|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Feb 11, 2008 20:51:15 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Obama's getting my vote tomorrow, although my wife and I have been back and forth about this ever since Edwards dropped out. Her second choice to that point was Clinton, while Obama was mine. So we may wind up canceling each other out, who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tournament Master on Feb 12, 2008 20:12:50 GMT -5
No need to agree as a household if thats the way you really feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenvegas on Feb 12, 2008 20:23:59 GMT -5
CNN is projecting that Obama defeated Clinton tonight in Virginia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Feb 12, 2008 21:25:05 GMT -5
She did wind up going with Obama in the end after she asked me to lay out some of each one's positions to her, and I answered them when I knew them. So harmony is restored, although it really hurt seeing John Edwards' name on the ballot and knowing that would be a wasted vote now.
Side note: I really hope whoever wins the Democratic primary for our Congressional representative can beat the old fart that's representing us now. I went with the ex-military woman who had a meeting once with said representative, and he promptly told her he didn't believe women had a place in the military. Having an aunt who's a two-star general in the Air Force, I took umbrage to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on Feb 12, 2008 22:41:10 GMT -5
and with Washington State announcing that Obama had won the primary there, Obama came out ahead of Hillary by a hair, before the official results had been announced in the "Potomac Primaries."
Looks like Obama did pretty well in all three elections here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on Feb 12, 2008 22:43:11 GMT -5
my roomate was suggesting an interesting problem though. If Obama ends up winning a greater portion of the delegates, but Hillary wins the nomination based on superdelegates (I'm assuming this can also happen), this could be very bad for the party as it could cause some very bad feelings between the Obama and Hillary camp. While McCain is off trying to build unity among Republicans, I hope the Democratic primary doesn't splinter the Democratic voters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Feb 12, 2008 23:11:16 GMT -5
my roomate was suggesting an interesting problem though. If Obama ends up winning a greater portion of the delegates, but Hillary wins the nomination based on superdelegates (I'm assuming this can also happen), this could be very bad for the party as it could cause some very bad feelings between the Obama and Hillary camp. While McCain is off trying to build unity among Republicans, I hope the Democratic primary doesn't splinter the Democratic voters. That would be an utter, complete disaster on every level for both the result and the precedent it would set for both parties--though I would (naively) hope the superdelegates would go with the will of the people rather than their own interests. Hillary needs to win and win big in at least one of the Texas/Ohio primaries in March. I think she'll take Texas and I think she has a chance at the 60-65% threshold she'll likely need, but Ohio is in full Obamarama mode right now and what looked like a shoo-in for her a few months ago may end up being a draw at best (Clinton winning with 53% vote isn't going to be enough at this point). The scary thing for Clinton isn't just this losing streak, but the fact that Obama appears to be gaining strong inroads with Latinos and lower-class Democrats--two demographics that were thought to be major Clinton strengths. Texas and Ohio have plenty of both of those and will be very telling as to how the rest of this campaign plays out. |
|
|
|
Post by behindthebook on Feb 13, 2008 8:59:28 GMT -5
If Obama wins in Wisconsin (which I think he has a good shot at) and Hawaii (where he's a shoe in) then it will be 11in a row over Clinton. That's the kind of momentum that should finish Hillary off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tournament Master on Feb 13, 2008 10:37:27 GMT -5
OK, you got me, what the heck is a super delegate, and why do they have more power than a regular old delegate?
Why the heck can't this country just have a popular vote for everything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildfire on Feb 13, 2008 15:52:19 GMT -5
Superdelegates are people who get a vote at the convention, but have no obligation to follow their state's vote... there's about 700 of the or so... from my understanding (I watch alot of news) pretty much every Democrat in Washington (ie. all the Senators and Reps) is one, as well as most Governors, then a selection of 'prominent party members' (guys like Al Gore and Howard Dean)
If you look at CNN's on line stuff, they've listed about 1/2 of them as being on the public record as to who they'll vote for (either via their own opinions or by decided to follow their state) and they're going to Clinton at about a 2 to 1 clip.
On an interesting related note, Chris Matthews on CNBC (or maybe one of his guests) called the Clintons out for 'Pimping out their daughter' (not sure of the exact quote) by having Chelsea calling Super delagates and asking for their support. The Clintons demanded (and got) an on air apology almost immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Feb 13, 2008 16:54:42 GMT -5
And said role of superdelegates is to broker the convention, if necessary. That is, to decide on a candidate if one hasn't won it by default, which for the Democrats has happened in every election year with a primary with the exception 1952.
