If neither candidate has a super-majority at convention time, all bets are off.

[pnwmom]

We would be facing a brokered convention. Could that be the moment for Al Gore?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

1. No. n/t

[KittyWampus]

2. Bullshit. Whomever has the majority gets the superdelegates. Most superdelegates haven't spoken yet

this is all just nonsense spun by the Clintons and the mediawhores doing them a favor.

[pnwmom]

4. Why would the Clintons spin a story about Al Gore being turned to at

the convention? How would that benefit them?

[cd3dem]

10. super delegates are free agents!

there is no rule that super delegates must vote for the way their state voted.. .thus Kennedy and Kerry in Massachusetts can vote for Obama...

we also have an electoral college that is supposed to vote for the winner but we know last time in 2004, one Kerry elector voted for Edwards... all within the binding...

I am district Co-chair of our districts Rule's committee and "the rules rule!"

not Obama kool-aid drinkers! I wish their was a rule against playing the race card but there is not!

[ShortnFiery]

19. The Supers will be the only Democratic Party Members left if they OVERTURN The People-Delegates.

:grr: :nuke:

[surfermaw]

34. Speak for your self!!!

[cd3dem]

37. I agree, I will be disgusted with the super-delegates if they vote for someone with no experience

[cd3dem]

36. there are reasons for the super-delegates having full power over their vote

because in the past we have nominated no-win candidates... that were nominated on a dream and fairy tale wishes... someone who could not be elected... right now we have the republicans voting for Obama hoping he will be the nominee so they can swiftboat him for having no experience... come September or October... "Osama" will have a new tape... (probably dead, but who cares...let's find an old tape and call it new) and there will be "Osama" threatening us...

and McCain will ask? Do you Trust "Obama" to save you from "Osama"?

or maybe they will get a group to go after him... who knows... it is gonna happen... and if the super-delegates are worth a shit... they will vote for someone they think can lead this country...

Senator Hillary Clinton...

not someone who just learned to wipe his nose!

[AlertLurker]

26. Some have, however. The majority for HRC.

248 superdelegates have so far endorsed HRC, by my count, to Obama's 141...

I cannot believe that the superdelegates will actually vote in-line with the national results. Many of them have big cars, yachts and summer homes to buy. Remember the DLC motto: "The Ends justify the Means."

[KittyWampus]

31. MOST have not. To even mention any this early is dishonest.

[AlertLurker]

32. DISHONEST? Moderate your tone, please..

I CERTAINLY didn't endorse ANYONE. The superdelegates, however, have done so, and done it publicly.

Here's the list. If you have a problem with it, talk to them, not me.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

It's not my fault that Clinton's getting superdelegate endorsements at a 2 to 1 rate over Obama...


Personally, I believe that either of them is a piss-poor choice.

[KittyWampus]

33. the dishonest comment is mainly aimed at both the mediawhores and Clinton's campaign

however, there is no reason to even mention ANY superdelegates this early since they will support who gets the majority of pledged.

The MAJORITY haven't given any preference.
Almost ALL will support whomever gets most pledged.

So to speak of them this early is, indeed dishonest. Or misleading.

[AlertLurker]

38. Quit aiming it at me then. Cut the crap and make your point, please.

If those superdelegates whom I had mentioned had not already endorsed candidates, obviously I would not be mentioning them. You are correct regarding the MAJORITY. Around HALF have already endorsed, however. What they will do once the dust settles is anyone's guess, really. You might HOPE that they act in accordance with the majority mandate, but it's certainly not a done deal.

"Mainly aimed at...?" Dishonest? Misleading? Please quit with these thinly veiled and wholly FALSE accusations. I have no idea why you would keep doing this. These attacks do nothing but undermine your arguments, if that's what you want to call them.

I have no axe to grind, here - I dislike BOTH candidates equally. I haven't posted anything the slightest bit dishonest, misleading, accusatory or otherwise.

I am not the one posting clearly unproveable assertions like "Almost ALL will support whomever gets most pledged" and "since they will support who gets the majority of pledged..."

You don't know. No one KNOWS. One hopes they will act with integrity, yes, but it is certainly not a given. Not this year, and not this election.

[TwilightGardener]

3. No--the party heads won't let it get that far--Howard Dean said so.

If Obama is still leading in pledged delegates by March 5, most superdelegates will realize that still supporting Hillary, in the face of Obama's success, would be a craven act of ass-kissing and would show a willingness to prop up Bill and Hillary at the expense of the party and the voters.

