democratic super delegates

[BlackThoughT]

I dont really understand what they actually are, anyone care to explain?

[Suicidal Anomaly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_delegates

In a close race like this they carry about 1/5 of the delegate votes but they're individuals casting these votes. Essentially the candidate who wins more votes and more states can lose if the super delegates vote against him or her.

[Sutterkane]

God DAMN democrats are FUCKED UP.

That's a very communist way of selecting your candidate.

[dys]

The super delegates are the ones that will bring down the democratic party in 08 if (and possibly, when) they vote hillary in.

[shock-g]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2008_United_States_Democratic_Party_superd elegates

Start writing emails people

[Stayne]

It takes something like this election cycle to point out the flaws of a system. In the past, the candidates have usually become pretty separated in their numbers of pledged delegates early on, with super tuesday being the night that pretty much decideds the candidate. Thus, the superdelegates were basically just special people who sided with the already "elected" winner. Not a big deal. Certainly nothing to accuse them of communism over...

(On a side note, I listed through the communist manifesto recently. It was written in 1848, over 150 years ago, yet it predicts extremely well the situation that free-market capitalism has put the US in today. So, say what you will about the regimes that tried and failed to implement communism, but Marx deserves some kudos.)

I think the media networks are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. Obama already has a sizeable lead in pledged (voted) delegates (about 150, depending on the source--which is also weird). He would have to seriously fuck up for Hillary to overcome that lead. The superdelegates are free to move from candidate to candidate, and several have already switched from Hillary to Obama. More will follow. In addition, there are still about 400 superdelegates that haven't chosen a candidate. I imagine that yesterday's solid win by Obama in the white "Hillary" state of Wisconsin will convince a few more of them to side with him.

I think March 4 can be game point for Obama. If he wins those 4 primaries (Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island), its over. There is absolutely no way Hillary can catch up with the remaining primaries. She could pull a Huckabee, but I think it will only hurt her future to stay in beyond that point.

Bill Clinton has basically stated this:
"If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you," the former president told the audience at the beginning of his speech. (http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4318311)

And James Carville, an analyst and Hillary supporter goes further:
"She’s behind. Make no mistake. If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done." (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/the_buzz/2008/02/carville-and-ma.html)

As it is, even though from watching the Media Networks you wouldn't know it, Hillary is leading in Ohio (52-43% (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/ohpres_d/)) and Texas (50-45% (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/txpres_d/)). Of course, she has led in every state, except maybe Illinois, until Obama has started campaigning in that state. That's the part that the networks have been leaving out. He has two weeks to hit Ohio and Texas. With his very limited campaigning in Texas to date, the original gap has already closed to 5% (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/txpres_d/). I'd say he's on target for a win in Texas. With his solid win (17%) in Wisconsin, I'd say that his chances are good in Ohio as well.

So, to summarize, I don't think the superdelegates are going to be a problem, and I think the Democratic nominee will be decided in two weeks.

For the McCain supporters out there (who usually are adamant Hillary haters), can you explain why both candidates gave the exact same speech last night?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179247.php

[Cyberdemon]

God DAMN democrats are FUCKED UP.

That's a very communist way of selecting your candidate.

Republicans have analogous "unpledged delegates" too, although I don't think there are quite as many.

Basically the supers are a collection of 700-800 elected officials and party bigshots who can cast a nomination vote at the DNC just like pledged delegates, except they're not beholden to the popular vote. They can go any which way they like. Technically this means the pledged delegates could go one way and the supers another, but supers are typically savvy enough to know that it would split the party in half and is more or less the only hope the Republicans have to win the general election, assuming Obama keeps steamrolling Hillary.

One of the reasons you saw such an enormous lead for Hillary at the outset was that, six or seven months ago, she was basically a shoe-in for the presidency with no real competition for the nomination. When Obama came into play, you had them stuck between a rock and a hard place because even those that preferred Obama certainly wouldn't want to alienate Hillary by abandoning their pledges while she still stood a very good shot of winning the election. Now that Obama's overtaken Hillary's lead even with the early-voting supers included, I imagine most of them are hoping they can keep quiet until one or the other drops out of the race, which is likely to happen if Hillary loses either OH or TX.

Texas is the more likely of the two because of its half-caucus setup and reports of the Obama campaign working some district voodoo to maximize the number of spots with an odd number of delegates they can pick up.

[dylan]

At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter because people should vote for who they want, regardless if they are on the ballot or not.

Sad thing is, people will vote for 'their' party no matter what candidate they shit out.

[hawk]

The super delegates are the ones that will bring down the democratic party in 08 if (and possibly, when) they vote hillary in.
They know this and won't do it. Whoever leads in regular delegates will get the nomination. I guarantee it.

[AGT-Shady]

Sad thing is, people will vote for 'their' party no matter what candidate they shit out.


I tend to disagree, I think thru the last 4 elections specifically people have been voting AGAINST who they thought would be the worst of the 2 major candidates, and that's at least a small step against just voting thru party lines.

[Hellsy]

It would be pretty fucking funny if Obama won the "popular" vote amongst pledged delegates, but lost due to superdelegates.

There would be lawsuits. And their argument against Gore's defeat would be magically forgotten.

If it came down to a Supreme Court ruling, I wonder how much that would annoy the American public against the winner.

[Headshot]

Stayne just said "Marx deserves Kudos"....I thought I'd point that out if anyone missed it. You're defending communism, but conservatives are the ones that hate America. Ok.

[Repair Man]

Stayne just said "Marx deserves Kudos"....I thought I'd point that out if anyone missed it. You're defending communism, but conservatives are the ones that hate America. Ok.

rofl

It is an absolute mindfuck to me that people are still so adamantly (and blindly) against socialism. The red scare is over people, you can stop spying on your neighbors now.

Saying "Marx deserves kudos" is a far cry from "defending communism" by the way.

[Stayne]

Stayne just said "Marx deserves Kudos"....I thought I'd point that out if anyone missed it. You're defending communism, but conservatives are the ones that hate America. Ok.

Let's revisit my parenthetical statement:

(On a side note, I listed through the communist manifesto recently. It was written in 1848, over 150 years ago, yet it predicts extremely well the situation that free-market capitalism has put the US in today. So, say what you will about the regimes that tried and failed to implement communism, but Marx deserves some kudos.)
In what part did I "defend communism"?

Headshot, go read the Communist Manifesto and see for yourself if he correctly prognosticated where free-market capitalism would take the nation or not. If you don't think it does, then disagree with my statement. But, you should at least know what you are disagreeing with.

[Stayne]

It would be pretty fucking funny if Obama won the "popular" vote amongst pledged delegates, but lost due to superdelegates.


I don't think we're going to have to worry about that.

[Stayne]

Well, last night's debate brought us one step closer to an Obama Democratic nomination. Hillary's aggressive stance through the first segment I expect to be off-putting to anyone but those who are already beholden to her (and maybe even to some of those). On the other hand, Obama's cool and collected handling of the questions and issues, even the smear tactics, projected a presidential presence.

As for polls, Obama has completely closed the gap in Texas, and looks to be on his way to a victory there:
http://www.pollster.com/08TXPresDems.php

In Ohio he's still a bit behind, but has made signficant gains:
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Just a reminder, the Hillary camp has stated as little as a week ago that she needed to win both Texas and Ohio to stay in the race. They have weakened that stance some since then, but I think that their first assessment is correct.

Obama has surpassed Hillary in the national polls (http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php). Add to the polls the fact that Hillary has a net loss of 3 superdelegates since Super Tuesday, and Obama has a gain of 20-something.

Basically, all signs are pointing toward an Obama nomination, including the rash of recent, ridiculous (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179868.php), radical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROJIOEgQdn4), right (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/tennessee_gop_smears_obama_wit.php) -wing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hlj-BV0s) smears. So, I don't think we'll need to worry about the evil superdelegates taking the nomination away from the voters.

