Super delegates man! Super delegates! The one's who can, and will switch. The one's who can, and will decide which candidate wins the nomination. The one's who Hillary has a 55% majority of as of now.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=38764



I get that, what yall seem to conviently forget is the damning fact theres 2 months between the last primaries and convention, andf in those 2 months you'll hear 2 things.

1. Obama has most delegates, pledged and total and its a deligate race
2. Obama has the most votes

By the time August rolls around hes the presumptive nominee because everybody knows that hes the most popular candidate of the party and thees no deneying it, facts say it.

And what will happen is the delegates will not want to go against the people or shock the party, theyd be petrified about what would happen if they turned off the majority of the people voted in elections so far. The huge turn outs have been th best thing for them and getting rid of their most popular player would cause 3 things.

1. party turmoil-youd have a lot of pissed off voters who feel their votes didnt count, ect. crap like that
2. national embarassment. the party would be a joke-they couldnt even give the nominee to the most popular candidate that would FUEL Hillary hate.
3. the final one would be due to the party turmoil and hillary hate within her own party...she obviously heavily to john mccain.

That's where your I think you're wrong.



It's all going to come down to super delegates, and I think the race is going to be so close that they will vote for whoever they want.

If I'm putting a percentage on it, I'd say it's 55% chance of an Obama nomination, 45% for Clinton. But that 45% chance is a reality, could happen, and you guys need to stop pretending like it's some impossibility!

A lot can happen in the next few months. Things could still very easily go either way. Remember Howard Dean? Front runner to done in one night because of a fricking scream!

Dean lost before a single election if I recall.

Corpse-His 600,000 vote will be very hard for her top. Thats a mighty IF you raise. Realistically, he wont lose it. She might close the gap but when its all over hell still lead.

As for super delegates corpse ive said it enough, like hillary all dont accept things you dont want to happen. The super delegates loko at the situation. Hillarys won big states, cool. But if she doesnt have enough votes to be the most populcar candidtae in her party, you cant justify logically giving it to her, and therefore giving her the nomination would fuel democrat and especially Hillary hate. Just IMAGINE the "hillary steals nomination" crap that would ensue.

IF Obama leads in votes n delegates than Hillaryha sno shot to win the election because not giving it to him would anger n humiliate the whole country and whats great is super delegates know it. Thats not just for obama, if clinton leads in votes n delegates than it deserves to go to and the same effects would occur.



Eagle you really do not understand the psychology. Hillary had 250ish to his 45 the day before the iowa cuacus.

she now has 242 (shes LOST several) and he has 204. Her advantage there has been dying for 2 months will be dead on paper in a few.

So while you may want to believe they all love her, the fact is any clinton supporters would be there by now, ok? Thats how she had 250 of em before the elctions even started. Her problem she has yet to add ANY since the elections actually started with Iowa, in fact she actually lost some since then. Obama has gained 150.

So on paper, yeah she leads 242 to 205 but the lead is vanishing and Obama has 100% of the super delegate momentum if you would call it that. Thats why expecting them to swithch to hillary is ridiculous, the way things are going they have been and will continue to switch to him.



I did the math for you already. its very, very, very,very, VERY unlikely Clinton closed the pladged delegate lead to within 50. In the initial post I had Hillary losing by 52 but that includes her 45 vote advantage amongst current super dlegates.

the pledged vote lead for obama would 97, at worst really.

well obviously barring no unforseen break down and scandal



1st of all, Floridas not nearly as Pro-Clinton as you think. If you know your vote doesnt count, who is not gonna go vote? Easy answer-the young, the people who dont care. In an fla revote, Clintons vote total will not go up all that much. She does very well with the elderly which there are tons of in Florida and who would actually go vote. Obama got 34% and Edwrads 14%. I woud say no edards, Obamas around 45%-46%. Add in Obamas new found popularity since then and a lot more people voting, Obama would lose roughly 52-47. With 3 million voters thats a gain of 159,000.

Pennsylvania hell lose by 8-10%. The 2 states should garner her about 350,000 votes out of that 600,000 k gap. Here in lies her problem:

THATS IT. His margins of victory in places like Mississippi, North Carolina, Michigan and others will keep him in the lead by about 300-440k.

And if Michigan and FLA dont revote, well than obviously she wont be catching him.

Fla is 18% Hispanic and 17% Black. Its loaded with colleges and youngster. While Clinton will win, you cant simply look at all the stuff she has going for her and forget about Obama's.

Good, let them revote. They will put Obama with 50-75 delegeates over 2025 with clinton still 200+ from the mark.

Because we all know that mathematics rules all.

Love,
Mr. Spock



(PS: Unfortunately for any Barackobot's out there, Captain Kirk is running the Democratic primaries.)

