Delegate Count Discussion Thread

[\S/JcDc\S/]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

[\S/JcDc\S/]

This is what CNN site says

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 630
Superdelegates: 193
Total: 823

Barack Obama
Pledged: 635
Superdelegates: 106
Total: 741



This is what foxnews site says

Hillary Clinton 1,024
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 933
Total 1,983


oh and the Republicans

Mike Huckabee 190
John McCain 703
Ron Paul 14
Mitt Romney 293
Total 1,200


If more accurate numbers exist please post/explain :confused:

[st barbara]

Not being an American I was wondering what the difference is between a "superdelegate" and an ordinary delegate. Do the Superdelegates' votes count for more, if so why ? (Or do they wear spandex with their underwear on the outside :wow: )

[The Incredible Hulk]

MSNBC has Obama ahead by about 4 delegates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22419475

God help us all.....

[\S/JcDc\S/]

What makes the numbers larger or smaller between different reports?

Now we have 3 different sources with different count.

I believe Hulk's post is what I saw most recently on the news. Obama ahead with 838 to Hillary's 834.

Trying to get accurate most up to date count is a bit tricky.

[The Incredible Hulk]

I think they each have their own unofficial ways of counting them. The Dems numbers are hard to peg right now because they arent winner take all states, so they have to divy up each of the delegate districts which can take a while. Some news outlets might be more willing to call a district for a candidate than another. I know in New Mexico for instance they're separated by like 40 some odd votes but they still cant get final totals from 2% of the districts.

[souvlaki]

Yeah, what is up with this? I still haven't found a good answer. There is quite a large difference between up by 4 delegates, and down by 81.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Hey I support Obama as a man with a vision and consider the President to be a spokeperson for party... So why not him?

Yet... I will definitely have to say it seems to me that Hillary had the previous delegates before Super Tuesday in a close race that even if Obama won more delegates on ST, she would still have a slight lead. Yes we all know she didn't win nearly as many states for the record, but that's a different can of worms ;)

[The Senator]

Not being an American I was wondering what the difference is between a "superdelegate" and an ordinary delegate. Do the Superdelegates' votes count for more, if so why ? (Or do they wear spandex with their underwear on the outside :wow: )

A delegate is a member of a party who votes at the nominating convention. He or she usually represents a district, and his or her vote at the convention typically corresponds to how the district voted.

A superdelegate is someone in politics, such as a Senator, Congressman, Governor or other elected official. They usually vote for who they endorse in the primary. For example, Gov. Jon Corzine endorsed Hillary Clinton, so he's a superdelegate who has pledged a vote for Hillary at the convention.

The Republicans are different. They don't have superdelegates, so their nominee only depends on district delegates in states which don't have "winner take all" systems. However, if a state is winner take all, then every delegate from that state is obligated to cast his or her vote for whoever won that state. For example, California's vote is based on Congressional districts, so 55% of the delegates may vote for McCain at the convention, 30% would vote for Romney, and 10% would vote for Huckabee. However, New York was a winner-take-all primary, so McCain would theoretically win 100% of New York's delegates.

It's fairly complicated.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/super_delegates.htm

[The Senator]

Yeah, what is up with this? I still haven't found a good answer. There is quite a large difference between up by 4 delegates, and down by 81.

Well, the delegate mess won't be confirmed for a while, so no site is completely reliable.

Plus, I don't think some sites included Superdelegates. Clinton is definitely ahead due to Superdelegates alone. Obama is ahead in overall state delegates, if only by five.

I would expect things to clear up after this weekends' primaries and next week's Potomac Primary, where I think he'll end up winning big, and will emerge with a good 30-40-point lead over Clinton in regular delegates. Plus, there are over a thousand superdelegates who haven't endorsed. Some won't endorse, like Mark Warner or Bill Richardson; some may endorse, like Russ Feingold or Jim Webb.

[Matt]

Hey I support Obama as a man with a vision and consider the President to be a spokeperson for party... So why not him?

Yet... I will definitely have to say it seems to me that Hillary had the previous delegates before Super Tuesday in a close race that even if Obama won more delegates on ST, she would still have a slight lead. Yes we all know she didn't win nearly as many states for the record, but that's a different can of worms ;)

Because a REAL democrat should be the spokesperson for the party.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Well, the delegate mess won't be confirmed for a while, so no site is completely reliable.

Plus, I don't think some sites included Superdelegates. Clinton is definitely ahead due to Superdelegates alone. Obama is ahead in overall state delegates, if only by five.

I would expect things to clear up after this weekends' primaries and next week's Potomac Primary, where I think he'll end up winning big, and will emerge with a good 30-40-point lead over Clinton in regular delegates. Plus, there are over a thousand superdelegates who haven't endorsed. Some won't endorse, like Mark Warner or Bill Richardson; some may endorse, like Russ Feingold or Jim Webb.

At this rate with Obama giving Hillary a run for her money (pun intended heh heh) this could go into May :eek:

[Matt]

At this rate with Obama giving Hillary a run for her money (pun intended heh heh) this could go into May :eek:

Someone mentioned Howard Dean saying he wouldn't let it go until the Convention and if neccessary after Pennsylvania, he would sit them down and work something out.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Because a REAL democrat should be the spokesperson for the party.

I guess I would say for me personally, I don't consider myself a democrat or republican but let's be honest... It always comes down to one or the other. We are stuck with a 2 party system. With that being the case I have to look at issues important to me, and I have to consider who is most likely to represent our country the best and also seems most likely to unite let alone seek the buzz word "change"

Ended up being Obama for me. Obviously considering the surge, there are others that have that outlook as well. A month ago he was considered out of the race. Now things have gotten interesting.

[Excel]

Someone mentioned Howard Dean saying he wouldn't let it go until the Convention and if neccessary after Pennsylvania, he would sit them down and work something out.

Like what? Way the states line up, Obama could be the potential delegates, states, and votes leader after Pennsylvania, but theres NO WAY Hillary drops out. The only states between now and then Hillary is likely to get are Texas and Ohio but that would probably in the spirit of California where she doesnt get that many more delegates while Barrack gets a big advantages from the smaller states.

[Matt]

Like what? Way the states line up, Obama could be the potential delegates, states, and votes leader after Pennsylvania, but theres NO WAY Hillary drops out.

He may not depending on super delegates.

[rdh007]

Because a REAL democrat should be the spokesperson for the party.

There aren't any of those left. :(

[Matt]

There aren't any of those left. :(

Four words: Sherrod. Brown. Research. Him.

[rdh007]

I meant in this race.

I've seen a little because of your postings, but I intend to delve more deeply. All I did was the wiki page.

[Excel]

He may not depending on super delegates.

Heres the schedule:

2/9: Louisiana - 68 Delegates
2/9: Nebraska - 31 Delegates
2/9: Washington - 97 Delegates
2/9: Virgin Islands - 9 Delegates
2/10: Maine - 34 Delegates
2/12: D.C. - 37 Delegates
2/12: Maryland - 99
2/12: Virginia - 103 Delegates
2/19: Hawaii - 29 Delegates
2/19: Wisconsin - 92 Delegates

3/4: Ohio - 162 Delegates
3/4: Rhode Island - 32 Delegates
3/4: Texas - 228 Delegates
3/4: Vermont - 23 Delegates
3/8: Wyoming - 18 Delegates
3/11: Mississippi - 36 Delegates

The only ones remaining in Febuary Clinton will likely win are Nebraska and Maine. Obama Louisiana, Washington, D.C. Maryland, and Virginia all have high African Americans or Barrack ahead in poll and he grew up in Hawaii and Wisconsin has very, very little Latino and Asian folk though it also has little African American folks. However, in December Hillary lead Barack in polls 39-26. One would think the gap has closed considerably since then.

And that leads to another problem for Hillary. With Barrack the clear delegate, vote, and state leader heading into March 4th, do the people in Ohio change their minds? Same for Texas.

Either way it would take massive, landslide victories in both for Hillary to take the delegate lead which would be extremely unlikely given momentum.

[The Senator]

The DNC is looking to win in the fall, and they're looking at who has the best chances of winning. Chances are, the DNC will take a long look at the numbers, and will try to convince the person with the greatest chance of losing to step aside. The Democrats don't need a repeat of the 1968 convention.

My honest guess is that the DNC would favor Obama over Clinton, mostly because of his strengths with independents and the fact that he is running as a change agent.

