**** Will someone explain this to me??? ****

WHAT THE FUCK IS TAKING THE SUPER-DELEGATES SO LONG!!!! THEY COULD END THIS, FOR EITHER SIDE PRETTY MUCH. What's the delay? I don't understand it.

Then it will all make more sense to you.

...I still don't see the correlation. Enlighten me please. (I'm being serious by the way)

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

But, the sentiment is certainly accurate.

They want to be on the winning side.

they would've already decided and told the remaining states that haven't voted to go to hell.

I've heard several recent interviews with SDs in which they've said that they prefer to wait until all the people have voted before casting their own votes.

and apparently are planning to vote for the candidate their district voted for. Can't say that I blame them for that.

because this has been drawn out so long. Going public before all primaries are over looks like partisanship for some of them. Can't say as I blame them.

nt

To avoid the possible conception that the SD's subverted the will of the remaining states.

So, after Obama's overwhelming victory in North Carolina and 5+ victory in Indiana, the supers will drop the axe.

...no chance of winning = beaten completely.

Consider this then: It's a boost for the local economies of the remaining states, and Obama is going to win anyway.

Hillary is not going to quit, no matter what. The most the Obama campaign can do is make the most of it. It's a good opportunity for these states to meet Obama in person, and get the hooks in deep before November.

Believe me, I wish it were over as well. It's just not going to happen. Hillary's ambition will not allow it, even in the face of utter impossibility.

Kinda sounds like the Iraq War, now that I think about it.

...That HRC's goal is to damage Obama so much that he has no chance of winning, which will make her viable for 2012. It doesn't seem so far fetched to me considering the path she's chosen thus far.

Is it not true that it is possible for Clinton to get enough Super Delegates to beat Obama? Super Delegates, like it or not, are part of the process. What is Obama's delagate lead....around 130 or so, out of 3300? thats around 3%.....thats enough to claim certain victory of certain electability? I think not

(I'll go with your 3% number), but if 90% of the votes have been cast (and they have), making up that 3% is going to be a huge challenge.

If we're going to continue the simple math analogy, she has to get 65% of the remaining votes (while Obama adds 35%) to make up this 3%.

Looking at the history of the election so far, she's only topped 59% in one election: Arkansas, where she got 70%.

If the only states coming up were Kentucky and West Virginia, things might be possible for her, but she's not favored at all in Oregon, North Carolina, Montana, or South Dakota.

She's just not going to make up the difference with elected delegates.

------------

Looking at superdelegates, (assuming she averages 55% in every remaining election, which is unlikely), she would need 70% of the remaining superdelegates to get the nomination. On Obama's side, if he got 45% in every remaining election, he would only need 40% of the superdelegates to get the nomination. Even the shift of a few superdelegates to Obama would really preclude the superdelegate scenario from taking place.

2,824 out of 3,253 pledged delegates (87%) are committed, leaving 429 up for grabs.

489 out of 795 superdelegates (62%) are committed, leaving 306 up for grabs.

Clinton is 135 delegates behind.


Currently 53% of superdelegates have gone towards Clinton. Extrapolating to the entire 795 delegates, that means she winds up with 421 superdelegates and Obama with 374.

Clinton has currently 256 superdelegates, so she gets another 165. Obama has 233, so he gets an extra 141. That's a net gain of 25 delegates for Clinton.

Leaving her 110 down, which she needs to get from pledged delegates.

She had to get 270 of the remaining pleded delegates while Obama gets 159.



Assuming I'm accurate about the superdelegate leanings, then by using the CNN delegete calculator, Obama only needs to get 38% of the rest of the votes to get 2025 delegates, the threshold of victory.


It does not look at all workable for her.

Without a superdelegate revolt in favor of Clinton, she needs impossibly high numbers to even catch up. If you punch the numbers for her getting the nomination, it becomes laughable.

Obama is our nominee.

So maybe they're just not sure which side will end up being able to dish the payola?

:shrug:

in the past, loyalty to one candidate or another has resulted in quid pro quo nominations to positions in the new administration, should that candidate win the general. As more and more SDs side with Clinton and Obama, there are less and less of them to declare, and so their individual votes become more valuable. The idea for a power-grabbing SD is to be one of the last ones on the train, so that their vote is at its most valuable, while at the same time making sure that they're on board before the candidate gets all the votes he/she needs, thus rendering that SD's vote meaningless.

No matter which candidate gets the nod, remember the names of the last couple of SDs who got on board, giving them the nomination. If that candidate then goes on to beat McCain, you'll see those names again, only they'll have the word "Ambassador" or "Deputy Secretary" in front of them.

by being seen as unfairly deciding things while voting is still ongoing. It's pretty clear that most SDs are for Obama- there have been some very good articles posted about that- and they'll endorse toward or at the end of Primary season in late May or early June.

war profiteer campaign money

one could argue it either way

they MAY not want the impression that they over rode the will of the voters for either candidate

BUT, since she's clearly going to try to do exactly that with her allegations of gamed caucuses and FL/MI "disenfranchisement"... that reasoning is fallacious.

MHO, is that most of them have the same campaign paymasters as Clinton and the GOP...

EVEN if Obama wins, they lose, because the big money is backing Clinton and there will be revenge.

It is BIG revenge too... look at what was done to Cynthia McKinney... look at what the media did to Howard Dean, John Kerry... look at what they're doing to Barack Obama...

this is no small threat

CYA... they want to vote with their constituents I guess, and I don't blame them. In either case, it will make it appear more legitamite, and that's a good thing. Seriously, I think that it's going to actually help in November, getting new people registered as dem. and involved and invested this early, people who are usually left out by this time of the season. It'll be just fine, and the people in those states will benefit from the cash infusions too probably.

and counting.

Then they will be asked to choose.

39 days for Hillary to sling more mud at Obama.

39 more days for the MSM to get the corporate message out that Obama is a radically leftist and possibly a Muslim Manchurian Candidate (MMC!).

39 more days to reduce Obama to "just another Jesse Jackson".

39 more days for McCain to run his campaign unopposed and unchallenged.

And, if in 39 more days they cannot make him totally unelectable, he will win the nomination.

edit to add... 39 more days in which 820 (approximately) US soldiers will die FROM Iraq (18 per day from suicide and 2.5 per day KIA).

Obama ahead in the count?

How would that look, either way, if they committed today?

It's all about timing.

Texas was either a loss or a draw, Ohio was a win, but not by that much, PA was a win... by a whole 9 percent.

and your other "big win" was what, RI?

Just trying to understand.

yes, with some explanation you can make your case - but they're seen as wins in big states.

I think the SD's will commit to Obama after he wins NC.

except for a trickle to both sides.

Why? I don't know other than they want to not offend the Clintons or the Hillary supporters who would say "not everyone has had a chance to have their votes count" or something equally silly and "politically correct".

we lose the general election. It's only 9 weeks from convention to GE. 9 weeks.

don't cast their votes until they are at the convention in August. Asking (demanding!) that they vote now would be like telling Americans to not to wait until November to pick a president and instead pick one now. It doesn't work that way.

Reid, Pelosi, and Dean can ask (and even demand) that Super delegates make their preference known at any time. This is NOT a secret ballot given at a polling place ( the convention ).

And Hillary can either be part of the party and accept the early decision (just like John Edwards has) or be a "crank" and insist on waiting until the convention. If she does she risks losing all support from the Democratic party.

What their preference is right now doesn't matter.

And I thought Howard Dead was big on people voting when they were scheduled to vote. I didn't know that he was OK with people voting before they were scheduled to vote. I bet the people in Florida and Michigan will get a kick out of Dean's demand that superdelegates choose NOW.

This is nothing at all like a primary or caucus.

This is asking those that have been given a great privilege to also exercise some responsibility.

Super Delegates were chosen by the party, even the elected ones (not every elected Democrat is a Super Delegate). They have a responsibility to end this year long primary campaign soon, long before the convention, so we can spend the time between now (or June 3 if you like) with a single candidate facing off against the other side's candidate. The convention was scheduled to give a late summer bump to the nominee, a coronation, a staged political event, not a floor fight to choose a nominee. If there had been any thought given to a brokered convention, it would have been scheduled in early June, not late August.

and at the convention, actually voted for Clinton? It doesn't matter who they say the favor now. They still will be voting at the convention.

that's you projecting.

And it's HIGHLY unlikely that whoever they endorse today (or on June 3, when I expect that they will be asked to do so) would NOT be their pick at the convention when the vote takes place.

The republicans are in the same situation (the official vote doesn't happen until the convention) but nobody, and I mean nobody, goes to Huckabee or someone for his thoughts on X or his position on Y. Nobody. Zero press coverage.

We need to be in the same situation.

Right now, the press is simply playing gotcha with our two candidates... first getting the most recent Hillary attack (usually coordinated with the McCain attack) on Obama, and then passing judgment on the Obama response. That ends if we have a presumptive nominee and Hillary suspends or ends her campaign.

(or you can switch the names around if you like).

system where all the delegates come from the individual primaries and caucuses.

The people that want the superdelegates to choose now are the same people that want Obama to get the nomination. Hillary should no more suspend her campaign then Obama should. The process is still on going.

primary system is no different than the democrats... I suspect that there are loopholes that allow those people to switch their votes (which seems to be your concern) if they wanted to.

And, officially, John McCain is not the nominee of the GOP... he is the presumptive nominee. He won't be the official nominee until the meet at their convention in St. Paul.

So what's the harm in asking our Super Delegates to choose by June 3?

I know what the harm is if they DON'T.

The harm is demanding that the superdelegates chose Obama NOW is that something might happen between now and the end of August that would make Obama even more unelectable in the general election then he is now.

By that logic, let's not hold the convention or pick a candidate until a week before the GE... because, well, *something* might happen between August and November that makes our candidate unelectable!!!

and I explained it to you. And lets not kid ourselves. Making the superdelegates vote early is aimed at making Obama the candidate. If it was about making Hillary the candidate, Howard Dean wouldn't be suggesting it.

a trip at the end and I don't want to cancel it because of Rush's riots......:rofl:

Seriously, when is it?

some are afraid that if they back Obama that Hillary might still win with other superdelegates then Hillary will come after them. That is how the Clinton's ran the party in the 90's and that is how they would run it now. "back me or pay political price" type of sh@t

How many more Judas and traitors will the Clintons add to their list?

safely side with her.

Could be they're waiting for their chance to go for Hillary.

So they can endorse without taking too much flak for their endorsements. That will happen on May 20. Patience, it's only 25 days more.

Nearly 100 Superdelegates Poised to Endorse Obama on May 20