[pnwmom]

5. That's not what I said. Turning to Al Gore would hardly be propping

up Bill and Hillary.

If Obama and Clinton are separated only by a handful of delegates, neither close to having the supermajority required, the delegates at the convention could turn to Gore to "heal" the breach. Couldn't they? At least, judging from history.

[IndieLeft]

9. Gore can't stand Hillary.

Sure... let him decide. LOL

[pnwmom]

15. No, let him run. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

11. That's a ridiculous scenario. Hillary and Obama aren't going to lose

(and willingly give up their delegates) to a guy who didn't run, didn't campaign, doesn't have policies or an agenda, has been totally untested this year in terms of campaigning and debating, has no advisors, no staff, NO MONEY... This is absurd. Al Gore is at this point an unknown quantity, because he's out of the game. If you think the party is gong to throw away Barack and Hillary because they match each other in talent and strength as candidates, excite the base AND draw in new voters, and hold their own in head-to-head matchups against McCain--in favor of someone most folks outside of DU have frankly forgotten this year--you're smoking crack.

[pnwmom]

17. Down, wienerdoggie, down!

I was just asking a question.

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

21. Did I word that too strongly?

:D

[surfermaw]

35. After all most democrats choice from the begining has been GORE...now why is that suprising to some

[ShortnFiery]

6. THINK AGAIN! The Candidate who is ahead with People-delegates will NOT be COUNTERED ...

by the votes of the democratic elite Super-delegates. They have an interest in "the health" of *OUR* Democratic Party too. :shrug:

[pnwmom]

7. Which is exactly why they could turn to the one person who could

bring the party together -- Al Gore.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Bullshit! Respecting the will of the People-delegates will bring OUR party together - nothing else.

[IDemo]

12. Unfortunately, they aren't all speaking as if the popular vote will change their mind:

from today's LA times (registration may be required to view the entire article):

Rodriguez, a party official from Colorado, reserves the right to back Clinton, no matter that Colorado and a majority of other states have so far chosen Obama.

"I do not go with the candidate who is always winning. I go with the candidate I believe in," he wrote recently to a voter who asked how he could side against the Democratic voters in his own state.

Dan Parker, chairman of the state party in Indiana and a super delegate, feels just as strongly -- even though his state will not vote until May.

"I have made my decision, and I am supporting Sen. Clinton, and that is not going to change," Parker said.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess13feb13,1,2790739.story

[ShortnFiery]

14. Then the "powers that be" among our party Bigwigs best get together ...

If the People-delegate count is OVERTURNED by the votes of the party elite Super-delegates, it will throw Our Party into complete disarray. NO! The Clintons have to win OUTRIGHT, wheter it be by 1 delegate or 100. NO! They can't change the rules nor stack the deck - THE PEOPLE are paying close attention. :grr:

[pnwmom]

20. A fervent minority of the people is paying close attention.

The rest just want Bush to go away.

[ShortnFiery]

24. IMO, it's beyond time for The Clintons to NOT CHEAT because "The People" are paying attention.

:grr:

[pnwmom]

28. The Obama campaign accidentally released an analysis predicting

a deadlocked convention. An interesting read.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9T3ToQrPGqc&refer=home

[IDemo]

22. Agree entirely. I say dump the super delegate system

It was created with exactly the flawed assumption that the Electoral college was: that the "rabble" could not be trusted to vote correctly.

[Occam Bandage]

13. OMGWTF obviously neither candidate can do that.

[samrock]

16. ONLY if

IF the two candidates are within say 25 delegates of each other and say 2% in the total primary vote.. THAN I would except all bets are off..

[pnwmom]

18. Welcome to DU, samrock! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

23. Bullshit! I remember Florida, if a candidate is ahead by 1 People-delegate, that candidate WINS

ELECTIONS are like "horse-shoes and hand grenades" CLOSE COUNTS! ;)

[pnwmom]

29. This isn't like Florida. To win on the first ballot, a candidate would need

more than 2000 votes, and neither candidate is likely to have more than 1800 by then -- even according to the Obama campaign's optimistic analysis.

[lurky]

25. After the nomination and convention are over,

I bet people will still start threads saying, "It's not too late for Gore! If the nominee drops out of the race now, and the party has an emergency convention, Gore could step in. That would be his moment! Let's get the nominee to quit!"

Sorry, I love Gore too, but I think he has been pretty clear on this.

[dugggy]

27. Al Gore is fatter than ever...means he is NOT interested n/t

[pnwmom]

30. Well, that makes as much sense as anything else. n/t