But like I said, I don't think this will go past March 4. I feel like Obama will sweep the primaries/ caucuses in the next week (MD, DC, VA, LA, NE, HI and possibly WA), giving him a pretty clear edge going into some of the later states, such as TX, where the polls have apparently have the two of them tied (according to an analyst on Hardball earlier).

While I can't say for sure Obama has this in the bag, it definitely isn't looking bad for him.

[souvlaki]

Heres the schedule:

2/9: Louisiana - 68 Delegates
2/9: Nebraska - 31 Delegates
2/9: Washington - 97 Delegates
2/9: Virgin Islands - 9 Delegates
2/10: Maine - 34 Delegates
2/12: D.C. - 37 Delegates
2/12: Maryland - 99
2/12: Virginia - 103 Delegates
2/19: Hawaii - 29 Delegates
2/19: Wisconsin - 92 Delegates

3/4: Ohio - 162 Delegates
3/4: Rhode Island - 32 Delegates
3/4: Texas - 228 Delegates
3/4: Vermont - 23 Delegates
3/8: Wyoming - 18 Delegates
3/11: Mississippi - 36 Delegates

The only ones remaining in Febuary Clinton will likely win are Nebraska and Maine. Obama Louisiana, Washington, D.C. Maryland, and Virginia all have high African Americans or Barrack ahead in poll and he grew up in Hawaii and Wisconsin has very, very little Latino and Asian folk though it also has little African American folks. However, in December Hillary lead Barack in polls 39-26. One would think the gap has closed considerably since then.

And that leads to another problem for Hillary. With Barrack the clear delegate, vote, and state leader heading into March 4th, do the people in Ohio change their minds? Same for Texas.

Either way it would take massive, landslide victories in both for Hillary to take the delegate lead which would be extremely unlikely given momentum.

I agree. Hillary seems to be using Guiliani's strategy, which I think may work against her. She's implied that she's more focused on Texas and Ohio, and is not putting a lot of effort into the states in between. She also is out of money. I wouldn't be shocked if she gets the nomination, but really, Obama is in much better position to win this than he was before Super Tuesday.

[The Senator]

States Obama Will Win

Washington, DC
Maryland
Hawaii
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Washington state
Vermont
Wyoming
Montana
Mississippi
South Dakota

States Hillary Will Win

Rhode Island
Maine

Toss-Ups/ Lack of Polls/ No Precedent

Ohio
Texas
Pennsylvania
Oregon

Hillary could win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Obama wins all of the states I think he'll win by the margins he won by last night, he may not need the bigger states. He'll have to come close in two of them, and that's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

He's won seven of the eight caucus states, and five of those were by huge margins. I would imagine that trend will continue in the western-midwestern states. 60+% in NE, WI, SD, WA, and HI are very possible.

[Excel]

*awaits Matts knowledgeable take* ;)

[jaguarr]

Gonna be interesting to see how much further Hillary can go since she's having to finance her own campaign through a "personal loan" of $5M. Obama just pulled in another $32M from what I've read. He's definitely got the financial advantage going into this next stretch.

jag

[Matt]

Heres the schedule:

2/9: Louisiana - 68 Delegates
2/9: Nebraska - 31 Delegates
2/9: Washington - 97 Delegates
2/9: Virgin Islands - 9 Delegates
2/10: Maine - 34 Delegates
2/12: D.C. - 37 Delegates
2/12: Maryland - 99
2/12: Virginia - 103 Delegates
2/19: Hawaii - 29 Delegates
2/19: Wisconsin - 92 Delegates

3/4: Ohio - 162 Delegates
3/4: Rhode Island - 32 Delegates
3/4: Texas - 228 Delegates
3/4: Vermont - 23 Delegates
3/8: Wyoming - 18 Delegates
3/11: Mississippi - 36 Delegates

The only ones remaining in Febuary Clinton will likely win are Nebraska and Maine. Obama Louisiana, Washington, D.C. Maryland, and Virginia all have high African Americans or Barrack ahead in poll and he grew up in Hawaii and Wisconsin has very, very little Latino and Asian folk though it also has little African American folks. However, in December Hillary lead Barack in polls 39-26. One would think the gap has closed considerably since then.

And that leads to another problem for Hillary. With Barrack the clear delegate, vote, and state leader heading into March 4th, do the people in Ohio change their minds? Same for Texas.

Either way it would take massive, landslide victories in both for Hillary to take the delegate lead which would be extremely unlikely given momentum.

There is really no spin to it. If Hillary cannot win good ammounts of delegates and convince Super Delegates she is done.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Gonna be interesting to see how much further Hillary can go since she's having to finance her own campaign through a "personal loan" of $5M. Obama just pulled in another $32M from what I've read. He's definitely got the financial advantage going into this next stretch.

jag

A day after super tuesday Obama's team raised 4 million dollars almost the amount of Hillary's "personal loan" as they are calling it :o

[The Incredible Hulk]

its sad that people assume Obama will win certain states solely because they have high %'s of African Americans, implying that African Americans voted solely based on racial lines. I'm no fan of Obama by any means, but you've got to give a little more credit than that...

[The Senator]

its sad that people assume Obama will win certain states solely because they have high %'s of African Americans, implying that African Americans voted solely based on racial lines. I'm no fan of Obama by any means, but you've got to give a little more credit than that...

But when he's winning 70% of the African American vote and he's running in states with huge black populations-- Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, the District of Columbia, and Maryland-- that automatically gives him an edge you can't deny. The white votes definitely help him, but if he didn't have those black voters, he may not have done well in the states he took and he may not do well in the states ahead.

[Matt]

I think Obama has the nomination just about locked up. Hillary would have to pull magic out of her butt at this point or just win over a **** load of super delegates. While I am glad Hillary is not winning the nomination, I still think it is a sad day for the Democratic Party and America when a man, who so blatantly stands against what it means to be a Democrat, can run on skin color and buzz words and be the nomination of Roosevelt's party.

[jaguarr]

I think Obama has the nomination just about locked up. Hillary would have to pull magic out of her butt at this point or just win over a **** load of super delegates. While I am glad Hillary is not winning the nomination, I still think it is a sad day for the Democratic Party and America when a man, who so blatantly stands against what it means to be a Democrat, can run on skin color and buzz words and be the nomination of Roosevelt's party.

Hate to break it to you, Matty, but none of the candidates that have been running as Republicans OR Democrats have been true to the supposed foundations of their respective parties for ages. Hell, the Republicans we've had in power for the past eight years have been all about big government, big spending, corporate asslicking and a whole lot of other things that go against the grain of traditional Republican tenets. So, mourn if you must, but mourn the decay of the entire system, not just the Democrats.

jag

[Malice]

Texas, which recently has not had much impact on the elections...because they have usually been one side or another (except the Bush Gore election) will be a huge important state again!

[Matt]

I could care less about the Republican party though. However, when I see REAL POPULIST Democrats like Sherrod Brown in Ohio, it makes me sad that they aren't the ones leading the party. :csad:

[jaguarr]

The times change. Matt gets left behind. The tears flow. Poor Matt. :(

jag

[Matt]

The times change. Matt gets left behind. The tears flow. Poor Matt. :(

jag

Comeon Jag, you must see the point. Do you really want your party's leader to be more concerned with ensuring that a 13 year old can get an abortion without her parents knowing than ensuring that a middle class working man has a secure job that isn't going to be shipped over seas due to a FTA with a third world country?

[jaguarr]

Comeon Jag, you must see the point. Do you really want your party's leader to be more concerned with ensuring that a 13 year old can get an abortion without her parents knowing than ensuring that a middle class working man has a secure job that isn't going to be shipped over seas due to a FTA with a third world country?

What leader has ever said that their priorities were what you just listed? :huh:

jag

[Matt]

What leader has ever said that their priorities were what you just listed? :huh:

jag

Barack Obama's clearly are. He supports no restrictions on abortion at all and has been very vocal about such (Voted NO on notifying parents if their minor child gets an abortion), yet he also says that he wants to create MORE free trade agreements, especially in South America.

[jaguarr]

Barack Obama's clearly are. He supports no restrictions on abortion at all and has been very vocal about such (Voted NO on notifying parents if their minor child gets an abortion), yet he also says that he wants to create MORE free trade agreements, especially in South America.

