Official Supertuesday Discussion Thread **UPDATED x2**

[bl4ckfl4g]

Super delegates are dumb and corrupt no matter who is in the lead. They take away the peoples vote. So 1 elected official is worth multiple thousands or more of regular voters...bs.

But that is the rules.

If Hillary loses the elected delegats but wins by super delegates, I'll never vote Dem again.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Super delegates are dumb and corrupt no matter who is in the lead. They take away the peoples vote. So 1 elected official is worth multiple thousands or more of regular voters...bs.

But that is the rules.

If Hillary loses the elected delegats but wins by super delegates, I'll never vote Dem again.

the people don't even have to have a vote in the primaries.

I think there's a definite case to be made for picking the candidates in a smoky back room... the candidates picked that way seem to be miles better than the ones picked by these primaries

traditionally, the super delegates have simply voted whichever way the tide was going. this might be a unique situation that we may never see again where we have two competitive and popular candidates running neck and neck in the primary.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, you obama people make me laugh. Some people talk about delegate lead over Clinton when Clinton actually has the lead. Some people said Obama should be happy with such tie race because he was an underdog when he enjoyed huge surge in recent weeks with big endorsement and big lead in polls in places like California. Do you people even remember how Hillary was almost counted out in NH, and the race as well, before she scored a surprising win?

I personally like Clinton, wouldn't mind Obama wins, and see Obama has a bigger chance to win because of the black, independent and red state democrats support. But still, you people really demonstrate the worst of obama support, other than your blind passion about the person, you can't come up with a logical reason why obama deserve to be the next president. and all you people do is yell go obama go or post FUD on the Internet.

Clinton has a ~60 delegate lead thanks to Super Delegates that pledged their support months ago. Obama has always lead in elected delegates. He will continue to have the elected delegate lead through the month of Feb. If Obama wins the elected delegates the he will win the nomination. There would be hell to pay if Super Delegates decided it. It would basically means the peoples vote doesnt matter, would put the issue of Michigan and Florida to shame.

So what, in your opinion super delegates don't count, and they aren't people or represent people? So we should change the rule of the game because your beloved Obama is losing due to super delegates?

Well the thing with Super Delegates is, they arent official until the Convention. If Obama wins the elected Delegates, Super Delegates will ultimately break for him, because if they didnt there would be hell to pay. People talk about it would be disenfrancising Michigan and Florida if their delegates are seated(also chaning the game), but allowing it to come down to Super Delegates disenfrancises every voter.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: rchiu
So what, in your opinion super delegates don't count, and they aren't people or represent people? So we should change the rule of the game because your beloved Obama is losing due to super delegates?

I don't believe in Super Delegates, but those are the rules, and everyone has agreed to them. Naturally, Super Delegates will favor the establishment. That would be Hillary. She has something like a 250-175 lead in those as it stands now. Not insurmountable, by any means.

The argument against them is that they take the voice away from the voters and give it to party leaders instead.

Well, this is a DEMOCRAT primary and why shouldn't the party have some say in it? Lots of states allow independent to vote in the primary/caucuses, and alot of time that may result in selection of candidate that do not best represent the party, super delegate just balance it out a little. And the number of super delegate is so small, and it is often not one sided pro one candidate, so the net effect is not gonna be big anyway. You obama people just crying foul because the small lead in super delegate for Clinton just enough to push her over the top for now. if it were the other way around, you'd sing the praise for super delegates.

If Obama wins more states and more elected delegates, but loses the nomination. There would be HELL to pay. Whole voting blocs would be furious. It Would be quite a contentious convention.

Super Delegates make up around 20% of the Delegates for the Dems. A little over 800 out of the slightly over 4000 delegates.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Super delegates are dumb and corrupt no matter who is in the lead. They take away the peoples vote. So 1 elected official is worth multiple thousands or more of regular voters...bs.

But that is the rules.

If Hillary loses the elected delegats but wins by super delegates, I'll never vote Dem again.

the people don't even have to have a vote in the primaries.

I think there's a definite case to be made for picking the candidates in a smoky back room... the candidates picked that way seem to be miles better than the ones picked by these primaries

traditionally, the super delegates have simply voted whichever way the tide was going. this might be a unique situation that we may never see again where we have two competitive and popular candidates running neck and neck in the primary.

The problem is you had ~200 of the ~800 giving thier support to Clinton out of the gate.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
Super delegates are dumb and corrupt no matter who is in the lead. They take away the peoples vote. So 1 elected official is worth multiple thousands or more of regular voters...bs.

But that is the rules.

If Hillary loses the elected delegats but wins by super delegates, I'll never vote Dem again.

the people don't even have to have a vote in the primaries.

I think there's a definite case to be made for picking the candidates in a smoky back room... the candidates picked that way seem to be miles better than the ones picked by these primaries

traditionally, the super delegates have simply voted whichever way the tide was going. this might be a unique situation that we may never see again where we have two competitive and popular candidates running neck and neck in the primary.

The problem is you had ~200 of the ~800 giving thier support to Clinton out of the gate.

things seem to be looking good for Obama overall.

I agree with you... if Obama has a significant lead in the non-super delegates, the SD's will more than likely go with the popular vote trend.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
If Obama wins more states and more elected delegates, but loses the nomination. There would be HELL to pay. Whole voting blocs would be furious. It could be quite a contentious convention.

Agreed on elected delegates, but the number of states he wins is totally irrelevant. In the general election, if the D wins FL/CA/NY/IL and the R wins 20 smaller states that still don't equal the elector count (as usually happens), they have nothing to complain about. That's the system. Same here.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Wreckem
If Obama wins more states and more elected delegates, but loses the nomination. There would be HELL to pay. Whole voting blocs would be furious. It could be quite a contentious convention.

Agreed on elected delegates, but the number of states he wins is totally irrelevant. In the general election, if the D wins FL/CA/NY/IL and the R wins 20 smaller states that still don't equal the elector count (as usually happens), they have nothing to complain about. That's the system. Same here.

If Obama has an overwhelming lead among states and has a narrow lead in the elected delegates states do matter.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

I heard an interview with one of the Super Delegates last night that is a Clinton staffer. He said he would never change his super delegate vote no matter what happens.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
I heard an interview with one of the Super Delegates last night that is a Clinton staffer. He said he would never change his super delegate vote no matter what happens.

Most aren't like that. Most Super Delegates typically vote the way their states do. ~60% of the Super Delegates arent saying who they support yet.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Wreckem
If Obama wins more states and more elected delegates, but loses the nomination. There would be HELL to pay. Whole voting blocs would be furious. It could be quite a contentious convention.

Agreed on elected delegates, but the number of states he wins is totally irrelevant. In the general election, if the D wins FL/CA/NY/IL and the R wins 20 smaller states that still don't equal the elector count (as usually happens), they have nothing to complain about. That's the system. Same here.

If Obama has an overwhelming lead among states and has a narrow lead in the elected delegates states do matter.

If Obama wins an "overwhelming lead among states", he won't be holding a narrow lead i n pledged delegates. The only thing that matters is the delegates. If he wins 30 small states, but ends up with fewer delegates, then there's no controversy. This is how most dems win the general election, by carrying fewer larger population states. In both 2000 and 2004, Bush carried 30/31 states, and Gore/Kerry won 20, yet the dem was only one state's electoral votes away from winning in each case.

If however Obama wins more delegates, and loses because of the supers, there will be problems.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Wreckem
If Obama wins more states and more elected delegates, but loses the nomination. There would be HELL to pay. Whole voting blocs would be furious. It could be quite a contentious convention.

Agreed on elected delegates, but the number of states he wins is totally irrelevant. In the general election, if the D wins FL/CA/NY/IL and the R wins 20 smaller states that still don't equal the elector count (as usually happens), they have nothing to complain about. That's the system. Same here.

If Obama has an overwhelming lead among states and has a narrow lead in the elected delegates states do matter.

If Obama wins an "overwhelming lead among states", he won't be holding a narrow lead i n pledged delegates. The only thing that matters is the delegates. If he wins 30 small states, but ends up with fewer delegates, then there's no controversy. This is how most dems win the general election, by carrying fewer larger population states. In both 2000 and 2004, Bush carried 30/31 states, and Gore/Kerry won 20, yet the dem was only one state's electoral votes away from winning in each case.

If however Obama wins more delegates, and loses because of the supers, there will be problems.

So he has to win another 1-3 states because of the superdelegates or else we are going to have a problem, GJ DNC

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
I heard an interview with one of the Super Delegates last night that is a Clinton staffer. He said he would never change his super delegate vote no matter what happens.

Most aren't like that. Most Super Delegates typically vote the way their states do. ~60% of the Super Delegates arent saying who they support yet.

Ha, I have a feeling Bill Clinton would vote for Hillary regardless of state outcome.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
I heard an interview with one of the Super Delegates last night that is a Clinton staffer. He said he would never change his super delegate vote no matter what happens.

Most aren't like that. Most Super Delegates typically vote the way their states do. ~60% of the Super Delegates arent saying who they support yet.

Ha, I have a feeling Bill Clinton would vote for Hillary regardless of state outcome.

As well as the Clinton aid saying she would never switch her vote...

Isn't it kind of stupid how people that close to candidates get to be superdelagates whose vote represents 80-100k people?

 

[Pabster]

Story here.

Cliffs:

TOTAL VOTES CAST

Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)

Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)

With over 14.5 million ballots cast, only 53,120 votes separating them.

Hang on tight. This is gonna be a wild ride.

 

[nageov3t]

thanks, there's already a super tuesday thread

 

[UberNeuman]

Someone is rather manic today......

 

[JJChicken]

I am happy with our performance on Super Tuesday. Thanks to all that helped!

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
I am happy with our performance on Super Tuesday. Thanks to all that helped!

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
I am happy with our performance on Super Tuesday. Thanks to all that helped!

ROFL

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Barack Obama
I am happy with our performance on Super Tuesday. Thanks to all that helped!

:laugh: :thumbsup: :laugh: