T1B

BSmack wrote:Pssst!

Republicans have "super delegates" too..

"Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the quadrennial convention of the United States Democratic Party.
The convention delegates who are not superdelegates are selected as a result of party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters express their preference among the contenders for the party’s nomination for President of the United States. Delegates supporting each candidate are chosen in approximate ratio to their candidate’s share of the vote. In some states, the delegates so chosen are legally required to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged, at least on the first ballot at the convention. By contrast, the superdelegates are seated based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination, although many of them have publicly announced endorsements.

Both the Democratic and Republican party have a number of state level unpledged delegates that are chosen by each state's party through convention, caucus, or state party leader vote (depending on how that particular state-party body has decided to choose them)[1]. The state level unpledged delegates tend to vote for the candidate who received the most votes from their state (although they are not required to and some state parties give them more leeway than others). Many state Republican party delegations are made up entirely of unpledged delegates which gives them the distinction "winner take all". Even with these traditions, unpledged delegates are allowed to change their vote at any time before the national convention. This is why both the Republican and Democratic parties have the potential for a brokered convention. This is far less likely for the Republican party where the traditions are more strict and there are far fewer unpledged delegates who are given a free hand.
The Democratic party takes the concept of unpledged delegates a step further by having a large number of Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) unpledged delegates that are not associated with any particular state. Sometimes, the term Superdelegate is used only to describe Democratic PLEO delegates, and other times it is used to describe all Democratic unpledged delegates. This article discusses only PLEO unpledged delegates.

BSmack wrote:The original reason for the super delegates was so that if the candidate tanked so badly (like by nominating a VP candidate who had received electroshock therapy) between the primaries and the convention that he/she requires replacing, it could be done. On the surface, it wasn't a horrible idea, and it certainly is in line with the principles of representative democracy as these delegates are all appointed by virtue of their elected positions. However, in practice the idea flat out sucks and should be abolished by both parties.

After the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the Democratic Party implemented changes in its delegate selection process, based on the work of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination.

These comprehensive changes left some Democrats believing that the role of party leaders and elected officials had been unduly diminished, weakening the Democratic ticket. In response, the superdelegate rule was instituted after the 1980 election. Its purpose was to accord a greater role to active politicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

smackaholic wrote:The republicans do have winner take all states, which is equally bullshit. They DO NOT have superdelegates.

The more I think about how fukked up our election process is, the more I just feel like saying fukk it and stay home. I think the dems have gotten away from winner take all for the wrong reasons. They know that it will result in a fairly close delegate count. This will make the bought and paid for supershill delegates the deciding factor. And we all know who's getting them, don't we, hillary.

BSmack wrote:Obama is the nominee unless he's found in bed with a dead woman or a live man. Period. End of story. There is no way in hell superdelegates will be able to subvert the will of the voters without causing the breakup of the Democratic party. This isn't 1968. Well, except for that part about America being stuck in a quagmire halfway around the world thanks to a lame duck President who now cares more about his "legacy" as a "war President" than saving the lives of the troops he is needlessly wasting.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The republicans do have winner take all states, which is equally bullshit. They DO NOT have superdelegates.

A superdelegate by any other name stinks just as much.

The Democratic party takes the concept of unpledged delegates a step further by having a large number of Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) unpledged delegates that are not associated with any particular state. Sometimes, the term Superdelegate is used only to describe Democratic PLEO delegates, and other times it is used to describe all Democratic unpledged delegates.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:There is no way in hell superdelegates will be able to subvert the will of the voters without causing the breakup of the Democratic party.

I laughed.

You still haven't figured it out yet, have you?

mvscal wrote:Clinton is leading 228 to 138 in superdelegates, dumbfuck.

mvscal wrote:Actually, it's more like 430 and if the proportion holds at 60/40 (there is no reason to believe that it won't) it's over for Oprah Odumbfuck barring a total wipeout of Clinton in Texas and Ohio. Superdelegates are party flacks. They don't give a fuck about Hussein's alleged charisma and they certainly don't give a fuck about you.