You sure are extrapolating a lot, aren't you? :huh:

jag

[Matt]

You sure are extrapolating a lot, aren't you? :huh:

jag

Not at all. He has voted in both the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate to allow minors to recieve abortions without informing their parents. He has openly said that he would support establishing free trade with South American countries if elected President.

[jaguarr]

Not at all. He has voted in both the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate to allow minors to recieve abortions without informing their parents. He has openly said that he would support establishing free trade with South American countries if elected President.

If you can ascertain, accurately, what his priorities are that he will focus on, just from that then your powers of political prognostication are far greater than mine, Matt.

And abortion is a non-issue. Nothing much will change with it at all at the Federal level at least for the foreseeable future.

jag

[Matt]

If you can ascertain, accurately, what his priorities are that he will focus on, just from that then your powers of political prognostication are far greater than mine, Matt.

So you feel comfortable with a President who supports free trade with third world countries that have no regulation what so ever, but does not support parental notice regarding a MINOR'S abortion?


And abortion is a non-issue. Nothing much will change with it at all at the Federal level at least for the foreseeable future.

jag



Little things will. Abortion won't go away, but regulations around it will change from President to President. I don't like Obama's stances on those little issues. I do like his support of using stem cells for research but I personally think the notion of allowing a 13 year old girl to recieve an abortion without her parents know is just as absurd as allowing her to donate a kidney without her parents knowing. It is a medical procedure and the parents have a right to know. Plus he is a big proponent of keeping partial birth abortions and third trimester abortions legal. Anyone who has seen videos or pictures of one of these and can call it less than murder, is a sociopath in my eyes.

[jaguarr]

I'm more worried about the economy, getting Iraq settled, fixing healthcare, fixing our education system, and doing something about our record deficit, personally. I have a feeling our next President will be, too.

jag

[Matt]

I'm more worried about the economy, getting Iraq settled, fixing healthcare, fixing our education system, and doing something about our record deficit, personally. I have a feeling our next President will be, too.

jag

Free trade is crucial to fixing our economy and is one of the biggest threats to it. As for getting Iraq settled, leaving 5,000 troops behind isn't going to do it. There is nothing wrong with our education system. Its a bit underfunded, but the fact is, some students just don't have the desire to learn and no ammount of standardized testing or stupid No Student Left Behind acts will fix that. As for our deficit, explain to me how Barack Obama intends to fix it when most of his plans involve spending billions if not trillions of dollars more than we already are?

[jaguarr]

Dude, EVERYTHING is wrong with our education system. The No Student Allowed To Excel program has destroyed it and made it a fixation on teaching only what's on those idiotic competency exams so that schools will continue to get their budgets for the next year. It's destroyed education in this country, marginalizing every single student it's touched and tying the hands of teachers and school administrators. Don't tell me there's nothing wrong with education in this country because that is a big, stinky load.

As for fixing our economy, the Republicans have NO plan at all. McCain's said himself he has no idea. Add in the fact that the Republicans have gone out of their way to enable wholesale offshoring of jobs for their corporate buddies, and I just don't see the Republicans fixing that with what they bring to the table currently. Talk about Free Trade being abused and run amok.

Iraq is a friggin' mess. I seriously doubt the next President is going to be able to fix it and there will be a whole lot of debate over how we do just that before anything gets done. McCain loves Iraq and wants to continue bleeding money all over that country and keep our presence there intact and that's not the answer, either.

Government spending is out of control, I agree. None of the candidates bring any solution to the table for that.

I know you just hate Obama but how you can have so much hate for that guy without espousing the same amount of hate for all the other candidates is beyond me. They all have the same or similar issues and problems that they bring with them.

jag

[Matt]

I DO hate all of the other candidates, I have said it on numerous occassions. Obama just annoys me the most as he enjoys such an undeserved pedestal. I'm voting third party.

[Spider-Fan]

Dude, EVERYTHING is wrong with our education system. The No Student Allowed To Excel program has destroyed it and made it a fixation on teaching only what's on those idiotic competency exams so that schools will continue to get their budgets for the next year. It's destroyed education in this country, marginalizing every single student it's touched and tying the hands of teachers and school administrators. Don't tell me there's nothing wrong with education in this country because that is a big, stinky load.

As for fixing our economy, the Republicans have NO plan at all. McCain's said himself he has no idea. Add in the fact that the Republicans have gone out of their way to enable wholesale offshoring of jobs for their corporate buddies, and I just don't see the Republicans fixing that with what they bring to the table currently. Talk about Free Trade being abused and run amok.

Iraq is a friggin' mess. I seriously doubt the next President is going to be able to fix it and there will be a whole lot of debate over how we do just that before anything gets done. McCain loves Iraq and wants to continue bleeding money all over that country and keep our presence there intact and that's not the answer, either.

Government spending is out of control, I agree. None of the candidates bring any solution to the table for that.

I know you just hate Obama but how you can have so much hate for that guy without espousing the same amount of hate for all the other candidates is beyond me. They all have the same or similar issues and problems that they bring with them.

jag

100% correct. I knew this act sucked as a student, and now that I am studying teaching and learned a lot about it, it is a terrible policy that needs lifted ASAP.

[Matt]

As for education, I agree it is underfunded, what I meant when I said nothing is wrong, is our government is looking for some kind of magical fix that will make stupid students suddenly become honor students. No Child Left Behind or Merit Pay (which Obama suggests) will not solve anything. Some kids just don't want to learn. We should stop looking for reasons that aren't there.

[hippie_hunter]

States Obama Will Win

Washington, DC
Maryland
Hawaii
Louisiana
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Washington state
Vermont
Wyoming
Montana
Mississippi
South Dakota

States Hillary Will Win

Rhode Island
Maine

Toss-Ups/ Lack of Polls/ No Precedent

Ohio
Texas
Pennsylvania
Oregon

Hillary could win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and still come out on top. But if Obama wins all of the states I think he'll win by the margins he won by last night, he may not need the bigger states. He'll have to come close in two of them, and that's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

He's won seven of the eight caucus states, and five of those were by huge margins. I would imagine that trend will continue in the western-midwestern states. 60+% in NE, WI, SD, WA, and HI are very possible.

I think Hillary will win Washington state, Virginia, Vermont, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon.

But the other states you mentioned, the midwestern and ones with large black populations, Obama has in the bag.

[The Incredible Hulk]

the problem with Obama is that he's basically unelectable in a national election. Do you think the morons who voted for Bush AGAIN in 2004 are going to be swayed to elect a black guy with a muslim sounding name? (Stupid I know, but you have to understand the level that some of these people operate)

Not that Hillary is a great alternative, but she atleast has some cache with the suburban moderates and COULD take out McCain. If Obama gets the Nom, McCain can basically walk out to "Hail to the Chief" at the RNC.

[Zen]

the problem with Obama is that he's basically unelectable in a national election. Do you think the morons who voted for Bush AGAIN in 2004 are going to be swayed to elect a black guy with a muslim sounding name? (Stupid I know, but you have to understand the level that some of these people operate)

Not that Hillary is a great alternative, but she atleast has some cache with the suburban moderates and COULD take out McCain. If Obama gets the Nom, McCain can basically walk out to "Hail to the Chief" at the RNC.

i don't think the general consensus agrees with you

i think many are saying that Obama is actually courting quite a few republicans out there, notably Dwight Eisenhower's progeny and their constituents. Also it is apparent that Obama is bringing DROVES of new people to the booths across the nation, people who wouldn't be voting if it wasn't for his presence in the political arena.

and many beleive that Hillary may be harder to elect than Obama for a few reasons...

Her wavering stance on Iraq, and having Voted for the war in the beginning

She galvanizes the fractured republican party that McCain is struggling to pull together, many don't want McCain AT ALL... but are willing to toe the line if the "dreaded" Hillary steps up.

Obama's fund raising campaign is possessed... i don't know any other way to describe it... they can raise boatloads of cash...

just yesterday they put out an internet bid to match Hillary's 5 million she injected into her campaign... they matched it in 1 day

I don't think you can count this guy out.

personally i think hes stronger against McCain then Hillary... his message for change is solidified by his proven judgment on the war... McCain will have more credibility than Clinton because he will point to the surge, where Hillary has stated if she could, she would go back and change her vote on the war.

