Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama Takes The Lead in Superdelegates Too
blogs.abcnews.com — For the first time this campaign season, Barack Obama has surpassed Hillary Clinton's support among superdelegates, according to the ABC News delegate estimate.
dick122- 1935 diggs
- digg it
- mightycbu, on 05/09/2008, -11/+79how is it that the superdelegate count is not an exact science?
politico even has a 0.5 delegate???
FTA:
Below are the superdelegate tallies, as of this morning, from other news organizations:
ABC
OBAMA 267
CLINTON 265
CBS
CLINTON 271
OBAMA 261
CNN
CLINTON 268
OBAMA 258
NBC
CLINTON 274
OBAMA 260
AP
CLINTON 271
OBAMA 256
New York Times
CLINTON 263
OBAMA 258
Politico
CLINTON 268.5
OBAMA 260
Washington Post (uses AP statistics)
CLINTON 271
OBAMA 256- jforjools, on 05/09/2008, -1/+22the ".5" is because some half-delegates are awarded. (i.e. for Americans overseas....Guam may also be one such instance--but I'm not positive on that one.)
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 05/09/2008, -0/+14I think it is ether a "democrats abroad" or Guam superdelegate that counts as half
- Krisgi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+15Democrats Abroad has half a vote for each delegate. Guam has full ones for theirs. I am a Democrat Abroad, but, unfortunately not a delegate to the Convention. I wish...
- Schmapdi, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1yes - but the democrats abroad aren't super delegates, they are pledged. So I dunno how they can have .5
- Stevo23, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The Democrats Abroad organization has both superdelegates and pledged delegates. They both count as half.
- DavidBGie, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Just think, we maybe one step closer to the the most left wing president the US has ever had! This should be fun! There is a bright side to this ... If he is elected then it will be a stake in the heart to the NAACP, Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Rev. Wright, and all the other black racist that the "Racist" United States elected a black man. Even for the right wing there is some good to a Obama win.
- frankgotfrag, on 05/09/2008, -11/+6Strange they are so different. At least one paper has the truth out there, that upsets the Clinton War machine, go Obama!
- frenchi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+69Obama's website has these stats:
superdelegate for OBAMA: 267
superdelegates for CLINTON: 275.5
If Obama was leading in superdelegates I think his website would be the first to acknowledge it right?- poopdigger, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10I would think his website would have the most accurate statistic for his number of superdelegates.
I can think of a lot of other sites (many of which appear on digg) which would jump on any rumor of a lead much sooner. - dagamer34, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3It doesn't update in real-time, but at the end of the day. You have to remember that some of these announcements come from all sorts of media sources.
- HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+14Obama's website isn't saying he has the superdelegate lead even when other sources do.
Meanwhile, Hillary's trying to say she has the popular vote, including a state in which Obama didn't even appear on the ballot.
Which candidate sounds more honest to you?
- poopdigger, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10I would think his website would have the most accurate statistic for his number of superdelegates.
- LukasSmith, on 05/09/2008, -10/+3Silly season has begun.
- inajeep, on 05/09/2008, -0/+19It's not exact because there is no place for them to cast a vote. It's all word of mouth and press releases.
- EtherGnat, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Exactly, only I would point out there IS a place for them to cast their vote--at the Democratic National Convention. At that point it will become an exact science.
- bjs3171, on 05/09/2008, -4/+4what the ***** are you talking about? CNN says it's 267 to 263, with clinton in the lead. that's only 4, though.
- Nanobe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Just yesterday CNN was showing 268 to 258, so there was obviously an update at some point today.
- tc2004txst, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3CNN says 267 to 263, but their front page story says "Obama picks up 4 superdelegates" and says in the article that her lead is "down to three," so they must not have updated their "Election Center 2008 Count" yet.
- wrzhydr, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3His post was 8 hours ago, douchebag. 8 hours ago, that was correct per CNN's website.
- PhireN, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2CNN now says Obama has 268 to Hillarys 272.