[FireWall]

I was in the audience last night at the debate in Cleveland, and even though I support Obama (despite my objection to his stance on many issues), I think Hillary had a strong showing on healthcare. Yes, she was aggressive, but it isn't clear to me that the Democratic base has a problem with aggressiveness as long as it's congruent with the dominant views of the party. Hillary has an extensive history of experience on the issue of healthcare that is particulaly stark in a debate setting. It has always been her strong suit, which is why she did her best to emphasize it last night. I don't know if she's been in contact with David Gergen, but she certainly seems to be taking his advice because she was doing her best to present herself as a fighter last night--not just a policy wonk or someone with a prodigious amount of experience, but someone aggressive enough to fight for improvements in healthcare and win. The fundamental problem that she faces is that she hasn't emphasized that theme consistently, and experience alone is less attractive.

[Stayne]

Hillary has been strong in the debates. Whereas Obama approaches each question with pensive hesitation, she has every soundbite ready to deliver, and has no hesitation in delivery. However, getting aggressive to the extent that your neck and face redden is overdoing it (in my book), especialy since her aggression wasn't on health-care per se, but the fact that mailers, which pointed out possible problems with her plan, had been sent out. I predict that her red-faced hypocrisy might circle the wagons of her supporters, but I doubt it will draw undecides to her. I guess we'll see how the new Hillary campaign does next week, and draw conclusions then.

She did put on her fighter face though, that's for sure. Its just amazing how many different faces she has put on in the last two weeks. I mean, two weeks ago I would have been pretty happy with either candidate getting the nomination. After seeing her flip through a whole range of public faces in the last two weeks (sad Hillary, angry Hillary, victim Hillary, "Shame on you" Hillary, etc.), I'm pretty sure that's the kind of drama that I don't want to get the nomination.

Firewall, I'd be very interested to get your perspective on the debates, since you were present. The window provided by the networks feels so constricted sometimes. For example, it hard to hear how the audience reacts.

[hawk]

Basically, all signs are pointing toward an Obama nomination, including the rash of recent, ridiculous (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179868.php), radical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROJIOEgQdn4), right (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/tennessee_gop_smears_obama_wit.php) -wing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm6hlj-BV0s) smears. So, I don't think we'll need to worry about the evil superdelegates taking the nomination away from the voters.
I'm currently leaning towards McCain, but the Republicans may still convince me to vote for Obama. Their smear machine will go to any length to bring a candidate down. God, I hate politics with a passion.

[Express]

I'm currently leaning towards McCain, but the Republicans may still convince me to vote for Obama. Their smear machine will go to any length to bring a candidate down. God, I hate politics with a passion.

LoL, The Republican smear machine is sitting idle at the moment.
The Clinton attack machine is the best in the business and will tear this guy apart.. or the party....or which ever comes first.

[Stayne]

LoL, The Republican smear machine is sitting idle at the moment.
The Clinton attack machine is the best in the business and will tear this guy apart.. or the party....or which ever comes first.

I disagree that the Republican machine is idle, but I do agree that it appears that Hillary's self-promotion will stop at nothing. Her unreasonable, manic-depressive behavior has turned the primaries into a bad mid-day drama.

Obama has done a magnificent job of giving credit where credit is due (despite the attempt to accuse him of plaigarism). He has given credit to the Clintons, to Bush, to Reagan, to McCain and many others for things they have done well, despite the fact that he is competing with them. He has been able to agree with things that other people say, without having to agree with everything those people say. That kind of reasonable behavior is a rare thing in national politics these days.

[Express]

Obama has done a magnificent job of giving credit where credit is due (despite the attempt to accuse him of plaigarism). He has given credit to the Clintons, to Bush, to Reagan, to McCain and many others for things they have done well, despite the fact that he is competing with them. He has been able to agree with things that other people say, without having to agree with everything those people say. That kind of reasonable behavior is a rare thing in national politics these days.

Obama ...The more I hear from him the more I think about an Eddie Murphy movie "The Distinguished Gentleman" .

On a lighter note, Hillary Receives Endorsement by Supreme Superdelegate.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1791

[JMC]

If the Democrats nominate Hillary there is no chance they will win the election, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

[Stayne]

I won't have myself to blame.

Two main things changed in this past week. 1: Hillary went really negative. 2: The media gave the negative attacks (as frivolous as they were) all the attention and shut Obama out of the news cycle. The media was all worried about whether they were harder on Hillary than on Obama rather than on the real issues.

**put on tinfoil caps**
Now, there is another possibility in why the media shut Obama out over the weekend. The media has some interest in keeping this primary going. The debates, especially the last one, got 9 million viewers. The high-impact primary keeps people watching the news, and keeps bringing in money for the networks. I don't think it unrealistic to suggest that the possibility of 3 more months of this viewership might tempt the media to do their part of keeping this thing going.

Add to the weekend of no coverage for Hillary the fact that she will have 6 national network interviews tomorrow morning. The media is loving her and carrying her water.
**take off tinfoil caps**

Hillary has already done a lot of damage to the Democratic party and has aligned herself with McCain on multiple occasions. If she manages to steal this nomination from Obama (he leads the popular vote, has over a 150 delegate lead and has won 28 states vs. Hillary's 13), the only thing that will keep me voting democrat is the fear of who McCain will put on the Supreme Court (not that my vote will matter in the red state I live in).

[BlackThoughT]

(not that my vote will matter in the red state I live in).

it'll offset dont worry. I live in massachusetts :P

[dys]

Well it's finally been mentioned about Clinton and Obama sharing the same ticket and that it'd just be a question of who's on top. God help us.

[puppychow]

she cant catch up via the pledged delegates - after all that sound and fury last night she cut into obamas lead by 17...he's still ahead by over 100.

the only way she can win is if Obama wins the pledged delegates, and the super delegates massively go her way.

Obama is going negative this week fyi. tax return and business dealing stuff. stay tuned.

[Stayne]

Well it's finally been mentioned about Clinton and Obama sharing the same ticket and that it'd just be a question of who's on top. God help us.

Hillary mentioned it. He didn't (AFAIK). As things stand now, I'll be surprised if that happens.

Hillary hasn't been tested at all in this campaign yet. It looks like Obama is going to start pointing out her weaknesses. He won't go negative in the way she has to him ("is he Muslim? No.. well maybe..."), but he will point out that he experience rhetoric amounts to zilch, for example.

Anyhow, if the general election were held now, Obama would still beat McCain (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/03052008/news/nationalnews/o_sacks_mac_but_mac_whacks_hillary_100530.htm) and McCain would trounce Hillary, according to NY Post.

[AGT-Shady]

It's a shame we couldn't get an Obama/McCain ticket (like the good ole days) in whatever order you like, talk about uniting the country. Progressive, socialist changes to infra-structure and legislative needs combined with military and global experience and respect from our allies and aggressors.

[dys]

One simple question about the Florida & Michigan debacle: Weren't they well aware and even forewarned what would happen if they moved their primary dates to where they did?

[Stayne]

One simple question about the Florida & Michigan debacle: Weren't they well aware and even forewarned what would happen if they moved their primary dates to where they did?

Yes, they were aware. However, my understanding is that the FL move somehow was the fault of the Republican governor... but I'm not sure how that worked out. But, the candidates definitely knew and agreed to the removal of the delegates in FL and MI.

Hillary's argument to seat the delegates demonstrates just how far her head is up her own ass. She is definitely lost in there. But, if the democrats want to depress their vote, pulling a stunt like that will do it.

[ohman]

It's a shame we couldn't get an Obama/McCain ticket (like the good ole days) in whatever order you like, talk about uniting the country. Progressive, socialist changes to infra-structure and legislative needs combined with military and global experience and respect from our allies and aggressors.
Outside of the military experience you are talking about the same person. :confused:

[Aic]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html

Good times.

[Stayne]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html

Good times.

Did she win on a lie? Yes. She has nothing of her own doing that will convince people to vote for her over Obama, so her only option is to throw fictional or intentionally misrepresented smear at him to try to make him look as bad as her. Of course, all of her smear tactics have to be immediately questioned as soon as she requests to share the ticket with Obama (which she has at least 3 separate times now). So, if Obama is as bad as she is trying to make him out to be, why would she want to be on the ticket with him.

Her logic, is flawless. Fortunately for her, her most consistent support group is the group with the lowest level of education.

[ohman]

Since I can't edit my old post any longer...

