A question for Democrats re: Barack Obama and super delegates

tkdgirl · February 14th, 2008, 10:10 AM

For those of you who are voting Democrat, specifically Obama

If Obama wins the necessary amount of delegates, but Hillary wins the Super Delegates and ultimately gets the nod, will you be upset?

KrisNine · February 14th, 2008, 11:45 AM

Yes. But I would still rather have Hillary than McCain.

Just Kill Me · February 14th, 2008, 12:25 PM

It's all bullshit.

*DIVA! · February 14th, 2008, 01:19 PM

Yes, not only will I be upset.. I won't vote. If the so called super delegates ignore the voters of the democratic party and gives her the nod; that be stealing the election, just like Bush in 2000. People are voting in record numbers, and we want our damn voices to be heard. Not some back door deals and promises that would be unfair, and nobody would trust the democratic party, nor the voting process ever again. Howard Dean, and the DNC would be FOOLS to let this take place!! Fair is Fair...

I also will be pissed if they seat the delegates from Michigan, seeing how Obama wasn't even on the ballots!!

tkdgirl · February 14th, 2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSDiva

Yes, not only will I be upset.. I won't vote. If the so called super delegates ignore the voters of the democratic party and gives her the nod; that be stealing the election, just like Bush in 2000. People are voting in record numbers, and we want our damn voices to be heard. Not some back door deals and promises that would be unfair, and nobody would trust the democratic party, nor the voting process ever again. Howard Dean, and the DNC would be FOOLS to let this take place!! Fair is Fair...

I also will be pissed if they seat the delegates from Michigan, seeing how Obama wasn't even on the ballots!!

I can understand that. And now with Hillary's camp saying she should get the Michigan delegates... this could all get very messy.

kingcap72 · February 14th, 2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSDiva

Yes, not only will I be upset.. I won't vote. If the so called super delegates ignore the voters of the democratic party and gives her the nod; that be stealing the election, just like Bush in 2000. People are voting in record numbers, and we want our damn voices to be heard. Not some back door deals and promises that would be unfair, and nobody would trust the democratic party, nor the voting process ever again. Howard Dean, and the DNC would be FOOLS to let this take place!! Fair is Fair...

I also will be pissed if they seat the delegates from Michigan, seeing how Obama wasn't even on the ballots!!

I agree 100%. Not only would I be upset, I'd be pissed if the super delegates tossed their weight behind Hillary even though Obama is already proving he's more electable. But it wouldn't surprise me if they do back Hillary. The Dems have been shooting themselves in the foot for the past two elections with the candidates they put up, so why should this year be any different with Hillary?

And in the end the Dems would just be showing all of the young people and minority voters who are turning out in record numbers to back Obama that the political process really is a waste of time, and that your vote doesn't really count.

But I would still vote for Hillary, but I'd do it reluctantly. Because for me, it would be just another person riding into the White House on their last name and a sense of family entitlement to the presidency like George W. Bush.

PaintTheTownRed · February 14th, 2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSDiva

Yes, not only will I be upset.. I won't vote. If the so called super delegates ignore the voters of the democratic party and gives her the nod; that be stealing the election, just like Bush in 2000. People are voting in record numbers, and we want our damn voices to be heard. Not some back door deals and promises that would be unfair, and nobody would trust the democratic party, nor the voting process ever again. Howard Dean, and the DNC would be FOOLS to let this take place!! Fair is Fair...

I also will be pissed if they seat the delegates from Michigan, seeing how Obama wasn't even on the ballots!!

What the hell are you talking about??? Obama agreed to secure 2025 delegates to win the nomination and agreed to superdelegates if there was a tie. If he didn't want to use superdelegates he didn't have to run as a Democrat or he should have run a better campaign. Last Tuesday Hillary won Democratic strongholds like CA,NJ & MA and got the popular vote, so obviously she has voters behind her. Kerry and Kennedy are superdelegates and are voting for Obama, going against the voters in their state, should that be allowed? I say yes, it's their choice to pick the person they think will win the election. So I wouldn't be so quick to accuse people of backroom deals and stealing elections.

*DIVA! · February 14th, 2008, 05:31 PM

Please forgive me for my grammatical error...

Quote:

that be stealing the election

that was suppose to say 'that would mean stealing the election'...I changed the sentence but didn't fix that.

The messed up thing about this, I sent an email to Dean asking him why would the DNC let things happen this way, and that I was going to start a petition...his only reply was a freaking form letter asking for another donation!!I am seriously pissed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheTownRed

What the hell are you talking about??? Obama agreed to secure 2025 delegates to win the nomination and agreed to superdelegates if there was a tie. If he didn't want to use superdelegates he didn't have to run as a Democrat or he should have run a better campaign. Last Tuesday Hillary won Democratic strongholds like CA,NJ & MA and got the popular vote, so obviously she has voters behind her. Kerry and Kennedy are superdelegates and are voting for Obama, going against the voters in their state, should that be allowed? I say yes, it's their choice to pick the person they think will win the election. So I wouldn't be so quick to accuse people of backroom deals and stealing elections.