Somehow they found another 4 superdelegates for Hillary, yet I can't see any news saying Hillary picked up 4 more.
- yojiffyskippy, on 05/09/2008, -5/+5And how is it that only ABC has him leading while all the other sources has Clinton leading YET it still causes an Obama-gasm on Digg?
- kriminalintent, on 05/09/2008, -5/+24You forgot fox.
Fox:
CLINTON 268
OBAMA (the muslim) 260- pandorazboxx, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2You mean Obama Hussein Iraq err Barack?
- jellygraph, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3Or is it more like
HILLARY CLINTON: 268
barack ___H_U_S_S_E_I_N___ obama: 260 - ArchangelZLT, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Fox:
OMFG MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER AMERICA SO WE'RE GONNA FIGHT EM SO NO MORE SPRDELEGATE COUNT! - blagoaw, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Fox isn't that subtle.
Billary Clinton: 268
Black Osama Hussein: 260
Left-wing conspiracy: 999
- HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Because these were written by journalists. Not exactly the best at math.
- kbd123, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Looks like the New York Times updated their counts and now has Obama in the lead.
"The superdelegate movement toward Mr. Obama, of Illinois — giving him a net gain of six on Friday alone, with more expected"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10cl ... - PunkRampant, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1So the only news outlet which put Obama ahead is the same news outlet which ran the worst debate all season.
ABC News has neared Fox News status in my book, so I'm not gonna buy anything they say, even if it supports Obama. - DiggLive, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Whatever happened to the outrage about superdelegates? Are they acceptable now because Obama will have the most? They shouldn't even exist, period.
- jforjools, on 05/09/2008, -1/+22the ".5" is because some half-delegates are awarded. (i.e. for Americans overseas....Guam may also be one such instance--but I'm not positive on that one.)
- Hillsfar, on 05/09/2008, -2/+29I already know what Clinton's gonna say. If you read the news, her campaign is trying to count up how many superdelegates are willing to privately back her while publicly remaining uncommitted for political purposes. Gee...
So when Obama announces that he's passes her in the committed superdelegates count, she can say, without blinking an eye, "I've got more of the hidden superdelegates."- Gerz1219, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Yeah, the thing is, all those private Clinton "supporters" are really Bill Richardsons waiting for the flood gate to open.
- bjs3171, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Hidden Superdelegates? Are those, like, HD Delegates? The delegates between the delegates?
- Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+15It doesn't matter.
By the end of this election, if the contests follow current suit, Clinton is still going to need some 230 of the remaining 260 superdelegates to win. That's a HUGE frelling 'not gonna happen'.
And once the available remaining superdelegate count drops below 230, we can finally say that Clinton is dead. Not mostly dead, but doornail dead. - elfgirl, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1So...the lurkers support her in email?
- Krisgi, on 05/09/2008, -19/+2The deal is done. They aren´t just all going to go screaming over to Obama in one fell swoop... even a bitch like Hillary, or especially a bitch like Hillary, and her die-hard voters need to be let go graciously with a "thanks for trying, it´s the thought that counts" type of thing. Only then, and only maybe, will they come back into the fold. If not, all but the real Democrats will all go to McCain. As far as I´m concerned, we don´t need any of them. Just Richardson and the latinos to beat McCain + Conservative Back-assward Other.
- bitfreak, on 05/09/2008, -1/+42Clintonian Physics; A combination of art, science, and fantasy, it's used to describe the motion of political candidates through time and space. It produces very inaccurate and self-serving results within the media and the population at large, and is one of the oldest and sleaziest forms of political maneuvering, perfected by the Clinton family. Examples include offering the Vice Presidency to the candidate that is in first place, claiming that you are winning when in fact have been behind for months (if you say it it must be true), claiming that the amount of States that the first place candidate has won is actually a problem because of the size of those States, and inventing tales of Heroism to make yourself look like a Patriot, vis a vis Walter Mitty.
- wild, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Dugg for James Thurber reference. Nice work.
- tcbishop12, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Wow. I agree. Excellent!
- ultar6, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Add to that the ridiculous claim that, because your opponent couldn't beat YOU in a certain state, that he would certainly lose that state in the general election.
- RaspberryTang, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9We knew this was coming. He'd been gaining on her for so long. Doubt this will make her change her mind though. Our lovely Clinton wants to run the Democratic party into the ground!
- CrackpotPress, on 05/09/2008, -3/+20YAY OBAMA!
- mochaman, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9The delegate count is pretty confusing out there, but the fact is that her delegates are jumping her sinking ship. It doesn't matter that she keeps moving the goal post this has to be devastating and we can only hope she gets the message.
- reynolds3g, on 05/09/2008, -1/+17I am sure that Obama will have a clear lead soon by everyones count, but it seems odd that ABC has him leading when every other news outlet shows him still trailing a bit.
- poopdigger, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10someone has to be first
- dagamer34, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2We know it happened today, that's all that matters. Besides, a news story on Yahoo had a headline of 5 delegates, but the actual article says 6. This is politics in real-time man!
- ultar6, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1It's not odd at all. The superdelegate count is composed of two things - public declarations of support from some delegates, combined with 'polling' of the other delegates. If you expect exact science, then you better look elsewhere.
- quakerorts, on 05/09/2008, -1/+55I love how they omit Fox from the list of "other news organizations."
- 1337Einstein, on 05/09/2008, -2/+24You'll find that they aren't the only ones who don't consider "Fox News" to be news.
- exronin, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2Who? What?
- pyronik, on 05/09/2008, -9/+1big deal they are real news whether you want to stick your hands over your ears and yell la la la la is your choice. Fact of the matter is the number 1 rated news organization and isn't nearly as bland as the others. I am sure you think that the new york times is real news too and they aren't biased or unfair... same with cnn, msnbc, abc, etc. By trashing fox calling it faux news and all your garbage it just shows that you are just being intellectually dishonest. I know that fox is slanted more on the right, and I get both sides on it too. Win - Win for me and the other millions watching them.
- xenoc1de, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2sarcasm right?
- InfamousAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Intellectually dishonest is Fox News' approach to (and I use this term lightly) reporting.
Yes there is bias in ALL media. It's unavoidable. Fox takes it to another level though. They actively and overtly criticize and disparage the Democratic party and anyone unfortunate enough to be branded a "liberal."
A "win" for you would be to wake the ***** up and stop watching cable news altogether. It's mostly spin and sensationalism designed for ratings, not accurately reporting the news.- pyronik, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1as opposed to fair sensible medium like digg? I am here listening to the obama spin ***** day in and day out... obama takes a *****.. lets talk about how sweet he is!
- 1337Einstein, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Nobody claims digg to be balanced, digg is composed of people voting their preferences, which means it is at its very core opinionated. Just try to find somebody who denies that.
- pyronik, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1as opposed to fair sensible medium like digg? I am here listening to the obama spin ***** day in and day out... obama takes a *****.. lets talk about how sweet he is!
- Schmapdi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+18Especially when you consider the other publications they listed.
High Times:
CLINTON 263
OBAMA 258
Hustler:
CLINTON 265
OBAMA 256
Mad Magazine:
CLINTON 261
OBAMA 260
I guess Fox just didn't meet their standards.- chronically420, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1im at work and risking getting caught but i just had to log in and digg you up for this one lol. *thumbs up*
- suzywang3000, on 05/09/2008, -11/+5how has this not hit the front page yet?
- MadMax3000, on 05/09/2008, -13/+3AP
CLINTON 271.5
OBAMA 266
Politico
CLINTON 268.5
OBAMA 260
271.5? 268.5? Where's the other half? Are these half delegates?
Maybe leaning Obama!
Obama 08- cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Go read the very first comment for a discussion of what a half-delegate is.
