superdelegates too. They just call them by a different name, "automatic delegates."
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/storie...
"Reed had collected sufficient position to appeal the decision of the convention's rules committee to give all 165 members of the Republican National Committee automatic delegate slots at the 2004 convention. To Reed, that will begin a slippery slope toward the Democratic Party's installations of more than 500 super-delegates."
In BOTH the Democratic Party and Republican Party, the number of Superdelegate votes or Automatic Delegate votes is INSUFFICIENT to win the party's nomination. However, it does give party leaders leverage to counter efforts by the opposing party to sabotage or influence the primary elections.
Who said the Rs haven't acknowledged anything Dawgs?
You see we haven't had the problem of the infighting that your party has once things get moving along,,,, this is a problem you are having to face at this time in history,,,, you saying but but you have them too shows weakness, butch up and deal with your problem at hand or you may end up really being up set with the outcome next fall,,,, the only people you can blame is your own party, for being such knuckle heads and getting into this mess in the first place,,,, all I have to do is sit back and watch,,,,, a few months ago I was resigned to the fact that all was lost, but people in your party have given me a glimmer of hope now, because the smugness in your own party has bitten ya in da behind,,,,
SLATE:
"you saying but but you have them too shows weakness, butch up and deal with your problem at hand or you may end up really being up set with the outcome next fall"
What problem? There is no problem. The only problem here is your continued bitching about intraparty protocol for a party you are NOT even a member of.
I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to comprehend.
LOL.
Pathetic.
What problem? There is no problem. The only problem here is your continued bitching about intraparty protocol for a party you are NOT even a member of.
Ahhhh but let someone from a another country talk about our politics , especially when they side with you is ok? You are one funny Puppy
SLATE:
"Ahhhh but let someone from a another country talk about our politics , especially when they side with you is ok?"
What's the matter? Forced to change the subject because you can't muster a document-supported argument to counter my own? It appears your ADHD is flaring up again, and your meds are far past due.
Typical.
LOL.
I heard Gore is the man - then they can't say they didn't choose or not choose the the most votes or the most delegates
but Supreme Court will, as usual, chooses Republican president... LOL.
Say it enough times and everyone will believe it and change history to reflect your lie. Next thing you know some nut job will say Bush pulled off 9/11 to make a little cash.
.
"Bush pulled off 9/11 to make a little cash."
Interesting that you would say that!
It is a conservative court isn't is? What are the chances that a conservative court would side with the liberals?
the same odds that a liberal court would side with the liberals.
Hopefully judges, not politicians.
Hopefully the people, not judges or politicians.
I think when we had a court that was balance sensible laws were pass. To take away a persons right to be illegally search is stupid. This court is the worse thus far! But what do you expect from Bush. And to answer your question, a DEM court was fare and balance and regarded as the best ever! That would be the last group of guys that these idiots are replacing!
I will say this first. The GOPers has one up on us. I think they will win and here is why. McCain will pick Colin Powell as his VP. I saw where he said bush should sign the home owners relief bill. He hasn't said anything for the last year and now this. What they will do is have him hammer bush on everything for the next few months then McCain will announce him as the VE. In one instance the off set the black thing and add a man the entire nation loves and respect. Given the fact that Most DEM's have a soft spot for McCain and like Colin, that would be a tough ticket to beat. We never saw this coming. But Obama could cross party lines and pick a Conservative opponent. It's an idea what do you think?
I think you're a bit behind the times. Dems used to have a soft spot for McCain, back in his 'Maverick' days. Lately McCain has flipped his positions to be much more in line with the Bush administration.
You could argue that Powell is attractive, but less so after he grabbed his ankles to deliver the cooked and blurry intel to the UN leading up to the war. Since that time, Powell has barely been a blip on the radar, which is probably to his advantage.
Anything is possible Black,,,,,, this is the most interesting political season of my life, that's for sure,,, it will be discussed for some time in the future
interesting observations
"It's an idea what do you think?"
I think you get the first positive vote I ever gave one of your comments. I don't think either scenario will happen though, but I agree Obama will not win. He's too out of touch with Middle America, and you can't win without Middle America. That's the point Hillary has been harping for a while, but Middle America doesn't much care for her, either.
Out of touch with middle America? He is from middle America that doesn't make any sense to me, the reason why he came so close in Indi is because he is from there, what people seem to forget this guy took TX. He has done well in the south and the West and north tends to go DEM for the most part. Obama's only problem is who he picks for a running mate. I am incline to say Edwards. Beating him will not be as easy as you would like us to think. I think the Colin Idea is the only chance you have. He was against this war he quit because of it and trust me it's the war stupid.
!Oh libsR Iam not here for pos or negs, truth is the more you neg me the more I am sure I am correct in my opinion