McCain will appear as the Old establishment candidate that wants the war to go on for 100 more years (hes said something akin to that) and Obama is poised to present a young very electable opposition to that front

and Obama's top voters in many states are White Men... i don't see a divide here, if he can court a few more Latino votes (something which should be absolutely SIMPLE for a democrat in the national election) i don't see how its such a terribly difficult race for him.

[jaguarr]

If Hillary folds and Obama gets the nomination, you'll see the Latino vote galvanize behind Obama, even despite the fact that he is black (and yes, that is a point of issue for many Latino voters, like it or not).

jag

[hippie_hunter]

I don't think courting the Latino vote will be easy for Obama against McCain. McCain's stances on immigration will surely help him a lot in courting them.

[souvlaki]

the problem with Obama is that he's basically unelectable in a national election. Do you think the morons who voted for Bush AGAIN in 2004 are going to be swayed to elect a black guy with a muslim sounding name? (Stupid I know, but you have to understand the level that some of these people operate)

Not that Hillary is a great alternative, but she atleast has some cache with the suburban moderates and COULD take out McCain. If Obama gets the Nom, McCain can basically walk out to "Hail to the Chief" at the RNC.

That's simply not true. If you look at his primary votes, quite a few of them come from independents, and even a few Republicans. Far more than Hillary is, which is why she has advantages in states with closed primaries. He's generally carrying the southern states by a 2 to 1 margin too. And not that polls have been incredibly accurate of late, but he's leading against McCain in most national polls, whereas Clinton is losing in most. Mark my words, there will be Republicans camping out at the polls waiting to vote against Clinton if she ends up being the nominee.

I'm not saying an Obama nomination would be a walk in the park but really, this idea that Clinton is more electable in a general election is really getting annoying. All signs point to the opposite being true.

[jaguarr]

I don't think courting the Latino vote will be easy for Obama against McCain. McCain's stances on immigration will surely help him a lot in courting them.

The vast majority of Latinos are staunchly against Republicans.

jag

[Zen]

...and McCain won't be pushing "amnesty" type legislation and rhetoric in trying to keep his base happy.

[The Senator]

That's simply not true. If you look at his primary votes, quite a few of them come from independents, and even a few Republicans. Far more than Hillary is, which is why she has advantages in states with closed primaries. He's generally carrying the southern states by a 2 to 1 margin too. And not that polls have been incredibly accurate of late, but he's leading against McCain in most national polls, whereas Clinton is losing in most. Mark my words, there will be Republicans camping out at the polls waiting to vote against Clinton if she ends up being the nominee.

I'm not saying an Obama nomination would be a walk in the park but really, this idea that Clinton is more electable in a general election is really getting annoying. All signs point to the opposite being true.

While I think Obama can win, I don't think he'll take deep red states. He'll have to fight hard to win several swing states, and his running mate has to be from a red state. He has no other choice. He needs to fight in Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Virginia if he wants to win this. He has the money and the organization, certainly. I just hope he isn't naive enough to think he'll carry Kansas, Idaho or Alabama because he won their primaries by steep margins.

[Zen]

Jag hook me up with some of the info surrounding Latinos and Blacks... they don't vote for each other or something?

mixed Latino/african americans are generally gorgeous people... they should really rectify this hatred and squelch out a few more eyebrow raisers.

[Zen]

While I think Obama can win, I don't think he'll take deep red states. He'll have to fight hard to win several swing states, and his running mate has to be from a red state. He has no other choice. He needs to fight in Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Virginia if he wants to win this. He has the money and the organization, certainly. I just hope he isn't naive enough to think he'll carry Kansas, Idaho or Alabama because he won their primaries by steep margins.


yeh i think its a fallacy to infer any democratic candidate can carry historically red states... but the swing states, the Dems probably got them this year.

[jaguarr]

Jag hook me up with some of the info surrounding Latinos and Blacks... they don't vote for each other or something?

mixed Latino/african americans are generally gorgeous people... they should really rectify this hatred and squelch out a few more eyebrow raisers.

Yeah, it's a weird cultural thing to me, but a lot of Latinos don't like blacks. It's something that goes way, way back. Even in my wife's family (they are Dominican) there are members who were black (but still Dominican in birth, heritage and nationality) and they were seriously looked down upon within the family because of it. It's a very old cultural thing. You can probably thank the Spaniards for it.

jag

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yeah, it's a weird cultural thing to me, but a lot of Latinos don't like blacks. It's something that goes way, way back. Even in my wife's family (they are Dominican) there are members who were black (but still Dominican in birth, heritage and nationality) and they were seriously looked down upon within the family because of it. It's a very old cultural thing. You can probably thank the Spaniards for it.

jag

Yep, CNN or Foxnews did a report about that last night. As a white male I can say it's rather silly, then blacks and hispanics shall come together to whip me :(

[jaguarr]

Yep, CNN or Foxnews did a report about that last night. As a white male I can say it's rather silly, then blacks and hispanics shall come together to whip me :(

The other thing I do know is that a lot of Latinos would rather vote for a black guy than they would a Republican. My own Father-In-Law is one of those Latinos that has issues with blacks but he hates Republicans ten times more than he does blacks and while he's not an Obama fan (he's in love with Hillary, apparently) he has said that if Obama gets the nomination he will vote for him because he doesn't want the Republicans to get back into the White House again. The Republicans have a long and storied history of ****ting all over Latinos and the Bushies have only added to that. There are a lot of embittered Latinos that have had it with the Republicans and they are mobilizing to vote them out no matter what. Kind of weird to see them becoming so politically active since they've been relatively lackadaisical about the whole thing the last several elections. I think they've started to realize the power in numbers that they truly possess as a voting demographic.

jag

[jaguarr]

just yesterday they put out an internet bid to match Hillary's 5 million she injected into her campaign... they matched it in 1 day


I was just poking around on Google News and they've said that Obama's campaign raised $7M in 48 hours off that internet bid. He's got the financial advantage and the Clinton campaign is starting to panic over it because they are at a serious disadvantage going into this next round of primaries, which Obama seems poised to carry the lion's share of at this point:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-0-0&fp=47abca5166548fd6&ei=0FOrR5bqCImaqwO25PGNAQ&url=http%3A//ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8ULJOVG0&cid=1129588225


jag

[The Incredible Hulk]

That's simply not true. If you look at his primary votes, quite a few of them come from independents, and even a few Republicans.

Please dont try and use the voting in the democratic primaries/caucuses as evidence for the outcome in a national election, it's pointless. And moderates arent the same as independents.


Far more than Hillary is, which is why she has advantages in states with closed primaries. He's generally carrying the southern states by a 2 to 1 margin too.

again its a democratic primary. put him against a Republican and watch that change in a BIG hurry.


And not that polls have been incredibly accurate of late, but he's leading against McCain in most national polls, whereas Clinton is losing in most. Mark my words, there will be Republicans camping out at the polls waiting to vote against Clinton if she ends up being the nominee.

any more so than a liberal black face with a muslim sounding name?

I'm not saying an Obama nomination would be a walk in the park but really, this idea that Clinton is more electable in a general election is really getting annoying. All signs point to the opposite being true.

those are some weak signs. I see Obama and a lot of his supporters really reaching for things to validate him as being a serious candidate. Truth is, he's running pretty well against a really weak Democratic field. Gore and Kerry were much stronger dem candidates in prior elextions and couldnt hold up against the Republicans, even against an incumbent with a bad approval rating.

[Zen]

is most of that money from 25-100 dollars bids from regular folks off his website?


how is he doing this??

[The Incredible Hulk]

i don't think the general consensus agrees with you

i think many are saying that Obama is actually courting quite a few republicans out there, notably Dwight Eisenhower's progeny and their constituents. Also it is apparent that Obama is bringing DROVES of new people to the booths across the nation, people who wouldn't be voting if it wasn't for his presence in the political arena.

Not sure if "droves" are coming to the polls since the primary numbers have been statistically similar to prior years. However i wont deny the fact that the black vote is up. The sad part is, i think it has more to do with his skin color as opposed to his message.


and many beleive that Hillary may be harder to elect than Obama for a few reasons...

Her wavering stance on Iraq, and having Voted for the war in the beginning.

I've never understood why thats conisdered "wavering?" Perhaps when presented with the actual facts, she changed her position on the war after seeing it was wrong. A lot of people in the government have changed their mind on Iraq. Changing your stance on something after having time to assess it, isnt it a weakness, its a strength, unless you support Bush of course.