It's a shame we couldn't get an Obama/McCain ticket (like the good ole days) in whatever order you like, talk about uniting the country. Progressive, socialist changes to infra-structure and legislative needs combined with military and global experience and respect from our allies and aggressors.


On March 6 Hillary Clinton claimed that, unlike Barack Obama, she and likely Republican nominee John McCain have "cross[ed] the commander-in-chief threshold." In a CNN interview the day before, Clinton had listed five foreign policy accomplishments. We can't determine how much behind-the-scenes work Clinton did while first lady, and she certainly took an active interest in foreign policy when her husband was president. Moreover, her time as first lady plus her longer Senate career do give Clinton more foreign policy experience than Obama. But the public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton's foreign policy claims are exaggerated.

* Clinton claims to have "negotiated open borders" in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the Macedonian border opened a full day before she arrived, and her meetings with Macedonian officials were too brief to allow for much serious negotiating.

* Clinton's activities "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland." Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton's actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.

* Clinton has repeatedly referenced her "dangerous" trip to Bosnia. She fails to mention, however, that the Bosnian war had officially ended three months before her visit – or that she made the trip with her 16-year-old daughter and two entertainers.

* Both Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that Hillary privately championed the use of U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That conversation left no public record, however, as U.S. policy was explicitly to stay out of Rwanda, and officials say that the use of U.S. troops was never considered.

* Clinton's tough speech on human rights delivered to a Beijing audience is as advertised, though Clinton herself has been dismissive of speeches that aren't backed by solutions.
There is more detailed analysis on each point at the link, but I'm still amazed people keep thumping this experience line for Clinton. I think Huckabee had right when he said "And I know that she’s talked about her experience, but you know, to say that being married to the president gives you the experience to be president would be like me saying, you know, that being married to my wife gives me the capacity to explain child birth because after all I’ve been married to her and she’s given birth to our three children."

Its sad, really, as her recent comments have gone on to lend support to a McCain candidacy over either democratic in the general.

[AntioK]

am i the only one that is tired of two american families being in control of the country for the past 20 years and now trying to make it 24?

On top of that i couldn't agree more about her "experience." Wow you were married to the president and served one term in the senate.....you are obviously so much more experienced than the guy serving his first term in the senate.

Also, i don't want a 71 year old man making the decisions for a country that he probably wont be living in 10 years from now (since he'll be living in heaven[or nowhere if you're an atheist]).

By a simple process of elimination, Mr. Obama is the choice for me and since i missed the deadline to register as a democrat in PA i'm crossing my fingers come April 22nd.

If Obama doesn't get the nomination i will once again utilize my right NOT to vote, i refuse to waste my time choosing between two bad candidates each of whom are pretty much assured to give us more of the same.

[Sutterkane]

So you're voting for Obama just because McCain is old?

You're just as bad as the people voting for McCain because Obama is black.

I also like how you defend Obama's experience yet refuse to acknowledge McCain's.

[SithDrummer]

I also like how you defend Obama's experience yet refuse to acknowledge McCain's.
I think he was talking about Obama's legislative experience being equivalent to or more than Clinton's, not saying that it was substantive in its own right or in comparison to McCain's.

[AntioK]

I think he was talking about Obama's legislative experience being equivalent to or more than Clinton's, not saying that it was substantive in its own right or in comparison to McCain's.

Yes, that is what i was getting at.


I don't want somebody with McCains tenure in politics, anybody who has survived as long as McCain and been this successful has sold his soul along the way......maybe the same is true for Obama, but at least with him i know there is a CHANCE for something different.

If McCain wins we get more of the same, if Hillary wins we get more of the same, If Obama wins i'm not certain of what we get but ill take my chances with that over the other two choices.


As far as the age vs race thing you brought up.....i don't think that a persons skin effects their abilities or mental capacity, I do however think that age does after a certain point. Forget about him being 71 right now, he's gonna be close to 72 when he gets in, then close to 76 when it comes time for re-election I'm sorry but i wouldn't trust any elderly person i know in that position.....why would somebody this close to the end of their life want the big chair anyway if not for personal gain, or securing their "legacy" as opposed to solving the problems me, you, and Mr Obama are going to be living through in ten years.