- Carbamide, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7Amputees
- bot001220, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1A man with a penis longer than 11 inches.
- svtspeed, on 05/09/2008, -5/+29Dugg for proper use of "too" in headline.
- sanosuke001, on 05/09/2008, -2/+10needs a comma, though.
- Schmapdi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3They could have used "two" as well, since the article mentions he leads by two delegates now.
- TheWorm, on 05/09/2008, -13/+6Buried as inaccurate. ABC is the only one reporting this lead. Everyone has varying numbers but most still show Clinton out in front by a few delegates.
(Thankfully the supers are starting to catch up to the popular vote though)- cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4NYT is saying they are tied.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/09cn ...- TheWorm, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Okay..so you're just proving my point that everyone is reporting different data.
- Schmapdi, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Its not innacurate really, someone has to have him in the lead first, and its pretty clear that everyone will have him in the lead by the end of next week.
- yunus, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1It is innacurate. Lets flip the situation, if 7/8 news organizations polled said that Obama had the lead and 1/8 said Clinton had the lead and that sole news organization released something saying Clinton has the superdelegate lead you would be screaming about how they are skewing the truth and its only 1 lone organization that claims they are in the lead.
- ultar6, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Schmapdi is correct. Not at all inaccurate. The media are out there pestering each and every superdelegate to make a decision and tell them what it is. It's not like these people go to some booth, pull a lever, and their preference is suddenly known to all.
- cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4NYT is saying they are tied.
- life38, on 05/09/2008, -11/+2It is all about Trust. People choose which companies to trust. The people have choosen which candidate to trust?
This Emo cartoon from Generation Next shows how they think.
http://mynonprofitwebsite.com/blog/2008/05/02/emo- ...- meninostongue, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"choosen" is my new favorite word.
- klco, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Wow I wish I would have shot myself in the face rather than seeing that crap-tastic comic...
- briankoenig03, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10I'm not a shill, and have no relation to it, but http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ seems to be the most trustworthy and thorough of the superdelegate trackers. They have 269.5 HRC to 264 for Obama.
If we start crowing about his lead in superdelegates now, when there isn't a consensus, it will just weaken the argument by the time he truly does have a growing lead. For now, when the different media sources have differing counts, the Clinton campaign can plausibly say, "We're still ahead by our count."
And to the people questioning the 0.5 counts, Superdelegates from "Democrats Abroad" get half a delegate vote each.- Eganj, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Dugg for clarifying that damn 0.5 delegate count.
- jeremyduffy, on 05/09/2008, -9/+1So... What this SHOULD read is "Newsflash! ABC is the LAST major news outlet to realize that Obama is winning!"
- tkstock, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Wrongo. They're the first one to report he's in the lead in the superdelegate count. Every news outlet thinks he's winning, this is just the last category.
- DaviDTC, on 05/09/2008, -1/+91 site out of 10 saying saying something doesnt mean it is true right now. Even Obama's site says he is still behind.
- CannedMango, on 05/09/2008, -2/+23This is a pretty biased piece of diggery here. While Obama *will* soon have the official lead in superdelegates, right now only 1 out of 8 news sources has him pegged with the lead. If there was a post about Hillary taking over the superdelegate lead, but 7 out of 8 sources said Obama had the lead... everyone would be jumping all over the submitter as a brainwashed idiot.
Patience Digg, Patience... When Obama officiall takes over the lead, the we can all wave and cheer and get excited.- bhamster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Well, I think the point is that it is newsworhty that one source has cited a change in the long standing majority in superdelegate that Clinton has held.
- CannedMango, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2That's not how it was presented though. If the title was, "*one* major news source puts Obama in the lead for superdelegates" then I would agree with you.
- ultar6, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Nope. Wrong. Some superdelegates choose to announce who they support, others don't. Those who don't are asked who they support. Today, one media outlet could ask a superdelegate who they support and they might say they are undecided. The next day a different media outlet might ask the same superdelegate who they support and they may have suddenly made a decision. It's not as if they go to a voting booth and submit a vote.