She galvanizes the fractured republican party that McCain is struggling to pull together, many don't want McCain AT ALL... but are willing to toe the line if the "dreaded" Hillary steps up.

as opposed to the inexperienced, ultra-liberal black muslim? (not kidding, thats how they'll frame him)

Obama's fund raising campaign is possessed... i don't know any other way to describe it... they can raise boatloads of cash...

Once they get to the presidential elections, this matters very little anymore since campaign finance was reformed.

just yesterday they put out an internet bid to match Hillary's 5 million she injected into her campaign... they matched it in 1 day

great. although if you think the person with the most money makes the best candidate perhaps we can get Bill Gates to run?

I don't think you can count this guy out.

wasnt counting him out, just think he'll never hold up against McCain


McCain will have more credibility than Clinton because he will point to the surge, where Hillary has stated if she could, she would go back and change her vote on the war.

wow, admitting a mistake. thats certainly not a characteristic we'd see in a leader. we'd rather have them "stay the course" and continue shooting themself in the foot.


and Obama's top voters in many states are White Men.

EVERYONE"S top voters are White Men, because White Men make up the majority of people in the country that vote. If his top voters werent white men, then you'd have to be concerned.

[Zen]

Google record turnout and obama and you'll find a completely different answer in many states that have voted in the primaries than what your trying to convince me of...

...

Obama 2002...
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

you can feed me all you want on what you think makes a strong president, i think his judgment here was ABSOLUTELY correct, and the fact that he was the only one who got it right only solidifies my position and tendancy to side with him over Clinton... he will stand for his judgment and not waiver... Hillary probably wanted to vote against the war but was beatin down by the un-patriotic garbage that infiltrated every democrats heart during that time... Except Obama. it wasn't strength that voted for that war,

it was Weakness... there was no evidence, only fear.


does campaign finance reform touch him if hes getting all of this money from people and not corporations?

and i mentioned white men to show people aren't voting for him based on color... i think they like what he might bring

[Darkly Dexter]

Google record turnout and obama and you'll find a completely different answer in many states that have voted in the primaries than what your trying to convince me of...

...

Obama 2002...
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”

you can feed me all you want on what you think makes a strong president, i think his judgment here was ABSOLUTELY correct, and the fact that he was the only one who got it right only solidifies my position and tendancy to side with him over Clinton... he will stand for his judgment and not waiver... Hillary probably wanted to vote against the war but was beatin down by the un-patriotic garbage that infiltrated every democrats heart during that time... Except Obama. it wasn't strength that voted for that war,



That's one of the reasons why I think he is the best candidate. When almost everyone, Republicans mostly but also a lot of Democrats (Like Hilary, Kerry and Edwards), were voting in favor of the war, he said NO. That's personality. He has what it takes.

[Excel]

Whats this talk Hillarys broke? Barack has raised near 8 million since Tuesday :eek:

[Zen]

didn't she have a 100 million dollar war chest?

maybe its a ploy to appear as an underdog which has been so popular lately...

http://www.kryptonitekollectibles.com/images/cat/giants_logo_small.gif

[Zen]

well it appears to have payed off... hillary is hot on baracks heals with 6million to his 7 in the past two days

[04nbod]

oh please barack has oprah on his side he will not lack for cash support!

[Zen]

oh please barack has oprah on his side he will not lack for cash support!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/gore-endorsement-rumor-ki_b_85516.html

do you think this is plausible... and if it is, do you think it helps or hurts his campaign?

[Matt]

oh please barack has oprah on his side he will not lack for cash support!

Oprah is a private citizen. She can't fund a campaign. She can only donate so much every so often.

[Excel]

oprah can only donate 2,500

[teseract]

The other thing I do know is that a lot of Latinos would rather vote for a black guy than they would a Republican. My own Father-In-Law is one of those Latinos that has issues with blacks but he hates Republicans ten times more than he does blacks and while he's not an Obama fan (he's in love with Hillary, apparently) he has said that if Obama gets the nomination he will vote for him because he doesn't want the Republicans to get back into the White House again. The Republicans have a long and storied history of ****ting all over Latinos and the Bushies have only added to that. There are a lot of embittered Latinos that have had it with the Republicans and they are mobilizing to vote them out no matter what. Kind of weird to see them becoming so politically active since they've been relatively lackadaisical about the whole thing the last several elections. I think they've started to realize the power in numbers that they truly possess as a voting demographic.

jag

It's a "feeling threatened" thing. You would be surprised how much energy can be set loose in a person if he or she feels that the current political party is going to threaten his or her way of live.

[Malice]

Can someone possibly help explain what Super Delagates are about?

[Malice]

(Dont post in this thread unless you have an update)

Democrats - 2,025 delegates needed for nomination

Hillary Clinton - 1064
Barack Obama - 1029
John Edwards - 26


Republicans - 1,191 delegates needed for nomination

John McCain - 721
Mitt Romney - 278
Mike Huckabee - 231
Ron Paul - 14
Fred Thompson - 5
Rudy Giuliani - 1
Duncan Hunter - 1


Updated on 2/9/2008 - 9:51pm
(info gathered from link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914))

[The Don Killuminati]

new delegate count

Clinton 1064
Obama1029

[The Senator]

Super Delegates are government officials or leaders within the Democratic Party who vote for a candidate at the convention. Basically, if someone endorses a candidate, their endorsement counts as a Super Delegate.

Republicans have this, too, but their delegates won't be confirmed until the convention.

[The Professor]

Isn't it like, there's 3/4 Pledged delegates and 1/4 Super delegates?

I just got this explained to me today as well.

The Super Delegates aren't committed, as the Pledged ones go into the convention knowing who they'll vote for. Supers can change their mind.

[sithgoblin]

new delegate count

Clinton 1064
Obama1029

Not according to this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914).

[The Don Killuminati]

i saw that too, but those numbers have been up for 2 days nows, so they are off.

[Matt]

Not according to this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914).

MSNBC doesn't count super delegates for some reason :huh:

[The Don Killuminati]

now its clinton 1084, obama 1057

[The Don Killuminati]

MSNBC doesn't count super delegates for some reason :huh:

yea what is that about

[Malice]

updated

[souvlaki]

Edit- Oops, double post

[souvlaki]

yea what is that about

Well, I never understood the point of CNN or any of the other news organizations including pledged super-delegates anyhow. All super-delegates to my knowledge, pledged or not, can change their minds at the convention. Personally, I think it would take some balls on the part of the super-delegates and the DNC to vote against whomever has the lead in delegates and states come convention time. Could you imagine the reaction if Obama or Clinton had the delegate and state lead in June, and the super-delegates voted for the other candidate? It would be the most controversial thing to happen since Florida in 2000, and I'm really shocked how many people honestly believe that might happen.

[Venom'sDad]

A huge percentage of people believe that can happen because many don't trust billary. They already have set that precedence in the media, the reason why most outlet are showing Super Delegates in their totals, giving the impression that billary is winning the delegate count. Most media outlets was not doing that in the beginning. Add the fact that billary has been trying to reinstate MI and FL delegates with back-door tactics and CMM suggesting that the people of those states are being disenfranchised, on a daily basis now.

Just think, disenfranchise use to be a term deem by Dems on Rep stealing the election from the American People. Now certain Dems are doing it within their own Party. Spliting & Destroying the Party for their own personal gain. Yeah, that's who I want in charge of the nation. :(

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yo Malice that is what this thread is for

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=295312

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It's amazing how a candidate can win a lot of states but its not always seen in the delegate count :o

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Good God Malice did someone hack your account :confused:

Again in the Delegate Discussion Thread

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=295312

:confused:

[StorminNorman]

\S/

Stop being a dick :up:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Stop kissing up, your own words DICK :up:

[Excel]

The idea is this is all numbers while JcDc's is discussion. I suspect these posts will be deleted soon

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Yes a thread to discuss the delegate count. If this wasn't a moderator (who we all agree we like for the record...) We'd be posting the "Use the Search" joke pics or something :o

[Venom'sDad]

Well, I never understood the point of CNN or any of the other news organizations including pledged super-delegates anyhow. All super-delegates to my knowledge, pledged or not, can change their minds at the convention. Personally, I think it would take some balls on the part of the super-delegates and the DNC to vote against whomever has the lead in delegates and states come convention time. Could you imagine the reaction if Obama or Clinton had the delegate and state lead in June, and the super-delegates voted for the other candidate? It would be the most controversial thing to happen since Florida in 2000, and I'm really shocked how many people honestly believe that might happen.

