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
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.