KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 01:54 PM
Original message |
This "Superdelegate Controversy" Was Created By Clinton & The Media. STOP Buying A Bogus Scenario |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-13-08 02:06 PM by cryingshame
Most, if not all, Superdelegates will vote for the candidate holding the majority of Pledged Delegates.
It is dishonest and misleading to report whom SOME Superdelegates support this early because the MAJORITY haven't voiced their decision and many of those who've done so already will switch at some point.
The scenario where this goes to the Convention and Superdelegates are forced to vote for Clinton who has not got a large lead was created by the Clintons.
At first it was to help make her look inevitable and now, after her failure to invest resources in smaller states backfired, it's intended to prop up her floundering, inept campaign.
The bogus "Superdelegate Controversy" is contrived. It is the Clinton Machines pathetic attempt to cobble together a Plan B at a late date. It is fiction. It is NOT going to happen.
Especially since Obama has shown the capacity to help downticket in purple states and is bringing so many enthusiastic voters to the polls. We're talking moderate and independent voters, btw. The people we need to win the White House and a larger Congressional majority come November.
Mediawhores have been padding Clinton's delegate totals from the start with Superdelegates. Now they can't even do that. Though apparently, the NYTimes is trying.
It may make for fascinating blather on the internet and newsprint and talkingheads on tv.
But it is not going to happen.
|
LakeSamish706
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Your exactly right and Donna Brazile (a Superdelegate) said as much... |
|
on CNN the other nite... In fact she said that if the Superdelegates were the ones to select the candidate she would have a real problem with the DNC (continuing to work for them.. or something to that effect)
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Sadly, some Clinton supporters believe it's going to happen. It's not healthy to believe it will |
|
Clinton's only chance is to win a convincing majority of pledge delegates in the relatively near future.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Donna Brazile has been wrong on every political question for 20 yrs- except LA Sen - she |
Bicoastal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Yeah, well, who am I supposed to believe, my TV or you? |
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. your waiting for such an unlikely scenario says volumes. Clinton needs a pledged delegate majority |
|
Edited on Wed Feb-13-08 02:02 PM by cryingshame
a clear majority.
And that's the only way she will win the nomination.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. So Obama can win with an unclear majority? |
|
I agree that Supes will line up behind whoever has a pledged delegate lead.
But if that lead is less than say 10 it could get hairy.
|
Bicoastal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 02:06 PM
Response to Original message |
5. No, I was kidding--I think this event would make for exaustive punditry if it ever happened... |
goodhue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-13-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message |
|
most of the over 400 as yet uncommitted superdelegates will break towards the winner of most pledged delegates
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:27 AM
Response to Original message |