Thread: Democrat nominee decided by super delegates?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...tes/index.html

(CNN) -- A string of recent victories and endorsements from key party insiders have Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton running neck-and-neck in the increasingly important battle for delegates....

Clinton holds a narrow 27-delegate lead over Obama, 1,148 to 1,121, down from her lead of more than 100 delegates a month ago, according to CNN's estimate.

A candidate must secure the support of 2,025 delegates to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination....

Obama's surge in delegates is due primarily to his electoral victories on Super Tuesday and in contests held over the weekend, including Sunday's Democratic caucuses in Maine, which he won by a comfortable margin.

The first-term Illinois senator won at least 923 delegates from those contests, compared with at least 876 delegates for Clinton, according to CNN's analysis of voting results.

Another 67 delegates from those races still remain unallocated in areas with particularly tight vote results or local delays in vote-counting. But 60 of those slots are in states Obama won, which may give him the edge as these remaining delegates are allocated.

Overall, Obama has won 986 delegates from contests this year, compared to 924 for Clinton.

CNN's delegate estimate includes both delegates won in primaries and caucuses as well as preferences of so-called "superdelegates," a group of almost 800 Democratic party officials and leaders who also will cast votes at the nominating convention this summer.

Because superdelegates are not required to make their presidential preferences public and are free to change their minds, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact number of superdelegate supporters either candidate has at any given time.

CNN estimates, however, that Clinton has the support of at least 224 superdelegates compared with at least 135 superdelegates for Obama, according to an ongoing survey. The remaining 400 or so superdelegates either remain neutral, undecided or have not publicly revealed their preferences....

...Though the national Republican Party does not have superdelegates, 123 members of the Republican National Committee are free to vote for any candidate at the GOP convention this summer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Of those, 26 support McCain and three support Huckabee.

I was talking with my friends about this, as have most political pundits (like me). The Oreilly's and Dobbs', and King's, and Cooper's, and Matthew's, and Limbaugh's.....all of em. We talk all the time, of course.

If the Democratic primary keeps up with the 50/50 split, or even 60/40 split game of tennis Barack and Hillary are playing from state to state, then when it comes time for the convention, the SUPER DELEGATES, who are not bound by popular vote to choose a candidate, will decide the nominee.

what's a super delegate? A political VIP, like a representative, senator, mayor, etc. They vote how they want, regardless of what the state or district popular vote was. Perhaps they can even vote in SECRET.

That......is unacceptable to me. A hold over of loyalist, red-coat, bro's before ho's artistocracy for the powerful to stay powerful. And I say burn it down.

Super delegates are not teamplayers.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

That......is unacceptable to me. A hold over of loyalist, red-coat, bro's before ho's artistocracy for the powerful to stay powerful. And I say burn it down.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Super delegates are not teamplayers.

Lol

siggage.

Super delegates make me sick. Wait, political parties make me sick...

COME ON WE ARE GONNA BURN THIS MUTHA DOWN!!!! GET ME MY GUN AND GASOLINE!!!!

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

siggage.

Damn, beat me to it.

I admit, I'm not one for politics in general but I was not aware of the whole super delegates thing until now and I think that is some bullshit right there.

Originally Posted by Alundil

I have to agree in two parts to this. While I am not a democratic and so am not really a part of the delegate versus super delegate issue that the dems will find themselves in shortly....

I do not feel that having 'super delegates' who are not beholden to the will of the people decide who the nominee (and potentially the president will be) is correct (much less fair). However, this has been the way is it for some time and I think that it should continue that way until after the current nomination period. If afterwards there is enough support to change that for the next 'X' elections, then by all means do so.

You are right in the fact that is does give them an unfair advantage as to who will/could be president and that it has been this way for years. Just because it has been this way for years though, does not make it right. I'm pretty sure many Americans are unaware to this knowledge and would be highly apposed to it if they knew about it.

It sort of makes sense to as why so many people don't vote though and think their vote doesn't count, so maybe they do believe it (I'm stretching I know, but it could be possible...).

Either way, that's pretty fucked up. Goes back to what bigdog said, it seems to be more of a bros before hos type thing and who has the most friends...

PANIC FOR PRESIDENT