A huge percentage of people believe that can happen because many don't trust billary. They already have set that precedence in the media, the reason why most outlet are showing Super Delegates in their totals, giving the impression that billary is winning the delegate count. Most media outlets was not doing that in the beginning. Add the fact that billary has been trying to reinstate MI and FL delegates with back-door tactics and CMM suggesting that the people of those states are being disenfranchised, on a daily basis now.

Just think, disenfranchise use to be a term deem by Dems on Rep stealing the election from the American People. Now certain Dems are doing it within their own Party. Spliting & Destroying the Party for their own personal gain. Yeah, that's who I want in charge of the nation. :(

[jaguarr]

VD, do you have more info or links on what Hillary's trying to do with the Superdelegates, particularly in FL and MI? I'd like to read more about that. And, sorry I had to call you VD. :o

jag

[Venom'sDad]

My apologies to Malice, I didn't see the 1st post.... I just saw souvlaki response to cory(who apparently responded to matt), and I just responded.

[Venom'sDad]

VD, do you have more info or links on what Hillary's trying to do with the Superdelegates, particularly in FL and MI? I'd like to read more about that. And, sorry I had to call you VD. :o

jag

LOL, that's fine, it's the norm now. I'm treated like a disease here on the hype.

To answer your question, it has been discuss all over the media networks MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, ABC, I read it in the L.A. Times a few days ago and so on. I'm sure you can find it anywhere, just check those sites. It has been a topic discuss everywhere... especially by Tim Russert on his show and Wolf Blitzer in the "Situation Room" lol.... I like saying that.

[The Senator]

A huge percentage of people believe that can happen because many don't trust billary. They already have set that precedence in the media, the reason why most outlet are showing Super Delegates in their totals, giving the impression that billary is winning the delegate count. Most media outlets was not doing that in the beginning. Add the fact that billary has been trying to reinstate MI and FL delegates with back-door tactics and CMM suggesting that the people of those states are being disenfranchised, on a daily basis now.

Just think, disenfranchise use to be a term deem by Dems on Rep stealing the election from the American People. Now certain Dems are doing it within their own Party. Spliting & Destroying the Party for their own personal gain. Yeah, that's who I want in charge of the nation. :(

WTF :whatever:

[The Senator]

Real Clear Politics Average

Clinton: 1121
Obama: 1118

[The Senator]

LOL, that's fine, it's the norm now. I'm treated like a disease here on the hype.

To answer your question, it has been discuss all over the media networks MSNBC, FoxNews, CNN, ABC, I read it in the L.A. Times a few days ago and so on. I'm sure you can find it anywhere, just check those sites. It has been a topic discuss everywhere... especially by Tim Russert on his show and Wolf Blitzer in the "Situation Room" lol.... I like saying that.

Michigan and Florida are technically allowed to have caucuses now, according to the DNC. So, their delegates may count if both those states decide to hold caucuses in the next month or so. My guess is, because the DNC is allowing caucuses, they won't allow the delegates won during the primaries to count at all.

[jaguarr]

Found a good read on Hillary and superdelegates over on MSNBC.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/09/651383.aspx). Interesting.

jag

[The Senator]

CNN Average

Clinton: 1108
Obama: 1049

[comicgirl]

Can someone possibly help explain what Super Delagates are about?http://www.hellblazer.com/media/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg

[The Senator]

http://www.hellblazer.com/media/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.jpg

Hey, don't make fun of Mike Huckabee's wife like that :csad:

[comicgirl]

Hey, don't make fun of Mike Huckabee's wife like that :csad:LOL!!!!!....she is baaaaaaaaah-uuuuuuuuuuuu-tiful.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

CNN Average

Clinton: 1108
Obama: 1049


Obama sweeps last night... Has won more states yet things are locked up in delegate count. If that is all that matters don't include the public at all, just have delegates and super delegates and mutated delegates vote from the start.

[The Senator]

Obama sweeps last night... Has won more states yet things are locked up in delegate count. If that is all that matters don't include the public at all, just have delegates and super delegates and mutated delegates vote from the start.

Clinton still apparently leads in the popular vote, too.

[J. J. Jameson]

Obama is leading in the Maine caucus. Looks like he'll win it. :up:

[Excel]

Obama destroys her in Maine, where she was expected to win.

If Tuesday goes as expected, shes obviously in big, big trouble.

[Havok83]

Clinton 1118
Obama 1095


Thats from ABCnew.com. Its VERY close. I really dont see Hillary winning Maryland, DC or Virginia. Obama is going to take the lead with those

[Excel]

Assuming he wins all 3 on Tuesday...what does this mean for clinton?

That leaves Hawaii, which Obama will win, and Wisconsin left for Clinton.

[Havok83]

Assuming he wins all 3 on Tuesday...what does this mean for clinton?

That leaves Hawaii, which Obama will win, and Wisconsin left for Clinton.
Clinton will most likely win Texas which is huge but Im not sure if it will be enough

[Darkly Dexter]

Clinton 1118
Obama 1095



Wow that's tight.

[Excel]

RCP has clinton at 1,123 and Obama at 1,120 :wow:

Wisconsin poll

Hillary Clinton 50%
Barack Obama 41%
Unsure 8%
Other 1%

Clintons only hope of making Febuary just a bad one instead of a campaign ending one.

[Darkly Dexter]

I don't understand why the elections in United States are so complicated.

Why don't they do it more simple (and more democratic)?

I mean, who gets more votes, wins. Period. lol

[J. J. Jameson]

I don't understand why the elections in United States are so complicated.

Why don't they do it more simple (and more democratic)?

I mean, who gets more votes, wins. Period. lol

Because you have to determine who the most popular candidates in each party are.

Then the electoral vote/electoral college system is used in the actual election because A)people are stupid, so there has to be a go-between of sorts and B)it's meant to show what the population as a whole wants, rather than a few select, big city areas.

[Kel]

It will come down to the Super Delegates, and the majority of the Super Delegates, I predict will vote for Clinton....

[The Senator]

I actually oppose the delegate/ super delegate system entirely, even though my candidate might benefit from it in the end.

I think it was a good system when it first debuted in 1972, after the fiasco that was the 1968 Democratic Convention. They were designed to ensure that a certain number of delegates would be pledged for a particular candidate, so that someone from out of the blue wouldn't come in and take the nomination, ala Hubert Humphrey. Unfortunately, we've come to almost the reverse situation which I don't think Sen. George McGovern thought of when he reformed the nominating system: A near tie where delegates alone may decide the election.

If the Democrats screw this up, I would not be surprised one bit to see primary reform up on the table by the Democrat who loses the primary.

[Kel]

I actually oppose the delegate/ super delegate system entirely, even though my candidate might benefit from it in the end.

I think it was a good system when it first debuted in 1972, after the fiasco that was the 1968 Democratic Convention. They were designed to ensure that a certain number of delegates would be pledged for a particular candidate, so that someone from out of the blue wouldn't come in and take the nomination, ala Hubert Humphrey. Unfortunately, we've come to almost the reverse situation which I don't think Sen. George McGovern thought of when he reformed the nominating system: A near tie where delegates alone may decide the election.

If the Democrats screw this up, I would not be surprised one bit to see primary reform up on the table by the Democrat who loses the primary.

Unless they end up the VP, in that case, they will keep their mouth shut for the next 16 years.....

[jaguarr]

It will come down to the Super Delegates, and the majority of the Super Delegates, I predict will vote for Clinton....

I don't know. I still think it's still too early to tell. There is a growing belief in the Democratic party that there are a lot of moderate and independent voters that could vote for either McCain OR Obama that definitely would vote against Clinton. There are also a lot of disenfranchised Republicans that wouldn't come out to vote if Obama was running against McCain but definitely would head for the polls to vote against Hillary. She's a very polarizing figure, for better or for worse, and it may play against her. The Democrats may do some back room politicking to see her campaign stumped by the Super Delegates if the belief that the only Dem that can beat McCain is Obama really takes hold.

jag

[ScottyBBadd]

We are stuck with a 2 party system.

