Obama can't win a majority of pledged delegates.

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Please list the names of the super delegates who have "switched" to Obama. Or at least provide a link to prove that any of them have switched from Clinton to Obama. Thanks.

There is no concrete proof either way. Super Delegates are not pledged, they can switch their vote at the convention if they wish.

I do know that Bill's Campaign Manager in 1992 endorsed Obama yesterday and has pledged his vote. (He is a Super Delegate.)

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Please list the names of the super delegates who have "switched" to Obama. Or at least provide a link to prove that any of them have switched from Clinton to Obama. Thanks.

There is no concrete proof either way. Super Delegates are not pledged, they can switch their vote at the convention if they wish.

I do know that Bill's Campaign Manager in 1992 endorsed Obama yesterday and has pledged his vote. (He is a Super Delegate.)

Wrong. Many have already pledged their support, which is why some news agencies are counting them in their tallies. So if someone has "switched" their support after pledging it to Hillary, you should be able to list them. He made a claim so let him back it up.

 

[Pabster]

Democratic Convention Watch: Super Delegate List

This is a fantastic resource for monitoring Super Delegate status and activity.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Bill's campaign manager switched. That was the major one. I've heard others in interviews say they would switch if she didn't get the most pledged delegates.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Democratic Convention Watch: Super Delegate List

This is a fantastic resource for monitoring Super Delegate status and activity.

Now show me some evidence of any super delegate announcing support for one candidate and then later switching their support to another. Nothing on that page would show that. You seem confident that this is happening, so tell me how you know that to be the case.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Now show me some evidence of any super delegate announcing support for one candidate and then later switching their support to another. Nothing on that page would show that. You seem confident that this is happening, so tell me how you know that to be the case.

Where did I say I "know that" to be the case? There was an NYT piece a few days back that said some of Hillary's Super Delegates were "wavering" in the face of her downfall.

Right now there are still nearly 2/3 of the Super Delegates which are uncommitted. They will decide.

 

[Skitzer]

I will have to save this thread for future reference.
Go Obama!

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Pabster
Democratic Convention Watch: Super Delegate List

This is a fantastic resource for monitoring Super Delegate status and activity.

Now show me some evidence of any super delegate announcing support for one candidate and then later switching their support to another. Nothing on that page would show that. You seem confident that this is happening, so tell me how you know that to be the case.

Just in today actually.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...2008/02/14/664722.aspx

The Obama campaign announced Christine "Roz" Samuels, a DNC member and superdelegate from New Jersey, switched her support from Clinton to Obama. NBC News can confirm that Samuels had been supporting Clinton.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And his post says what happens if by the convention Hillary has more. What then do the supers do, follow the delegate count, or the popular vote. It's an interesting question actually.

And they're saying she would need to win 60% of the vote in all remaining states to do that.

No, they were talking 60% of the DELEGATES, not individual votes. It will be harder to catch up in delegates than popular votes. Even if she wins Texas 60/40, the delegate split won't be very large, but she could win by hundreds of thousands in the popular vote, like she did in CA. So, the question remains, if ahead in popular votes and behind in delegates, where do the supers go?

Well, here's part of the answer, and a very good point too about the "popular vote".

Originally posted by: Wreckem
It will be hard to argue the popular vote if Obama wins states 35 to 15. Do you want to disenfranchise voters in 2/3rds of the states? A straight popular vote doesnt work since not all are primaries.

But if the super delegates hands aren't tied by the results of the primaries/caucuses and can make a difference, I think they'll look at a couple of things:

1. The candidate with momentum.

2. The candidate leading in the polls, including head-to-head polling against McCain.

3. I also think they better take into account the intangible factors such as, HRC may mobilize the Repub base, who brings in more independant voters, and will the black community (typical critical for Dems) show up if Obama is passed over.

These factors appear to be Obama's favor ATM.

Fern

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Pabster
Democratic Convention Watch: Super Delegate List

This is a fantastic resource for monitoring Super Delegate status and activity.

Now show me some evidence of any super delegate announcing support for one candidate and then later switching their support to another. Nothing on that page would show that. You seem confident that this is happening, so tell me how you know that to be the case.

Just in today actually.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...2008/02/14/664722.aspx

The Obama campaign announced Christine "Roz" Samuels, a DNC member and superdelegate from New Jersey, switched her support from Clinton to Obama. NBC News can confirm that Samuels had been supporting Clinton.

Yeah, and it was the first time it's happened and they talk about it like it's a rare thing. Nobody does it because they don't want to be seen as flip-floppers. The guy earlier in this thread tried to make it sound like there were lots of super delegates flip-flopping over to Obama, and that's just not the case.

 

[fskimospy]

The superdelegates will go for the person with the most pledged delegates, period. The person with the most pledged delegates is not only probably the fairest winner, but it is also the person that is viewed in the media and popular opinion as being the 'winner'. As Wreckem stated you can't compare vote totals directly as different states use different methods, some of which massively suppress turnout.

There's simply no chance that the Democratic party will risk splitting itself by nominating the person who is viewed to be the loser, especially after Bush v. Gore.

EDIT: Whoops, should have credited Wreckem.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The superdelegates will go for the person with the most pledged delegates, period. The person with the most pledged delegates is not only probably the fairest winner, but it is also the person that is viewed in the media and popular opinion as being the 'winner'. As Wreckem stated you can't compare vote totals directly as different states use different methods, some of which massively suppress turnout.

There's simply no chance that the Democratic party will risk splitting itself by nominating the person who is viewed to be the loser, especially after Bush v. Gore.

EDIT: Whoops, should have credited Wreckem.

I think if the DEM v McCain metric were seriously skewed in favor of whoever was slightly behind in the delegate count, it might. However in this race the percentage points are basically within the margin of error, so will be considered, but I don't think its a decisive factor.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I think if the DEM v McCain metric were seriously skewed in favor of whoever was slightly behind in the delegate count, it might. However in this race the percentage points are basically within the margin of error, so will be considered, but I don't think its a decisive factor.

Possibly, but I just don't think its likely they would want to risk the wrath of the voters, especially considering how many Democrats believe the decision of the 2000 election was subverted.

I honestly don't think it will even come to the convention though, I would be very surprised if there isn't some sort of deal struck where one or the other drops out before that point.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Yeah, and it was the first time it's happened and they talk about it like it's a rare thing. Nobody does it because they don't want to be seen as flip-floppers. The guy earlier in this thread tried to make it sound like there were lots of super delegates flip-flopping over to Obama, and that's just not the case.

Why would they switch now? It still isn't clear who will be the presumptive nominee following the primaries (though Obama looks increasingly likely to be that person).

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I think if the DEM v McCain metric were seriously skewed in favor of whoever was slightly behind in the delegate count, it might. However in this race the percentage points are basically within the margin of error, so will be considered, but I don't think its a decisive factor.

Possibly, but I just don't think its likely they would want to risk the wrath of the voters, especially considering how many Democrats believe the decision of the 2000 election was subverted.

I honestly don't think it will even come to the convention though, I would be very surprised if there isn't some sort of deal struck where one or the other drops out before that point.

Possibly, but if it's within 20 pledged delegates, can you see Hillary dropping out? It'd have to be some deal.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I think if the DEM v McCain metric were seriously skewed in favor of whoever was slightly behind in the delegate count, it might. However in this race the percentage points are basically within the margin of error, so will be considered, but I don't think its a decisive factor.

Possibly, but I just don't think its likely they would want to risk the wrath of the voters, especially considering how many Democrats believe the decision of the 2000 election was subverted.

I honestly don't think it will even come to the convention though, I would be very surprised if there isn't some sort of deal struck where one or the other drops out before that point.

Or she could just cry some more and hope Obama makes her the running mate. Of course she may have to duke it out with John Edwards.

 

[Slew Foot]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(did more people vote for me? No? well then....)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sirjonk

I think if the DEM v McCain metric were seriously skewed in favor of whoever was slightly behind in the delegate count, it might. However in this race the percentage points are basically within the margin of error, so will be considered, but I don't think its a decisive factor.

Possibly, but I just don't think its likely they would want to risk the wrath of the voters, especially considering how many Democrats believe the decision of the 2000 election was subverted.

I honestly don't think it will even come to the convention though, I would be very surprised if there isn't some sort of deal struck where one or the other drops out before that point.

Or she could just cry some more and hope Obama makes her the running mate. Of course she may have to duke it out with John Edwards.

I'd like to state this for the record... if any candidate is stupid enough to pick John Edwards as their running mate, I'd probably never vote democratic again in my lifetime.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
The only thing that makes sense to me at this point is that Techs works for the Clinton campaign. I mean, seriously, he's gone far beyond the point of actually stating a rational opinion and is clearly just doing public relations at this point. Has anyone checked into this?

I think he is in here somewhere.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: rudder
Or she could just cry some more and hope Obama makes her the running mate. Of course she may have to duke it out with John Edwards.

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(did more people vote for me? No? well then....)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

You sheep just lap up the media blitz doncha? She gets wet eyed a couple times, the media reports a nervous breakdown, and you parrots just process & repeat. If she were half as good as you all give her credit for she'd be blowing Obama away.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: rudder
Or she could just cry some more and hope Obama makes her the running mate. Of course she may have to duke it out with John Edwards.

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(did more people vote for me? No? well then....)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

You sheep just lap up the media blitz doncha? She gets wet eyed a couple times, the media reports a nervous breakdown, and you parrots just process & repeat. If she were half as good as you all give her credit for she'd be blowing Obama away.

Three times, all the day before primaries. Sorry if Im skeptical on believing it wasnt faked. It worked the first two times to varying degrees, didnt work the third.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: rudder
Or she could just cry some more and hope Obama makes her the running mate. Of course she may have to duke it out with John Edwards.

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(did more people vote for me? No? well then....)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

You sheep just lap up the media blitz doncha? She gets wet eyed a couple times, the media reports a nervous breakdown, and you parrots just process & repeat. If she were half as good as you all give her credit for she'd be blowing Obama away.

Three times, all the day before primaries. Sorry if Im skeptical on believing it wasnt faked. It worked the first two times to varying degrees, didnt work the third.

If she only got teary in NH you'd probably say, well she only cried once and that was before her NH win, so the fact that she hasn't done it again because she'd be called a fraud proves the first time was fake. She can't win with those of you who already hate her and are ready to accuse her every sneeze, yawn and laugh as part of a massive machination. Maybe the day before a primary is the most nerve wracking, especially when everyone says you're going to get creamed, and you've been planning on winning for a decade and are about to see your life's ambition slip away?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: rudder
Or she could just cry some more and hope Obama makes her the running mate. Of course she may have to duke it out with John Edwards.

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(did more people vote for me? No? well then....)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

You sheep just lap up the media blitz doncha? She gets wet eyed a couple times, the media reports a nervous breakdown, and you parrots just process & repeat. If she were half as good as you all give her credit for she'd be blowing Obama away.

Three times, all the day before primaries. Sorry if Im skeptical on believing it wasnt faked. It worked the first two times to varying degrees, didnt work the third.

The way I figure it there's two explainations for the crying:
1) She's a wuss. Presidents should be made of tougher stuff, not ones that start crying after a setback. Not saying I myself wouldn't fall apart...but if I were running for president, I'd at least hope to have the good graces to fall apart behind closed doors!
2) It was a calculated political move to turn on the tears.

She wasn't crying because a bunch of Americans died or the country is going to hell...she was either having a temper tantrum because she didn't get the pony playhouse for Christmas or she's using the old "oh-shit-the-girl-is-crying-do-whatever-you-can-to-make-it-stop" trick that so many of us fall for.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Maybe the day before a primary is the most nerve wracking, especially when everyone says you're going to get creamed, and you've been scheming and plotting for a decade and are about to see your life's ambition slip away?

Fixed.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The way I figure it there's two explainations for the crying:
1) She's a wuss. Presidents should be made of tougher stuff, not ones that start crying after a setback. Not saying I myself wouldn't fall apart...but if I were running for president, I'd at least hope to have the good graces to fall apart behind closed doors!
2) It was a calculated political move to turn on the tears.

She wasn't crying because a bunch of Americans died or the country is going to hell...she was either having a temper tantrum because she didn't get the pony playhouse for Christmas or she's using the old "oh-shit-the-girl-is-crying-do-whatever-you-can-to-make-it-stop" trick that so many of us fall for.

Stop calling it 'crying' like the media did. For 10 seconds her eyes got wet. Did anyone see the Daily Show when they showed the actual footage followed by the media sensationalism?