Posted by ( Chris ) on February 29, 2008 at 3:15 pm

It never ceases to amaze me. What you guys obviously don’t know is that both political parties have rules that elect delegates separately from the popular vote.Why is it that you guys can’t objectivley look at anything but automatically assume the worst, which of course has to be in the Democratic Party. What about the Republican Party which not only has Super Delegates but has states like Montana and Wyoming where there is no popular participation at all, just meetings of precinct chairs to elect delegates and states like Idaho and New York where similar meetings elect some delegates? What about the Republicans letting state conventions in caucus states (e.g., Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Minnesota) make up their own rules as they go and ignore presidential preference entirely? Aren’t all those things elitist and undemocratic too?

The reality is that Super delegates have never went against the vote of the party populace. If Obama wins the most pledged delegates then he’ll get the superdelegates. Gawd!! Is there anything about the Democratic Party that you can’t find fault with that you can’t back up with anything other than subjective conjecture?

Posted by ( Robert W. ) on March 05, 2008 at 7:30 pm

The Super Tuesday stalemate has only reinforced comparisons between the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama contest and the fight for the Democratic nomination 1984, another one-on-one race that pitted an insurgent against the party establishment—and one that wasn’t settled until the party’s July convention in San Francisco.

In that ‘84 campaign, the Obama role was played by Gary Hart, whose “new ideas” fueled a stunning 13-point victory in New Hampshire that rocketed him to the top of the race and, within weeks, brought Walter Mondale—who had entered the campaign as the most prohibitive favorite in primary history—to the brink of capitulation. A Hart sweep of Super Tuesday in early March 1984 would have flushed the former vice president from contention, but when Mondale narrowly won two states that day (to Hart’s seven), the press declared him reborn. When the primaries and caucuses finally finished in June, it was a draw: Both men had won about the same number of pledged delegates and Hart had even edged Mondale in the combined popular vote.

But the nomination was Mondale’s because most of the superdelegates—party leaders and elected officials who account for 20 percent of all convention votes—had been with him from the start, long before Hart had emerged as a viable option.
(THIS IS AN ARTICLE FROM THE N.Y. OBSERVER)
i thought i was correct on this one.the icing on the cake is that hillary can legally bribe the superdelagates to side with her. what a system ,once again TO HADES WITH THE INDIVIDUALS OF THIS COUNTRY!!!

Posted by ( Craig ) on April 01, 2008 at 1:07 am

According to Wikipedia, Gary Hart did NOT have the lead in the popular vote: 
Walter Mondale - 6,952,912 (38.32%)
Gary Hart - 6,504,842 (35.85%)
So it looks like the superdelegates (oops--was I supposed to capitalize that?) did not ever change who the people voted for the most...nor do I expect them to this time.
~Craig.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart)

Posted by ( Sidney I Underwood ) on June 07, 2008 at 9:24 am

“But then – in a typically “HUH?” Just yes.