No we are not stuck with a two party system. You say you are not a Democrat or a Republican, then prove it. Vote Independant/ 3rd party. If 60% of registered voters are Independants, as I have heard in some surveys, then if they voted Independant/3rd party then it would no longer be a 2 party system. Change would happen cause the Dems and GOP would no longer be the only game in town.

[Kel]

I don't know. I still think it's still too early to tell. There is a growing belief in the Democratic party that there are a lot of moderate and independent voters that could vote for either McCain OR Obama that definitely would vote against Clinton. There are also a lot of disenfranchised Republicans that wouldn't come out to vote if Obama was running against McCain but definitely would head for the polls to vote against Hillary. She's a very polarizing figure, for better or for worse, and it may play against her. The Democrats may do some back room politicking to see her campaign stumped by the Super Delegates if the belief that the only Dem that can beat McCain is Obama really takes hold.

jag

True, but there is ALOT going on behind the scenes......and I know that they see the perfect ticket as Clinton/Obama.........Obama would be a part of the Executive Branch for the next 16 years guaranteed......and I can damn well guarantee you that the political talk behind the scenes is for just that......so who knows at this point. Do they want a possible 8 years, or a guaranteed 16 years......?????

[jaguarr]

True, but there is ALOT going on behind the scenes......and I know that they see the perfect ticket as Clinton/Obama.........Obama would be a part of the Executive Branch for the next 16 years guaranteed......and I can damn well guarantee you that the political talk behind the scenes is for just that......so who knows at this point. Do they want a possible 8 years, or a guaranteed 16 years......?????

Yeah, I've heard of the supposed whispers of a Clinton/Obama ticket as well. There's been so much nastiness between the two of them in this campaign, particularly from Hillary's side, that they'd have some serious damage control to do in order to get the public to buy it, though.

jag

[Kel]

Yeah, I've heard of the supposed whispers of a Clinton/Obama ticket as well. There's been so much nastiness between the two of them in this campaign, particularly from Hillary's side, that they'd have some serious damage control to do in order to get the public to buy it, though.

jag


They started that damage control in the debate in California.....

[Excel]

It aint bout that yall; we need Obama and his ways NOW, not in 8 years.

[Lightning Strykez!]

But wouldn't an Obama/Clinton ticket damage Obama's credibility? He's built his entire platform on a departure from "the past", and moving on from the "more of the same". Having Clinton joined at the hip would completely negate that stance.

I doubt this will happen. One look at Al Gore's playing 3rd fiddle to Billary should send Obama running from the very idea.

[Kel]

Possible 8, or guaranteed 16......which do you think the DNC wants?????

And in the end, Obama, may not have to settle for VP......he's running strong at this point.......BUT, his pick as VP will be more important than ever....

[Lightning Strykez!]

Possible 8, or guaranteed 16......which do you think the DNC wants?????

And in the end, Obama, may not have to settle for VP......he's running strong at this point.......BUT, his pick as VP will be more important than ever....

Well, Hillary is not going to accept a Veeper. I just can't see it happening--she's too arrogant.

He needs Evan Byah...but he's in bed with Hillary. :(

[Kel]

Well, Hillary is not going to accept a Veeper. I just can't see it happening--she's too arrogant.

He needs Evan Byah...but he's in bed with Hillary. :(

No, she won't...


Byah, has name recognition among Democrats....but nationally......just not enough, IMO. He solidly has the mainstream young Democrats for the most part, he needs someone that will bring in the major independent vote out there.....someone that would bring him more to the center. The older democrats will do what they usually do and vote straight ticket......they would vote for Mickey Mouse if he was the Democrat up......

As for the Republicans......the Christian Right, is going to be a hard sell for McCain, and he's going to have to make a decision on whether he needs them or not. They won't vote just because he's a Republican.....they just won't vote.

[jaguarr]

But wouldn't an Obama/Clinton ticket damage Obama's credibility? He's built his entire platform on a departure from "the past", and moving on from the "more of the same". Having Clinton joined at the hip would completely negate that stance.

I doubt this will happen. One look at Al Gore's playing 3rd fiddle to Billary should send Obama running from the very idea.

That's a very good point, LS. I'm not sure Obama would want her on the same ticket as him, no matter what the Dem leadership wants them to do.

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, if the powers-that-be do push for a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket, both candidates can still take solace in the fact that such a match-up would still be historical--and ground-breaking in ways we probably can't even fathom right now. The first female American President? The first African-American vice-president?

Um, yeah. I have a feeling that particular ticket would crush anything the GOP had to offer.

[Venom'sDad]

I'm interested to know why it constantly appears as if Obama is trailing in the delegate count. On a daily basis, he appear to be within approx 25 delegates and closing, depending on who totals one is following, than after a primary or caucus, he appear to be 25 or more... after picking up a net gain. Which brings me to another observation, there is 7 different delegate count, maybe more than that by now.... but, what is that all about?

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm interested to know why it constantly appears as if Obama is trailing in the delegate count. On a daily basis, he appear to be within approx 25 delegates and closing, depending on who totals one is following, than after a primary or caucus, he appear to be 25 or more... after picking up a net gain. Which brings me to another observation, there is 7 different delegate count, maybe more than that by now.... but, what is that all about?

It could be additions of superdelegates to her tally....

[The Senator]

I'm interested to know why it constantly appears as if Obama is trailing in the delegate count. On a daily basis, he appear to be within approx 25 delegates and closing, depending on who totals one is following, than after a primary or caucus, he appear to be 25 or more... after picking up a net gain. Which brings me to another observation, there is 7 different delegate count, maybe more than that by now.... but, what is that all about?

There are unpledged delegates which cannot be correctly predicted, so these media outlets are doing rough estimates. Trust me, most of these people spend hours analyzing numbers and making predictions... unfortunately, no one source is correct, and the final tally won't really be known until the convention in August.

[Venom'sDad]

It could be additions of superdelegates to her tally....

Yeah I know, I guess i was under the impression, that when one of these officials pledge their endorsement for a candidate, and these official are members of the Super Delegates, that count as a pledge Super Delegate for that candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only heard of billary getting three in the last two days....2 from WA and one from LA(the state). Her totals appear to rise by more than 40+ everytime, keeping her consistantly ahead. The media regularly announce candidates endorsements, especially since these pledge endorsement count as Super Delegates for a candidate.... that's why candidates seek endorsements.

[The Senator]

Yeah I know, I guess i was under the impression, that when one of these officials pledge their endorsement for a candidate, and these official are members of the Super Delegates, that count as a pledge Super Delegate for that candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong, I only heard of billary getting three in the last two days....2 from WA and one from LA(the state). Her totals appear to rise by more than 40+ everytime, keeping her consistantly ahead. The media regularly announce candidates endorsements, especially since these pledge endorsement count as Super Delegates for a candidate.... that's why candidates seek endorsements.

Right, but Hillary has been ahead in the endorsement game consistently throughout this campaign. Obama needs to get over a hundred more endorsements to start racking up the superdelegates. While he's been getting a few here and there, they still don't compare to Hillary's.

[Venom'sDad]

Obama for the first time, leads in the delegate count, that includes the dreaded Super Delegates.

Obama --> 1134
Billary----> 1131

This according to the latest results from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml

[hippie_hunter]

Obama for the first time, leads in the delegate count, that includes the dreaded Super Delegates.

Obama --> 1134
Billary----> 1131

This according to the latest results from CBS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/10/politics/main3813759.shtml

But CNN has Clinton in the lead

Clinton ---> 1,148
Obama ---> 1,121

[Malice]

Damn this is close....never seen one this close before

[Venom'sDad]

But CNN has Clinton in the lead

Clinton ---> 1,148
Obama ---> 1,121

Yeah, that was a point I was making earlier... there are approxy 7 different delegate counts out there. No network or print media appear to agree. CBS News is the first I've seen to have Obama in the lead, including SuperDelegates. I will scan more sites and compare; however, I though the CBS count was interesting. Frankly, no one knows which count is accurate, CNN, CBS, or any of the countless others. :(

[Venom'sDad]

FoxNews and Real Clear Politics 2008, shows Obama leading as well in the Delegate count, including SupDels.

The Drudge Report is quoting CBS News results.

Obama ---> 1143
Billary-----> 1138


BTW, Obama/Edwards meeting has been called off until a later date. Both are saying that they want to meet in private and not surrounded by media attention.