It was David Shuster who made the comments about Chelsea, btw, on MSNBC. To my knowledge he has yet to apologize and remains on suspension from all NBC networks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on Feb 13, 2008 17:08:44 GMT -5
It was admirable in 1993 that Hillary stood up for her daughter when reporters were making fun of a thirteen-year old Chelsea for having zits on her face because an adolescent Chelsea had no reason to be involved in the politics of her parents.
However, since Chelsea is now a grown woman and made her own decision to assist her parents' political ambitions, I have far less sympathy for her. The comment made of her was ridiculous, and Shuster has begrudgingly apologized though he still remains on suspension. The Clintons' accusation of a "pattern of history" of MSNBC being biased against their campaign and that the Chelsea bit was another piece of that just seems to be a little bit much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildfire on Feb 13, 2008 17:16:12 GMT -5
And said role of superdelegates is to broker the convention, if necessary. That is, to decide on a candidate if one hasn't won it by default, which for the Democrats has happened in every election year with a primary with the exception 1952. It was David Shuster who made the comments about Chelsea, btw, on MSNBC. To my knowledge he has yet to apologize and remains on suspension from all NBC networks. That was the guy, I missed his name when I heard the story. Chris Mathews did reaf an apology too, hough, on his show today.. they played it on the radio a few minutes ago... I think it was him, anyway... could have been another CNBC host I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by azfan on Feb 13, 2008 17:20:16 GMT -5
There was a Super Delegate on tv yesterday. Said she'd been contacted by Chelsea and Bill, trying to sway her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on Feb 13, 2008 17:26:29 GMT -5
Stephen Colbert was making fun of the superdelegates on his show last night. He had the governor of New York, who proudly announced he would be supporting Hillary... to which Colbert created the conspiracy theory that since the governor would get to appoint a new senator should Hillary win, and the governor has had a rough year in office, maybe the governor had a conflict of interest in that he wanted to support Hillary's ascension to the presidency so that he could appoint himself as the next senator. Of course, Governor Spitzer was nervous as hell that he was going to slip up and say something that he shouldn't on national television... that's why I love Stewart/Colbert.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tournament Master on Feb 13, 2008 18:12:49 GMT -5
Wow, so this process is even sketchier than I originally though. So yeah, the voice of the people really have nothing to say in who's nominated. Should have figured as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chewey on Feb 13, 2008 18:20:49 GMT -5
oh, by the way... I love how our little side conversation about Ann Coulter from last week managed to get us "Ann Coulter banner ads" at the top of this board!
*blame chewey!* ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Feb 14, 2008 11:53:30 GMT -5
Whether you believe that super delegates are a good idea or not, it's a reality that there is a good chance that they will decide this nomination. That being said, you can be sure that both campaigns are working feverishly to attract the super delegate vote- Clinton's just been much more successful at it than Obama. I have no idea why Shuster would claim that the Clintons are 'pimping out' their daughter- she's just doing what is necessary to get her mother the nomination. Obama's people are doing the EXACT same thing.
Furthermore, soliciting super delegates is completely legitimate.
What's shadier, soliciting legitimate delegate votes, or refusing to seat delegates from two states because they voted 'too early' for the party apparatus?
If you factor in Michigan and Florida, Clinton would be the candidate in the driver's seat, not Obama. Plus, both of those states will be critically important for either candidate in the general election. If Florida and Michigan Dems feel disenfranchised by this (and Obama is the nominee), it could easily have a significant impact on the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Feb 14, 2008 12:46:03 GMT -5
What's shadier, soliciting legitimate delegate votes, or refusing to seat delegates from two states because they voted 'too early' for the party apparatus? Legitimate point, but... We don't know if Clinton really would've been in the driver's seat, because none of the Dems really campaigned in either Michigan or Florida. If they had, the people might have voted differently, and Obama might have won there. And while I think it was colossally dumb of the Democratic party to declare those states' delegates invalid and thus piss off the voters of those states, they also all made an agreement not to recognize those delegates. For Clinton to try to do an end around because she's in second and needs all the help she can get is, to me, quite frankly seedy. |
|
|
|
Post by Wildfire on Feb 14, 2008 13:12:12 GMT -5
I agree with Mark 100% on that... IIRC Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
I actually think the Super delagates as a whole will end up going with whoever the voters pick.. the bad press that would haunt the party if they do otherwise (CNN love not withstanding) would likel make it very hard for them to win.
|
|