- bhamster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0Well, I think the point is that it is newsworhty that one source has cited a change in the long standing majority in superdelegate that Clinton has held.
- jerrolds, on 05/09/2008, -1/+11Oh....hey Hillary, you're still here? What's up?
- Otab, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0My mind pictured Quagemire saying that in responce to Hillary's:Hey Glen what are you doing for living?
- harrypl0tter, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2if hillary really wants to ***** obama just go independent and run against him.
- reynolds3g, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6That would be political suicide for her. She would definitely be blackballed by the Democratic Party if she pulled a stunt like that. Plus, it would all but guarantee a McCain win by splitting the vote.
- taradisiac, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4She wouldn't care.
- harrypl0tter, on 05/09/2008, -5/+3she would rather have mcCain win than Obama....either canidate that wins I don't think has a chance against McCain.
- cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3I wish there were a way to dig the first half of your comment, but bury the 2nd half. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but I can't fathom why anybody would vote for McCain.
- Monk22, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1because he wont make me pay even more for your health care
- Railz, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3He'll make you pay more for bases in Iraq.
- Monk22, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1im ok with that
- dafragsta, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3How can you say that? Obama has yet to debate McCain. He's going to make him look like an Alzeimer's patient.
- cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3I wish there were a way to dig the first half of your comment, but bury the 2nd half. You're certainly welcome to your own opinion, but I can't fathom why anybody would vote for McCain.
- thescimitar, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I know it's hard to believe, but HIlary's campaign isn't about Obama... it's about HER. She knows as well as anyone else that she could not win as an independent (nor probably anyone at this point in our political development). The reason she's still in the race has nothing to do with odds or support or anything other than her own desperate hubris and desire to win at all costs.
And in fairness to Hilary, it's a well earned attitude. She's been playing with the big boys for a long while now, as even a first lady must whether almost endless criticism and critique. Hilary knows how to use her elbows, and for the Democrats (at this point), it just isn't what many want to see anymore. Her tenacity is the reason she's gotten this far, and it will also be the reason she doesn't get the nomination. - ultar6, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0And Lieberman would be there to welcome her with open arms. He'd school her on the ways to defect without defecting in order to save the status quo.
- reynolds3g, on 05/09/2008, -2/+6That would be political suicide for her. She would definitely be blackballed by the Democratic Party if she pulled a stunt like that. Plus, it would all but guarantee a McCain win by splitting the vote.
- NyteStarNyne, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2In B4 marked as inaccurate.
- pagalchu, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2if there is a negative article....you can assume its about Hillary or Microsoft.
Linux/ubuntu and Obama always good.- mediaspree, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Women and profitable business sense. Two things diggers lack knowledge of.
- pyronik, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2haha i love it..oh im on digg too .. yeaa
- Stevo23, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1So, you're saying diggers post positive articles about things they like, and negative articles about things they don't like? SCANDALOUS!
- mediaspree, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Women and profitable business sense. Two things diggers lack knowledge of.
- i4ybrid, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Isn't the title misleading? Out of all the news reporting on the number of superdelegates to Obama/Clinton, ABC is the ONLY one that says Obama has more superdelegates.
- agentVivid, on 05/09/2008, -21/+3obama's dick must taste quite good for as much attention as it's getting
- pagalchu, on 05/09/2008, -10/+2i agree with you. Americans are ready and and hungry for black coc*
- Railz, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Well its either black *****, whithered Vagina, or old white mans *****.
- pagalchu, on 05/09/2008, -10/+2i agree with you. Americans are ready and and hungry for black coc*
- tkstock, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2CNN is reporting that Obama picked up four more today, one from Clinton supporters, and that he's still 3 behind.
Why isn't this an exact science? :) - iLens, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7I gave $50 yesterday... I'm about to give $30 more in my friends name (for winning a contest).
