digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com —

When are the Superdelegates going to stand up!

huffingtonpost.com — I totally agree with Ms. Huffington - we need to put the pressure on the Superdelegates to demonstrate LEADERSHIP. I naively believed Clinton would accept things and find a way to gracefully step away. Instead she is going over the deep end & tryint go ruin Obama's chances. It is unaccepted the supers are letting this happen in light of latest.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • anshuman, on 05/23/2008, -17/+5well. Obama should try to put the pressure i guess, saying, you are either with us or With them (McCain-Clinton) so choose right now.

    The super delegates view that let the voter have say is not holding water anymore, this(primary-election) is dragging things unnecessary when everyone kinda knows the math wont add up in coming primary elections regarding Clinton getting nominee.

    So common SD's make the choice NOW.
    • CannedMango, on 05/23/2008, -3/+14Obama has too much dignity to try and force them to decide right away.

      Clinton on the other hand...
    • LLamaStar, on 05/23/2008, -4/+7i dont want a president who deals in ultimatums.
    • PabloMac, on 05/23/2008, -2/+7I don't care much for many of Obama's policy positions, but I have to admit the guy has too much class to stoop to Hillary's level. He will win the Democratic nomination with style and dignity.
    • Gerz1219, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5Obama's hands are tied. He can't officially call for an end to the race without alienating Hillary voters.

      The superdelegates know that the issue isn't about "disenfranchisement" or "letting all the states have their say". Most nominating contests end in the first few weeks. When the hometeam is up after the top of the ninth, you don't bother playing the bottom of the inning. But a lot of Hillary voters don't know that, and Hillary's increasingly ludicrous arguments are just reasonable enough to fool stupid people. She could have been stopped a couple weeks ago by an endorsement flood, but there's only been a gradual trickle in Obama's direction.

      The superdelegates are all hedging. They're terrified that, even at this late date, the Swamp Thing is going to pull some magical bag of tricks out of her ass and steal the nomination. They know that the die-hard loyalists are going to get the cabinet positions and legislative credit in a hypothetical second Clinton administration that will never exist. Even though they've all known this thing is over since February, they've been so spooked by Hillary's false aura of inevitability that they *still* don't want to risk pissing her off if she wins the nomination.

      To a lesser extent, maybe they're worried about finding themselves stuck on the Senate elevator with her and getting the skank eye.

      Elected representatives are supposed to have the balls to deal with an occasional skank eye.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/23/2008, -12/+35Super Delegates. What a joke. Nothing like taking power from the people.
    • dumpyhumpy, on 05/23/2008, -1/+10But it's the rules the DNC, Obama, and Clinton decided to follow. Delegates nominate. Stupid system, yes. Play by the rules everybody agreed to and change it for next time. They have to be fair about it. Imagine if John McCain won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to the democrat in November and he then tried to argue that he still won.
      • TJATL, on 05/23/2008, -4/+6You mean like how Al Gore did? lol....
        • Gerz1219, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5Al Gore never personally argued that he should be awarded the presidency because he won the popular vote. Once the recount fell through, he conceded gracefully and fell off the face of the earth for a few months to work on his PowerPoint skills.

          However, a lot of Democrats kept repeating that talking point in the media, because they thought it would influence the public opinion. They all knew the popular vote didn't actually matter. They just hoped to muddy the waters among ignorant people, much as Hillary is doing now.
        • foofightrs777, on 05/23/2008, -1/+6And, I don't want to beat a dead horse but:

          WHY CAN WE NOT HAVE RELIABLE VOTING MACHINES THAT WOULD AVERT ANY SUCH ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE!?

          We have a nation-wide network of ATMs which are 100% accurate, barring human error or mechanical failure. The machines run on their own secure network which has not been hacked yet. And the kicker is that they even offer a paper receipt upon request.

          Things like this really show just how screwed up our priorities are in this country.
        • rrbest, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3Personally I prefer my bank account secure to my voter ballot.
      • StinkBait, on 05/23/2008, -4/+5Like Gore?
    • hittnrun, on 05/23/2008, -12/+4I can't believe those nasty republicans FORCED the Dimocrats to run their primary this way!!!!!!!

      /sarcasm off
      /eyeroll on.

      You people are embarassing this country.
      • chiefbandit2200, on 05/23/2008, -1/+8***** *****

        PolishLogic said nothing about republicans. People who turn everything into an argument between left and right, regardless of what the common good is, are ruining this country.
    • jabberwolf, on 05/23/2008, -8/+5Super delegates were created to ensure that the retarded masses didnt elect someone in the primaries that was unelectable in the final run!