[Excel]

Well, yall say they decide the election. Its starting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?ei=5065&en=83bd560436fa713f&ex=1203397200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[The Senator]

I don't think they'll jump ship unless the Super Delegates are the only deciding factor in this race. If Obama manages to come out on top by huge margins in today's primaries, in addition to Wisconsin, Rhode Island and Hawaii in the next week or so, he'll close the gap between himself and Hillary, therefore making the Super Delegates irrelevant.

You'll also notice that they're not switching from Clinton to Obama because they support Obama's candidacy, but because they detest the idea that this nomination will be decided by Super Delegates.

[Genesis 1.0]

We'll see at the convention.

Any super-delegate's word is like writing in sand, it'll shift a thousand times between now and then, usually with whoever has the most steam heading into it.

EDIT: Got me by a minute.

[Excel]

I don't think they'll jump ship unless the Super Delegates are the only deciding factor in this race. If Obama manages to come out on top by huge margins in today's primaries, in addition to Wisconsin, Rhode Island and Hawaii in the next week or so, he'll close the gap between himself and Hillary

Might be abit behind...but what gap? Even with super delegates he has 4-5 delegate lead and itll be 40-50 after today hopefully.

[The Senator]

Might be abit behind...but what gap? Even with super delegates he has 4-5 delegate lead and itll be 40-50 after today hopefully.

That's with state delegates. With super delegates included, Clinton leads Obama 1136 to 1108.

[Venom'sDad]

Well, yall say they decide the election. Its starting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?ei=5065&en=83bd560436fa713f&ex=1203397200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

That’s a great fine Excel. What it illustrates to me, a percentage of her Super Delegates are now second guessing themselves as they become more familiar with Obama, the nuances between their plans, elect ability, and his ability to unite the party, Congress, and the country. ABC did an interview with some early voters who wished they could change their vote as they become more familiar with Obama. I imagine the same sort of thing is beginning to take place with many of her Super Delegates.

[The Senator]

That’s a great fine Excel. What it illustrates to me, a percentage of her Super Delegates are now second guessing themselves as they become more familiar with Obama, the nuances between their plans, elect ability, and his ability to unite the party, Congress, and the country. ABC did an interview with some early voters who wished they could change their vote as they become more familiar with Obama. I imagine the same sort of thing is beginning to take place with many of her Super Delegates.


I think you're wrong here. Most of the Super Delegates who currently support Hillary will probably not vote for Obama unless the nomination comes down to the Super Delegate count alone. It would be a slap in the face for a party which fussed for years about Al Gore's electoral college loss to George W. Bush if they nominate a candidate who led in the delegate count but trailed in the popular vote, and that's the concern which is being expressed in this article.

Furthermore, most Super Delegates are aware of who these candidates are. Super Delegates are politicians and party insiders who know each candidate pretty well. They're not just discovering Barack Obama or seriously looking into his platform for the first time. Had Hillary ran away with the nomination, they wouldn't question their support for her one bit. And chances are, most Super Delegates will stay pledged to their candidate regardless of who comes out on top before the convention.

[Kel]

Might be abit behind...but what gap? Even with super delegates he has 4-5 delegate lead and itll be 40-50 after today hopefully.

It's not a winner take all with the Democrat delegates......so in all honesty, there is not a true count to be found anywhere......and there won't be a true count until the convention, almost guaranteed.

[Excel]

I think you're wrong here. Most of the Super Delegates who currently support Hillary will probably not vote for Obama unless the nomination comes down to the Super Delegate count alone. It would be a slap in the face for a party which fussed for years about Al Gore's electoral college loss to George W. Bush if they nominate a candidate who led in the delegate count but trailed in the popular vote, and that's the concern which is being expressed in this article.

Furthermore, most Super Delegates are aware of who these candidates are. Super Delegates are politicians and party insiders who know each candidate pretty well. They're not just discovering Barack Obama or seriously looking into his platform for the first time. Had Hillary ran away with the nomination, they wouldn't question their support for her one bit. And chances are, most Super Delegates will stay pledged to their candidate regardless of who comes out on top before the convention.

I dont think switching is that big of a deal. The problem for Hillary if she keeps loosing is that the vast majority of the 400 or so undecided super delegates are all gonna go to the Obama.

[jaguarr]

It's not a winner take all with the Democrat delegates......so in all honesty, there is not a true count to be found anywhere......and there won't be a true count until the convention, almost guaranteed.

Pretty much. Anyone who says they have an accurate count of delegates and super delegates is either delusional or talking out of their ass.

jag

[YsoSerious]

This "super delegate" talk sounds like Hillary is going to steal the nomination if she doesn't win it outright.Sounds like Gore vs Bush all over again.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

It's kind of odd to see that Obama wins all the caucus states pretty much and in general looking at the number of states he has won 22 states to Mrs. Bill Clinton's 11 states yet he's barely ahead in the delegate count. Especially with these super delegates... Ugh, Clinton will be on her knees like Monica for those votes :-/

[Kel]

This "super delegate" talk sounds like Hillary is going to steal the nomination if she doesn't win it outright.Sounds like Gore vs Bush all over again.



LMAO.....not even close, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court, changing the history of the court forever........changing the checks and balances system that the forefathers put in place........

not..........................even................. ..............................close.:o

[\S/JcDc\S/]

LMAO.....not even close, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court, changing the history of the court forever........changing the checks and balances system that the forefathers put in place........

not..........................even................. ..............................close.:o

That seems arrogant of you Kel. I'm sure his thoughts were influenced by CNN where they do reference the Gore/Bush electoral vote mess as a similar situation...IF the super delegates were to go against Obama winning the popular vote/majority of states. Many have made the comparison and you know it.

[Excel]

It's kind of odd to see that Obama wins all the caucus states pretty much and in general looking at the number of states he has won 22 states to Mrs. Bill Clinton's 11 states yet he's barely ahead in the delegate count. Especially with these super delegates... Ugh, Clinton will be on her knees like Monica for those votes :-/

He has a 55 delegate lead right now and itll grow next weekend. He has an 11 state lead which cannot be blown, and an 800,000 lead in the popular vote.

Those super delegates that are undecided will NOT go against the popular vote and state leader if it comes down to them.

[Kel]

That seems arrogant of you Kel. I'm sure his thoughts were influenced by CNN where they do reference the Gore/Bush electoral vote mess as a similar situation...IF the super delegates were to go against Obama winning the popular vote/majority of states. Many have made the comparison and you know it.

No, just my opinion.............nothing arrogant at all intended........I think CNN is wrong as well in that reference. To equate American Citizens CHOICE, true CHOICE........to that of a Conservative slanted Supreme Court, that changed the course of HISTORY......232 years of history.....putting the Supreme Court into position that it has never been put in before, and probably never will again.......no ....... sorry..........not even close......

[\S/JcDc\S/]

Oh I'm not saying you were trying to sound arrogant, I'm just saying it could be perceived that way because many are making that comparison to Bush/Gore mess. This is all an IF anyways... IF Obama keeps the popular vote/wins most states and IF the superdelegates were to vote against the favorite. That would be why the comparison seems valid. Because the candidate who won, basically through legalities has it taken away.

[Kel]

Oh I'm not saying you were trying to sound ignorant, I'm just saying it could be perceived that way because many are making that comparison to Bush/Gore mess. This is all an IF anyways... IF Obama keeps the popular vote/wins most states and IF the superdelegates were to vote against the favorite.


Ok, now you've changed from arrogant to ignorant.....lmao......I can assure you, I'm probably more arrogant of my knowledge of history than I am ignorant....:cwink:

[\S/JcDc\S/]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH soooooooooorrrrry typo!! :eek:

LMAO

I certainly would not think of you as ignorant my friend ;)

[Kel]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH soooooooooorrrrry typo!! :eek:

LMAO

I certainly would not think of you as ignorant my friend ;)


I have to admit, as a student of history, as a teacher of history and government......the 2000 election was like a slap in the face of our Constitution and way of life in America more than anything before its time....IMO......we have had changes to the Constitution that have kept us moving forward.......this one decision that was #1 a state decision.....#2.....made by a group that is meant to "interpret the law" set forth by the legislature meant to "make law"....sent us backwards.......I have a hard time with the whole thing............so I would probably equate very little with it......

[Arkady Rossovich]

Obama barely has more than Clinton now..and i hope it stays like this.

[Rated-X]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html