Here's the link, click and stick it to a ho!https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/pf? ...- pagalchu, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2Did you really have to post a link here? People willing to give him money will find a way.
- Pssdoff, on 05/09/2008, -7/+3Sucker.
- KingGoonie, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1Why not just donate to McCain... since if Obama gets the nomination thats the same thing as just giving the presidency to McCain
- pilot3033, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2If I were a McCain supporter, I'd be giving my $ to Clinton (to ruin the D), and then to McCain (to win in Nov).
But since I'm not, I'm going to give another $25 to O-train.
- pilot3033, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2If I were a McCain supporter, I'd be giving my $ to Clinton (to ruin the D), and then to McCain (to win in Nov).
- tatinthehat, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Buried for inaccurate.
Perhaps Obama is ahead in superdelegate count, but nothing is set into stone yet.
Speculation only leads to misleading news like this. I say "it's over, when it's over". I guess we'll find out in a month.- eean, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1But it is over. Hillary is just figuring out how to make her exit.
- tatinthehat, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I agree that Hiliary needs to get out of this race (it would be nice if she did, since there's literally no chance of her coming back...outside of being a cheat).
But as far as the super delegates go, I don't believe the numbers for those are completely solid yet. There are a few undeclared SD's left, and also, you may never know if an SD is going to cross to one side or another over the span of the next few weeks (though many seem to be favoring Obama at this point).
- alpha19, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5It's not true until Fox reports it... lol.
- jp12380, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2How can it not be an exact science? Are the super delegates not known? That is the only way I could figure it would not be an "exact science". If they are all known who all of them are why don't the news rooms around the country get an intern to call and or write all of the super delegates explaining who they are and asking who are they for Obama or Clinton?
It seems only one source thinks Obama is in the lead of super delegates all the rest have varying numbers showing Clinton is in the lead of super delegates, this is crazy it should not be this difficult.- cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The vast majority of the superdelgates' identities are known, but there are still some that haven't been chosen yet. So it's not an identity thing.
Two possibilities:
1) Not every news outlet called every superdelegate, and each news outlet is only reporting the ones who have pledged support publicly + the ones they called. I agree with you that this would be stupid.
2) Maybe some of the superdelegates who haven't announced publicly are messing with the news agencies: "Hey, I'm going to tell ABC I support Obama, I'll tell CNN that I support Clinton, and I'll tell MSNBC that I haven't made up my mind yet". I don't really see the point of that, though. - Eganj, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Why they can't build out a simple web app where they log in and vote in a simple poll is beyond me. Just more random bs for god knows what reason.
- ultar6, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Great idea for a solution. Just build a simple web app and tell them all to make a decision now. There's your problem. They don't have to make a decision now. They can wait until the convention to voice their support.
The objective NOW for both candidates is to gain some perceived advantage that motivates superdelegates to choose a side - their side. I imagine most are hoping to commit safely - without having to choose sides. However, the longer Clinton hangs on, the more they are pressured to choose and asked to communicate their preference.
I think most of them simply want to get behind a nominee and don't want to choose the nominee.
- ultar6, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Great idea for a solution. Just build a simple web app and tell them all to make a decision now. There's your problem. They don't have to make a decision now. They can wait until the convention to voice their support.
- chromerium, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Superdelegates don't have to record/report their preference for a particular candidate until the convention. The way they work out the numbers is they call the known superdelegates and ask them which way they're feeling. If a superdelegate says "I really like Obama, but Clinton has some strong points also" some news outlets will record that person as a Obama delegate, and others as a Clinton delegate.
So yeah, its not exact.
- cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The vast majority of the superdelgates' identities are known, but there are still some that haven't been chosen yet. So it's not an identity thing.
- Asheis, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6Did any of you sit and read some of the comments that were left? geez! There was so much Obama-bashing Hillary fanaticism over there. I'd like to raise a point to all of those people that cry inexperience for Obama. Think about all of the people he's going to have behind him. He's not going to be making the most important decisions about our country alone. We know for a fact that Bush doesn't make his decisions (as poor as most of them are) alone. He doesn't have the capacity. So again, before citing inexperience, please note that he'll have plenty of experienced people around him. Especially if the ticket is Obama-Hillary.