      Most dems are ***** retarded beyong belief thinking that just because they are as left as can be, everyone else will think just as they do. Its megalomania at its most prime!
    • SwedishNinja, on 05/23/2008, -0/+3The guy who came up with the idea of superdelegates went to Iowa State.

      Represent!
    • shauncorleone, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4Ah yes, Democrats, the supposed "party of the people", is the party whose status quo can overrule the votes of the common man.
      Barack Obama: Prepared to bring Hope and Change to all of America ... assuming Democrat Bigwigs believe it too!
    • bgovern, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2The truth is, super delegates were put in place by the party leadership to prevent an unelectable populist from winning the nomination. The party rules requiring distribution of delegates proportionally to the primary vote could, in theory allow someone with overwhelming support in only a few key states to win the nomination without the nationwide support required to win the presidency.. Super delegates effectively allow the party leadership to nominate an electable candidate even if the voters didn't get it right (a recurring theme within the democratic party!).

      The modern super delegate rules were put in place in 1984 to ensure that the establishment candidate Walter Mondale got the nomination over the more fringe candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. Its rather ironic that the party would change the rules to get a buffoon like Mondale nominated only to find its coming back to bite 20 years later.
    • jpop, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2It's ironic that the Dems are using an "electoral college" after they griped so much after Gore lost due to the electoral college...
  • redcolumbine, on 05/23/2008, -5/+5Since all she can hope to gain by continuing to be a millstone around the Democratic Party's neck is a few more days of fundraising, how about we ask Bill Gates to pay her to concede?
    • fatherfigure8, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4She hopes for a great deal more than hurting her party. She wants to be queen, barring that queen four years from now, barring that millions of dollars....
  • kernel16, on 05/23/2008, -11/+9I think the 'white vote + Florida' argument is scaring them, they're going to cheat Obama man, I can feel it.
    • megahan, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Dude, I hope you aren't right. That would be the WORST.
  • madfrogurt, on 05/23/2008, -9/+13Come on superdelegates, it's time to grow a pair and yell out "***** you!" to the rules and to who the people actually voted for! It's time to back the candidate who doesn't give a ***** about anything more than to grab power.

    Or you can end this ***** charade and back the inevitable winner.
    • megahan, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1Wow. Hey, what colour is the sky in the world you live in?
  • JohnGalt72, on 05/23/2008, -17/+11It's not over.

    Clinton has obviously convinced a share of the delegates to sit tight. For what ends, who knows...but there's probably logical reasons that these folks haven't just jumped the Hillary ship just yet. I'm no Hillary fan, but if you objectively look at the numbers...it's a virtual tie.
    • baldr, on 05/23/2008, -5/+5WHICH NUMBERS SHOW THIS RACE AS A VIRTUAL TIE?!?
      • JohnGalt72, on 05/23/2008, -4/+5Stop yelling.

        Look at the numbers closely. And look at them, not from a fan of whomever, but objectively.

        Then you will see the bigger picture here. Mathematically, it's a virtual tie.

        And Hillary is much more experienced, and many feel she's the stronger candidate. That's why the superdelegates aren't jumping ship....and probably won't anytime soon.
        • Caviarmy, on 05/23/2008, -4/+21,965
          Barack Obama

          1,779
          Hillary Clinton

          "Mathmatically," almost isn't.
          http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results ...
        • JohnGalt72, on 05/23/2008, -3/+3You don't follow instructions well.

          Or you're too blind to see.


          That's pretty close...like what 51-49? Something like that.

          I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm merely making a point regarding the article. But they can't see it, and neither can you.
        • KSUdesigner, on 05/23/2008, -4/+4You want a close look at the numbers? Here's one:

          Let's presume Clinton wins 100% of the remaining statewide delegates. This is completely impossible, but we'll pretend for a moment. If that were to happen, Clinton would still have to win 77% of the remaining superdelegates. Not impossible, but HIGHLY improbable.

          Now let's look at what happens if Clinton wins the remaining states 60/40. Oh wait, Obama has enough delegates to seal the nomination (not counting FL and MI at this point). He doesn't even need any additional superdelegates even if Clinton beats him by 20 points in each of the remaining races (again this is not impossible, but also HIGHLY improbable). If she beats him 60/40 in the three remaining races she then has to win 91% of the remaining superdelegates in order to surpass Obama's delegate count.

          Exactly where do you see a virtual tie? Clinton is finished, there is no way she can win without cheating her way through it. From the looks of it, the superdelegates may not even matter any more. Do you really think it's possible for Hilary to win somewhere between 77% and 91% of all remaining superdelegates? Do you also think it's possible for her to win each of the three remaining races by margins bigger than 60/40?