It's a coinflip right now.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: Obama will crush Hillary in both Texas and Ohio.

He has to or he no shot at all. I can see you're starting to melt a little, though.

mvscal wrote:No, I mean that if you clowns go into the convention with the race as tight as it is, Onogga has ZERO chance of pulling out a win in a brokered convention. All Shillary has to do is keep it close.

I couldn't care less who wins the Dem primary. There isn't anybody in the race in either party who isn't a disasterous fuck up.

BSmack wrote:

We are moving into the endgame. All that is left for Hillary is to bow out with some dignity..

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: Did you not see the results yesterday? The exit polling data? The resignation of yet another top Clinton campaign official?

Who gives a shit about any of that? The delegate count is the only thing that matters and Osoftsoap doesn't have anything that could even remotely be construed as a commanding lead and that's with several significant states still in play not to mention over 400 superdelegates undecided.

"She’s behind. Make no mistake. If she lose(sic) either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done."

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/the_bu ... nd-ma.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mvscal wrote:You are a straight up fool. An even or nearly even split in Texas and Ohio gives her the nomination. Vermont and RI are irrelevant.

mvscal wrote:No, she doesn't. All she has to do is keep it reasonably close in Texas and Ohio. The superdelegates will put her over the top.

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:No, she doesn't. All she has to do is keep it reasonably close in Texas and Ohio. The superdelegates will put her over the top.

In case you forgot, the remaining superdelegates will move to the candidate who has the most committed delegates. There is no other alternative save the destruction of the Democratic party. Period.

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

mvscal wrote:No, she doesn't. All she has to do is keep it reasonably close in Texas and Ohio. The superdelegates will put her over the top.

In case you forgot, the remaining superdelegates will move to the candidate who has the most committed delegates. There is no other alternative save the destruction of the Democratic party. Period.

Says who?

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:In case you forgot, the remaining superdelegates will move to the candidate who has the most committed delegates. There is no other alternative save the destruction of the Democratic party. Period.

Says who?

mvscal wrote:No, she doesn't. All she has to do is keep it reasonably close in Texas and Ohio. The superdelegates will put her over the top.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:Says anybody with a clue.

Right. That must explain why they're breaking 60-40 for Hillary right now.

Cuda wrote:

mvscal wrote:No, she doesn't. All she has to do is keep it reasonably close in Texas and Ohio. The superdelegates will put her over the top.

With the added benefit of REALLY REALLY REALLY pissing off the n.i.g.g.ers.

They see Barak as their messiah and when the Klinton Machine fucks him out of the nomination, they will feel pretty well plunger fucked too; they might even torch some cars and liberate some big screen TV's & designer clothes

James Carville at the Builders Show wrote:For both you Democrats out there, I got good news for you. We have to literally talk our way out of winning this election.

For the Republicans, being a lifelong member of the Democratic party, I can assure you we are perfectly capable of doing that.

Cuda wrote:O'bama

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The Obama campaign announced Christine "Roz" Samuels, a DNC member and superdelegate from New Jersey, switched her support from Clinton to Obama. NBC News can confirm that Samuels had been supporting Clinton.

This also changes the superdelegate count more so than just a usual pick up because, in baseball terms, it helps in both the win and loss columns.

The NBC News Political Unit superdelegate count now stands at Clinton 260, Obama 181. This brings Obama's post-Feb. 5 superdelegate endorsements to 11-2 over Clinton. (And Clinton's lost two, including Samuels and Tom Lantos, who passed away.) Super delegate numbers reflect totals gathered by the Political Unit from the campaigns and public endorsements.

The Obama campaign also announced the endorsement of former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee, of Rhode Island. Chafee switched his party affiliation to independent after losing his seat to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who is supporting Hillary Clinton. Rhode Island holds its primary March 4.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 64722.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mvscal wrote:Sure. He could be Irish. He's whatever you want him to be, Goobs. You name it, he'll pander to it.