- KingGoonie, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Because those surrounding Obama are so great... am I wright or am I wright?
See what I'm saying - tcbishop12, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Dugg for most of the comments but a big no thanks on Obama - Hillary. Obama needs a running mate he can trust not to sabotage his election so she can run in 2012.
- KingGoonie, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Because those surrounding Obama are so great... am I wright or am I wright?
- SqueakyWheel, on 05/09/2008, -14/+1Obama won by being sexist
Obama said that Hillary was "taking out the claws." At the same time he noted that Obama would use "[l]anguage such as 'when she's feeling down' 'periodically' she 'launches attacks.'" Later Obama complained that Hillary was "throwing the China" at him- Fordi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5None of those are necessarily sexually charged. Get over yourself.
- Ugoff, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Are you kidding me? Clinton and her campaign have said more damaging, racially charged comments, only it backfired on her. She wanted to bring race and sex into this contest while Obama wanted to keep things civil.
- papipablo, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Iron my shirt.
- mozert, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Thanks dick.
- BuryObama, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1ok so 1 news station, just 1, says Obama had more, and the REST say he doesn't
It's amazing how stuff like this makes the front page. - kyle2006, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0If it's safe to say the count is even, then it's moot. super is only 'Super' in relative terms.
- smithereen, on 05/09/2008, -12/+4AAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH! MAKE IT STOP! DIGG NOW OFFICIALly IS BEING RENAMED "OBAMA BLOWJOB"! HEADLINES ARE "WE WILL ALWAYS GET ON OUR KNEES FOR BARAK!"
- skippyisforyou, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3... So 1 news station says Obama is in the lead, compared to 7 others that say Clinton is in the lead... Therefore, Obama is leading? Allright, I see the logic!
- chesscat, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I think at this point Shrillary's only hope is for a bolt of lightning to strike Obama.
- cizzymac, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1A small part of me deep down inside wondered for just a moment if it were possible for Hillary to make that happen. And I seriously think she would if she could.
- KingGoonie, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1thats also America's only home... Obama will lose to McCain, Clinton won't
- thepretext, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Pet names like that aren't clever.
- MattInChicago, on 05/09/2008, -4/+5Obama fanboys digging up again! I won't vote for this guy just because of these wackos that support him something must be wrong here.
- winampman2, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Yahoo/AP news says they're tied.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_el_pr/ob ... - ecarver530, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1WRONG
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121034188889980733 ... - andrewpmk, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Superdelegates can always change their mind. Therefore, these polls are meaningless and we don't know which candidate they will support until the day of the convention.
- Jekkonidae, on 05/09/2008, -8/+2***** Obama.
- babbitblob, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0"Yes we will" -HRC
- deadnewton, on 05/09/2008, -1/+10.5 is from democratic non-resident aliens...
- webtroll, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately it's still too early to sing "the witch is dead" ;-)
And like in the movies she just won't go away for good... - dalequail, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Penis
- Noureddin, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1We'll all doomed!!! If this is true that is.
- dopre, on 05/10/2008, -1/+0Dick did the superdelegate *****.
(Sorry, but I could not resist ;) - tcbishop12, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Regardless of whether Sen. Obama is even or just behind or a little ahead, one thing is becoming abundantly clear to anyone who is paying attention: what was once a little trickle of superdelegates committing to Obama has now become a steady stream, soon to become an insurmountable wave.
- opticwind, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Wrong, Hilary has 272 as of today. Buried as inaccurate. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/ )
- chase001, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I see the Hillary head of HillaCain drinking her chardonnay at a bar somewhere and singing have i stayed too long at the ball with a bunch of drunk ceo's, the head is Israel and a bunch of lobbyists.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by