          CNN has a handy delegate calculator on its site, I suggest you take a look at the numbers closely on there.

          http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.co ...
        • baldr, on 05/23/2008, -2/+333 to 18 (states)
          1965 to 1779 (delegate)
          52% to 47% (of delegates)
          also: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89 ...

          your argument is valid, but it is only perpetuating Hilary's spin. There is a clear victor in this election.
        • KSUdesigner, on 05/23/2008, -3/+2My bad, apparently my vicodin kicked in and i read the numbers wrong. She would still need to win by HUGE margins and my points still remain however.
        • JohnGalt72, on 05/23/2008, -3/+3You guys are hillaryious with all your numbers and links.

          I know the numbers. I know what it would take for her to turn those numbers. And the fact that you feel you have to "show" me not only insults my intelligence, but also shows how much emotion, and little rationale is within your argument. You can't for a minute take the time to see what I'm saying.

          He'll win the popular vote. He'll win the total delegates. But don't forget...there is a reason for superdelegates. Why do you think they're there? Of course...it's for insurance.

          Like I said, I don't care who wins the dem nomination. They're both the same to me. And you're correct in that the odds are with Obama. But there is an argument to be had..that's the reality.
        • aebo06, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2And it really shouldn't even BE the numbers that finally decide this. If the Democrats were smart, they would nominate someone who could win in November.
  • stukdog, on 05/23/2008, -3/+19I think there are a lot of supers that are waiting until they know for certain who will be the nominee. When they need a favor later on from the President, they want to be able to say, "Hey, I supported you...can you hook me up?"
    There's a lot of selfishness in these remaining delegates.
    • IphtashuFitz, on 05/23/2008, -2/+10True, but pretty much everybody in the US (with the exception of one woman in particular, and her husband as well) can read between the proverbial lines and figure out who the Democratic nominee is going to be. As the article points out, there's no real reason for these last superdelegates to remain uncommitted any longer. If they're waiting, as you say, to use this as a potential political favor in the future, then it's likely going to backfire on them for waiting this long. Obama will wonder why they let this farce play out so long, taking up his valuable time that he could be using directly against McCain.
    • topgigmedia, on 05/23/2008, -1/+32 words.. Cowardly *****.
    • dpbt, on 05/23/2008, -1/+0maybe. It's possible that there are 40 Cal. delegates who are going to go for or switch to Obama. Al Giordano from CA is one and he came out for Obama today.
      http://ruralvotes.com/thefield
  • Pillage, on 05/23/2008, -11/+1June 3rd, now just the ***** up.
  • rationalist, on 05/23/2008, -8/+40Patience. This will all be over soon. It is a sign of Obama's mature leadership that he is willing to let this play out, let Clinton have her tantrums, while he steadily remains focused on the prize. In a matter of weeks, he will have majorities of the delegates under any scenario - and will have done so in a way that brings the party together.
    • davidrools, on 05/23/2008, -1/+4Under most circumstances, I would agree. But two things lead me to prefer the primary were over (or that Hillary would realize that)

      1. Hillary's campaigning is attacking Obama's image which will need to be rebuild for the general. She's got people thinking he's a secret Muslim, thinks in line with Wright, is anti guns, is a disconnected elitist, and a whole string of catch phrase lies. This cannot continue if she really wants a democrat in the white house.

      2. Obama is a new face to most people and he needs as much time as possible to introduce himself to America. Although he is doing a great job of that in his primary campaign, he needs to be seen as THE Democratic nominee rather than a potential one. He needs to shift people's attention to Obama vs. McCain rather than all the talk about Obama vs. Clinton. Plus the more she leaves him campaigning in states (albeit only a couple more, but he's already had to spend these past 3 months campaigning in primary states rather than focusing on important general-election swing states) the less time he'll have to show what he stands for.
    • hittnrun, on 05/23/2008, -5/+2I wish his handlers would back off and let him act like the "person" that he is. He wouldn't last a day. You obamabots should do a little "self examination".If you did, you would understand Obama will lose.
      • megahan, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3I find your characterization of my support for Obama insulting.
    • cctoronto05, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2I think you are right rationalist... trust the process, however it goes, whatever she does, he's already proved himself very adept at dealing with a number big political shifts, both fair and unfair in this contest, he generally pivots right away and moves onward. I agree... let it roll, he'll do it anyway.

      Gobama08
    • megahan, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2No, man, I think this guy has a point. I really never thought about the patience being displayed here by Obama. Great post.
  • donsnyc, on 05/23/2008, -5/+12Howard Dean has set a deadline of June 3rd. The super delegates should make up their minds asap and stop being so super important.
    • hittnrun, on 05/23/2008, -2/+4Fvck Howard Dean. God you people are pathetic.
      • Kzoo, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Wow... someone's in a bad mood tonight. It's his job to set the date, that's all.
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2Who in the ***** listens to "howling" howard dean?
    • aebo06, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2They're superdelegates, and that means that they can and should wait as long as they can before finally deciding. Shouldn't the Dems put up the one who can win in November as their nominee?
      • SuperVepr308, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1That would make sense but you know, they should just follow Obamamania like the vocal minority tells them to. It's what the kids want, you know?
  • Sahrat, on 05/23/2008, -15/+6Probably everybody who loves this country wants to stop Obama and looking for the way to do it?
  • thesisko, on 05/23/2008, -17/+17I know this is gonna get buried, but here goes:

    There must be a reason why so many of the supers are holding out. Here's the reason: they know why the superdelegate system was created, their responsibility as supers, to prevent another George McGovern or Jimmy Carter, which is exactly who is about to get the nomination, which the exception that he's black.
    • YourDoom123, on 05/23/2008, -2/+4and in what way is he like jimmy carter or george mcgovern?
      • markgl, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2he may win the nomination but have no shot at winning the whole tamale. thats what some are saying he's like.
    • centerblack, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2Jimmy Carter was elected president. I'm pretty sure the super delegates don't have a responsibility to prevent that.

      You sound like "An ignorant ass racist who joined Digg on July 14th, 2007"
      • SuperVepr308, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1How, pray tell, is he being racist? You throw that word around like it is popcorn.
      • thesisko, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1If you knew anything about the superdelegate system, you would know I was talking about Carter's second run for the presidency. Now who's ignorant?
        • centerblack, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1You.

          His first run was in '72, against Nixon, an incumbent war-time president. Carter talked a lot of ***** about McGovern being unelectable and then tried to be his vice president when McGovern was clearly going to be the nominee.

          His second run was in '77 and he won that election.

  • NelsonR, on 05/23/2008, -2/+9Yes, it's only common sense for the super, super delegates to stand up but it takes a backbone. Something most politicians lack while they ponder all advancement options.
  • bmind, on 05/23/2008, -7/+6The superdelegates should have made their move immediately after Obama won the majority of delegates. They would have had a perfectly valid argument to back up their choice and this whole mess would be over with. This has gotten totally out of control and the DNC appears completely oblivious to that fact. This is going to end very badly. The Democratic party is too fractured at this point to recover.
  • Thrilltone, on 05/23/2008, -13/+5http://nonsai.com/pics/obama.jpg
  • jbenson2, on 05/23/2008, -18/+13I thought the O-man was the Great Unifier.

    And he can't even unify his own party. What a joke.
  • SargedeathXmode, on 05/23/2008, -8/+9Sure, step in and silence Hilary. And in the process get about half of the democrat voters pissed off at you.
    • mrraven200, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1And in the process get about half of the RACIST democrat voters pissed off at you. I corrected your post, you're welcome.

      50% of primary voters in Kentucky said they'd other vote for McCain on not vote if Obama gets the nomination, wake it's the 21st century fully FOUR decades after the civil rights movement, WAKE UP inbred hicks. It makes me VERY ashamed to be from the midwest. :(
      • centerblack, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Well that's Kentucky. Not all of Clintons supporters are racists, give me a ***** break.
      • jpop, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Isn't it racist to say that all of Hilary's voters are racist?
  • iamnotrich, on 05/23/2008, -12/+13huffingspam
  • Beanbones, on 05/23/2008, -7/+7May I have your attention please? Would the real superdelegates please stand up? I repeat, would the real superdelegates please stand up?

    Uh, we're gonna have a problem here...
  • acidbathfan, on 05/23/2008, -13/+9This is probably gonna get me dugg down but most you have to realize on some level of basic common sense that the Democrats are no better than the Republicans; both parties are full of ***** and are going to lie to you, exploit you, run the country into the grown, and make you beg forever for a proverbial wooden nickle before they even consider throwing one your way.

    Wake up nothings going to change in this country the way the people want it to....never has, never will. The only change your ever gonna have is that which is in your pocket and the only reason you've got that is because it's practically worthless. You are all sheeples, bah and then move along.

    Digg users crack me up; Ron Paul, Obama, Clinton, Nader....none of em' are going to make things any better, hell at this rate we'd all be better off with Caligula.