There isn't a tie..He has won 22 states so far, and if this keeps up he will have the majority, but not all. The question was posed what if then they decide to give the nod to Hillary..then what! There is where my answer came from!! And the last time I checked he has the popular vote, and the delegate lead...maybe I can't count today..along with everybody else!! Like it or not A LOT of people want him to be the POTUS!!

nycgirl · February 14th, 2008, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheTownRed

What the hell are you talking about??? Obama agreed to secure 2025 delegates to win the nomination and agreed to superdelegates if there was a tie. If he didn't want to use superdelegates he didn't have to run as a Democrat or he should have run a better campaign. Last Tuesday Hillary won Democratic strongholds like CA,NJ & MA and got the popular vote, so obviously she has voters behind her. Kerry and Kennedy are superdelegates and are voting for Obama, going against the voters in their state, should that be allowed? I say yes, it's their choice to pick the person they think will win the election. So I wouldn't be so quick to accuse people of backroom deals and stealing elections.

ITA. There probably won't be a clear winner, it's still so close. Yes, Obama has won many states. But Hillary won larger states with more voters in them, while Obama won a lot of small states with less people (which is why there are less delegates at stake). If one candidate does not get the needed amount of delegates it will come down to superdelegates. In other words, they will break the tie.

Hillary won New York and California, millions of people are voting for her. She's not out by a long shot. The size of the state matters too, not just the number of states won.

PaintTheTownRed · February 14th, 2008, 06:12 PM

She's not out at all, but she has to win in March or she can't justify to the superdelegates why she should be the nominee.

*DIVA! · February 14th, 2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycgirly101

ITA. There probably won't be a clear winner, it's still so close. Yes, Obama has won many states. But Hillary won larger states with more voters in them, while Obama won a lot of small states with less people (which is why there are less delegates at stake). If one candidate does not get the needed amount of delegates it will come down to superdelegates. In other words, they will break the tie.

Hillary won New York and California, millions of people are voting for her. She's not out by a long shot. The size of the state matters too, not just the number of states won.

No one is counting Hillary out, that is not what was said. Yes, Hillary has one several large states which brings her whole total to TEN!! However, those states that were won was over a week ago, since she has lost eight. Just like Hillary Clinton, you folks are counting out those people in those so-called "little" states..dammit we are people and have voices also. My Governor endorsed her, but Obama won my state..will he vote for Obama when and if he is called to give his superdelegate vote.

PaintTheTownRed · February 14th, 2008, 06:46 PM

You know the Republicans think the same thing when it comes to the electoral college

CNN.com Election 2004 - U.S. President

All the superdelegates will be staring at that map and they will be trying to figure out which candidate can hold on to the blue states and win a republican state, probably Ohio or Florida. That's what it all really boils down to.

Edit: The number of states do not matter. For a Dem to win the nomination, they MUST win 2025 delegates. If they don't it's called a tie. If in the end one has 1800 and the other has 1799, the one with the higher number doesn't win. As of today Obama is around 1255 and Hillary is 1211. Neither one will reach 2025. So the superdelegates will get involved. That's how it works.

*DIVA! · February 14th, 2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheTownRed

You know the Republicans think the same thing when it comes to the electoral college

CNN.com Election 2004 - U.S. President

All the superdelegates will be staring at that map and they will be trying to figure out which candidate can hold on to the blue states and win a republican state, probably Ohio or Florida. That's what it all really boils down to.

Edit: The number of states do not matter. For a Dem to win the nomination, they MUST win 2025 delegates. If they don't it's called a tie. If in the end one has 1800 and the other has 1799, the one with the higher number doesn't win. As of today Obama is around 1255 and Hillary is 1211. Neither one will reach 2025. So the superdelegates will get involved. That's how it works.

That is so true, but you know what. She has yet to get the independent vote, the republican vote, white men, white women, black men, black women etc all at once... That is what the Super delegates should look at. They should look at the person who didn't sell the Lincoln bedroom to the Chinese. He has started to break through ALL demographics. This happened in Virginia. I know where he stands, without him playing dirty politics. How do you call a grown man a coward for not bending to your debate demands in a State that and your campaign wrote OFF! But, now you need that state because you lost 70% to 30% in a state that you led 2 weeks ago!!

tkdgirl · February 15th, 2008, 12:01 AM

^^ The fact that Obama wins in states like Kansas, largely white, spells trouble for Hillary. Obama is also winning the white Dem male vote as well. Its interesting because even Republican pundits are saying the Clintons will prevail, just because they have such a well oiled (and dishonest) machine.

I say otherwise... I think Obama will be the nominee. I just hope he does NOT name Hillary as his VP. Ever heard the term Arkancide? Just asl Web Hubbell an Ron Brown.

kingcap72 · February 15th, 2008, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkdgirl

^^ The fact that Obama wins in states like Kansas, largely white, spells trouble for Hillary. Obama is also winning the white Dem male vote as well. Its interesting because even Republican pundits are saying the Clintons will prevail, just because they have such a well oiled (and dishonest) machine.

I say otherwise... I think Obama will be the nominee. I just hope he does NOT name Hillary as his VP. Ever heard the term Arkancide? Just asl Web Hubbell an Ron Brown.

That does spell trouble for Hillary. Because the three demographics that Hillary was counting on were white males, white females, and blacks. And the majority of white males are going with Obama, the white female vote is split between Hillary and Obama, and the black vote is primarily going to Obama. And in the primaries where Obama is beating Hillary, he's basically burying her in the margin of victory.

Plus, the South and Midwest are staunchly Republican strongholds, and for a Democrat to win the presidency they have to be able to pull out wins there. Obama has proven he can win there, whereas Hillary hasn't had much luck. As far as Hillary winning California, NJ, NY and MA, those states usually vote Democratic in the presidential election so Obama would still get those regardless. But the question is would Hillary be able to win the same states in the South and Midwest that Obama is carrying? Probably not.