After watching Meet the Press and Fox Sunday show with Brit Hume I think there will probably be something that occurs that allows the delegates from FL and MI to be seated. Who knows in what way though. However, as MNT keeps pointing out and Hillary voters can't comprehend is that he will still have the lead in delegates and popular vote. Even the folks on those two shows I mentioned couldn't comprehend that except for maybe Bill Kristol.

What surprised me more was the PA gov answering "Yes" that he would still vote for hillary clinton even if Obama had votes/delegates/states. His false reasoning was that she has won CA, FL, OH, NY, TX, and soon to be PA. That she has won the big states and the states that matter in the GE whereas I'm thinking to myself that Obama is going to win CA and NY ANYWAY and will still put FL OH and TX and PA into play as well. It's like they think the hillary voters for those "big" states that she won are just going go republican WHEN Obama is the nominee.

Anyway, back to the PA gov answering yes which was ridiculously surprising to me, I believe there are more supers with better common sense than this joker who will obviously swing to Obama in the end.

Yeah, I'm a bit upset at our governor right now, who I have always supported in the past. He seems to be too much of a politician right now, where he supports Hillary and will not allow himself to say anything that might possibly be seen as bad toward her. (I saw that interview too this morning and cringed. How undemocratic of the guy who used to be the Chair of the Democratic Party.)

And that argument that Hillary won the big states is just so stupid ... If Obama is the nominee, there is no reason to assume he won't carry them as well.

I don't know, I think there is reason to believe Hillary could win Ohio and Florida, where Obama may lose them.

as I said in the first post she could get the majority of supers to go her way and still now win because obama will much closer than she is. if theres 200 left n she needs 150 of em n he needs 70, he'll find 70 of em.

Obama doesn't need to win PA and the rest of the states to have the most popular votes and the most delegates... he only needs about 46% of them.

And this is what bugs me the most about the Hillary supporters who are saying "so what? She still should get the nomination." It's just so, well, undemocratic.

First of all, you know that if Hillary had the most delegates and votes, she would be saying that the superdelegates should follow the will of the people. But she isn't so she has to hope that all the insiders choose her instead -- which of course goes against everything Obama is campaigning against.

I'd like those Hillary supporters who think the superdelegates should decide (and I acknowledge that not all Hillary supporters feel that way) to step back for a minute and imagine two unknown candidates in this situation. Distance yourself from Obama and Clinton and imagine candidates A and B. A has the most delegates and votes. Do you still think the superdelegates should choose B?

And if so, then why have primaries and caucuses? Why not just let the superdelegates decide without all this waste of time?

Blame the democratic party, this is the whole reason they came up with the super delegate system, so that they could subvert the will of the people if they disagreed.

And I'm not saying they will choose Clinton, just that they can, and might.

This race is going to tear the democratic party, and we are probably going to go to the convention with no one at the magic number, BUT super delegates are intelligent people who do what is in the party's best interest and if Obama has more delegates, more votes, and more states won, it would be undemocratic for them to somehow get hillary the nomination. It will not happen. Now is there a small possibility, yes, but, there is also a small possibility when I get on a plane it will crash, but it probably won't happen. If Hillary becomes the nominee, she will lose without a doubt because so many voters will feel as if their votes meant nothing. The majority of them vote for a certain nominee, and then these 'super delegates" go against the peoples vote and pick Hillary. The Super delegates might want hillary as president but come the convention if Obama has more votes, states, and delegates, i can guarantee you 100% he will be president. Sorry

you mean nomnee, and that would be correct

Yet, somehow we democrats in PA managed to elect the liberal (and Jewish) Ed Rendell twice, defeat the conservative incumbent Senator Santorum despite his huge backing by conservative groups, and take over the House and Senate in Harrisburg in the last election.

But yeah, you must know more of what you're talking about because, after all, Hillary supporters told you so and therefore it must be true.

While I agree with your facts, the point still remains that 2008 will find Democrats running against McCain, who is basically Bush term 3. Other politicians who stood behind Bush kept their seats in 2006, so maybe the democrats of PA had something to do with getting rid of an incumbent (not an easy task).

My point remains that while Clinton may win the democrats in the state, that doesn't mean she would be better to face off against McCain. Obama gets many more independents than she does, and in the general that is more important.

Still waiting for you to answer my question about how you would react if Hillary was the one with the most votes and the most delegates. Would you still be supporting the superdelegates overturning the desires of the voters? And if so, why do we have these expensive primaries and caucuses then?

PA is an odd state. It has two large urban areas and the rest is all very rural. There really aren't any other states like it. Pump in the fact that it has such a huge senior population, and you have a wacky state voting wise.

In the past it's been very middle of the road, but the state has started to noticeably shift Republican in recent elections. Problem is, I happen to be of the opinion that PA is also one of the more racist states in the country. I honestly think Obama would lose PA in a general election campaign to McCain, where I think Hillary would carry the state easily.