    Also if you don't at least know who Caligula was or what he did you have no right to bury my post.

    That's my 2cents for the day that cost 4 to create.
    • megahan, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1OK, wise guy: you got a better idea? Go hide in the woods somewhere and wait it out until the Apocalypse? Give me a break, COWARD.
  • bmind, on 05/23/2008, -1/+0http://lobbydelegates.com/
  • uglypercy, on 05/23/2008, -3/+8We have to wait until June 3, when if we're lucky, they will each declare? Dean was too nice to these people. This is a desperate situation, here, and has been for months! Dean should have basically said that, after his/her home state primary/caucus was over, each super would have one week to declare, or they will be removed from the Democratic party.
    • sanosuke001, on 05/23/2008, -0/+0why not do all the primaries on the same day? that way, everyone gets their vote counted regardless of what happens in other states (so some states don't end up being useless) and then, the next day, all the supers do their thing and place their "vote" or whatever they do?

      dragging it out like this just causes problems and invites corruption
  • StabmasterArson, on 05/23/2008, -5/+3I find your grammar to be unaccepted.
  • Jeffler, on 05/23/2008, -3/+3OMG? Question, when did we start using exclamation points instead of question marks for questions!
  • TJATL, on 05/23/2008, -5/+6Why should anyone force the super delegates to choose? They shouldn't have any say until every primary is over with anyways....
  • GiJoeBob, on 05/23/2008, -5/+13Superdelegates. What a joke. Dems, why do you put up with this elitist system? It reminds me of "Animal Farm":

    "Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
  • plimpton777, on 05/23/2008, -4/+4Can't we all just agree that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Freedom?
    And, of course, that Hillary is Satan.
  • majortom1981, on 05/23/2008, -4/+12This will get dugg down because it has facts in it.

    These are the clinton obama numbers

    1,965Obama 1,779 clinton

    That is not a landslide for obama no matter how much people lie and say it is .Thats why all the super delegates havent gone to obama.
    • mrraven200, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1Obama has over half the delegates it's mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to win now. Innumeracy much?
      • sanosuke001, on 05/23/2008, -0/+0except those numbers mean nothing until the final tally. since everyone can change their vote until the last minute, can't they?
        • mrraven200, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1Hillary Clinton is destroying the Dims chances of winning the Presidency FAR more than Nader ever did. If the Dim lose this fall facing the end of the most unpopular Presidency EVER and facing off against the oldest man to run EVER I don't EVER want to hear wah, wah Nader cost us the Presidency whining ever again from Dimocraps. Grow a set and tell Hillary to get lost before it's too late for all of us. I am getting so disgusted by all this that I may vote for Cynthia McKinney out of shear spite even though I know she hasn no chance of winning. A pox on all Hillary supporters.
  • RRJackson, on 05/23/2008, -4/+13Until one of them hits 2026 it's still a race. Whining about it doesn't accomplish anything.
  • bonhoeffer, on 05/23/2008, -5/+6There is a reason the super delegates are Super Delegates and not Rubber Stamps. They have no obligation at all to support BHO or to announce their support for any candidate.
    Sounds like BHO supporters want to change the rules 3/4 of the way through the primary campaign and have the super delegate votes decided by the majority of elected delegates.
    DEMs knew the rules when they entered the game, so suck it up and let the Supers do their job.
  • devophl, on 05/23/2008, -4/+10The problem is threefold:

    1) Obama has made little progress in convincing white blue collar Americans to vote for him. This has been pretty consistent throughout the primaries. Obama gets 85% of the black vote and Clinton gets 70% of the white vote. If you take out the under 30, wealthy and college educated out of white vote, Clinton is probably taking over 80% of the remaining white vote. Since the bulk of independents fall into that category, its likely that he would have some problems getting independents to vote for him. A clear advantage for Clinton in the general election.

    The 2000 pound elephant in the corner is the race issue which continues to plague Obama and Clinton and the right wing media is quick to point it out. White Americans are very uneasy seeing Obama even mentioned in the same breath as Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan. If you look at the polling, its clear Obama is not reaching the white vote like he started to back in February. The Wright issue pretty much stopped his momentum with whites dead in its tracks.

    Its expected that in states where the majority of Democrats are black, Obama is cleaning up. But interestingly, in states where race is not an issue (i.e. states with a very low black population), Obama is also doing well. This includes the inter-mountain west and states like Maine, Vermont and Wisconsin. In states where race is an issue, Clinton is cleaning up the white vote. Obama can't seem to gain any traction there.

    2) