99)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
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.