Murdock
(315 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 06:40 AM
Original message |
|
Forgive me for such an elementary and basic question, but I haven't been paying as close attention as I should be to these primaries. I am honestly curious about this though.
Why does Hillary Clinton still at this point in the race have greater Superdelegate support than Obama? Why hasn't he caught up in Superdelegate numbers yet? For all the hand ringing, for all the "concern" amongst the party, Why pray tell is she still in the Superdelegate lead?
What does Clinton's continued lead in Superdelegate support say about the party's position on the primaries?
|
rateyes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 06:47 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Because those were the superdelegates already |
|
pretty much committed at the start of the campaigns. For example, Terry McAuliffe is a superdelegate who is working on the Clinton campaign. Like our Democratic leaders, most of the supers are keeping their powder dry.
|
Murdock
(315 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. ..at the expense of the party? |
|
Huge pricetag for dry powder.
For all the handwringing and general unease, I keep on waiting for the mass break of Supers for Obama, Where is it?
Why hasn't it happened?
What's stopping them?
All I can summise is that the party legitimately wants the battle to go to the Convention floor.
Why haven't the Supers broken for Obama en-mass yet? Can someone fill me in here.
|
Indy Lurker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Edited on Fri Mar-28-08 08:26 AM by Indy Lurker
They (the superdelegates) are waiting for a better offer.
The closer the race is, and the closer it gets to the convention, the more valuable their votes become.
They are holding out for the promise of a really nice appointment or position.
|
Arkansas Granny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. My understanding is that the function of the superdelegates is to keep the best interests of the |
|
Democratic party uppermost and to pledge their vote accordingly. Apparently, they don't think that we have reached the point where the party is in jeopardy so they are not announcing their choice yet.
|
crispini
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
it's very difficult for people who have already made committments to go back on them. Especially since these *aren't* elected public officials and are a lot less visible to the public.
|
TexanDem
(786 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 07:31 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Her lead is not elected but appointed by party |
|
I have noticed this a good while back. The elected people, i.e, Senators, Reps., governors, etc, who have committed are divided about equal. The only category she is ahead in are those business people and whatever they are that have been appointed SD by the party. I've thought that an interesting fact that I haven't heard brought up til last night and Chris Matthews actually made mention of it.
|
not_too_L8
(757 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 08:03 AM
Response to Original message |
4. in the past 6 weeks Obama has picked up over 100 |
|
super delegates and Clinton has picked up less than 25
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 08:29 AM
Response to Original message |
7. In NYS only the bold stand up for Obama over Hillary |
|
Everyone scared shitless that the Clintons will destroy them if they fail to support her.
|
slinkerwink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-28-08 08:35 AM
Response to Original message |
9. because a majority of those superdelegates endorsed her before Iowa |
|
thus she had initial party support for her run.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 09:02 AM
Response to Original message |