home
More On Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

No one can win without the superdelegates. (none / 0) (#37)
by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
Pledged delegates only matter if you get to the magic number. Otherwise, it's up to the superdelegates. There is no "stealing" involved.

I don't understand why so few people seem to be willing to admit or accept this.

[ Parent ]

Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#41)
by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:12:54 PM EST
The party is more important than the candidates, and the presumption that Obama has won isn't dismissible by referring to any arguable metric.   50.5% won't cut it.  We have to be able to look back in eight years and not want to kill our fellow Dems, and lacking a totally clear victor the estoppel has taken root.  (Hope I used the word of the day right.)

[ Parent ]
How about this metric? (none / 0) (#52)
by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:28:12 PM EST
HRC has more Democratic voters. Shouldn't that count for something?

We also need to deal with Florida and Michigan in some way that doesn't discount their delegates.

Mainly, I think that all the voters should vote before we decide. Obama may well be the nominee, but I don't see any reason to end it now.

[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0) (#66)
by Aye B2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM EST
How about Big Tent stops deleting (censoring) my comments?

Also, the more protracted this battle is, the bloodier the nominee is in November.  Clintonites continually say Obama is fighting back because he's afraid of losing the race, but in reality he's fighting back to end this.  The math is clearly in Obama's favor right now, but somehow we should just ignore this because basically "anything is possible, ya never know".  Well, if Clintonites want to wager Clinton's hopes for the democratic nomination vs the hopes of a dem being in office come 09, then more power to them.

[ Parent ]

Unresponsive to reality (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by rilkefan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:49:21 PM EST
"The math is clearly in Obama's favor right now"

Duh.  But you're making a straw argument with "pretending".

And your "in reality" is just a random opinion - that and backing it with some data or logical argument will get your post not banned.

And since Obama's lead exists in large part as a result of the disenfranchisement of two pretty critical states, really it's Obama wagering Nov for Aug.

[ Parent ]

Deliberately ignoring the point. (none / 0) (#72)
by madamab on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:44:28 PM EST
Obama hasn't won and can't win without the superdelegates.

Just like Hillary.

I'm out. Thanks for welcoming a newbie! I enjoyed the discussion.

[ Parent ]

Stop calling (none / 0) (#92)
by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
people Clintonites and you might avoid getting deleted.

[ Parent ]
If super-delegates wanted to end this (none / 0) (#94)
by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:33:29 PM EST
they would, and they could -- by all committing right now.

You ought to think about why they don't -- and they won't.  Too many unknown unknowns with your candidate, including his delegate count.  It's the downside of the caucus exploitation strategy.

The caucus states must keep recaucusing, starting over at every stage, from now until June.  None of those local delegates is bound and can flip any time at the county and state levels, until the national delegates in those states finally are selected.

With the revelations of recent weeks about your candidate, a lot could change.  That campaign said that a massive number of super-delegates was going to declare for him a couple of weeks ago . . . but then the revelations began, and that became only a "rumor" . . . and the super-d commitments slowed to a trickle ever since.

They could end it now, but they don't, and they won't, because your candidate has issues still unresolved and perhaps still unknown.  It's not because of Clinton.  It's because of Obama that this race continues.  (And that's in addition to his inability to close it up three times now.)

[ Parent ]

That's not entirely true (none / 0) (#70)
by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:41:25 PM EST
Another thing people seem to miss is that "the superdelgates" are not some monolithic block.  They are a bunch of individuals.  The elected delegates matter a lot even without the magic number because the more of them a candidate has the fewer superdelegates they need.  As things stand now Hillary needs a lot more of the superdelegates to win the nomination than Obama does.  That is a huge advantage for him that Clinton supporters seem to ignore in talking about the superdelegates deciding the nominee.  Clinton could "win" the majority of the superdelegates and still lose the nomination.

[ Parent ]

More On Pundits Bloviate, Voters Decide | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft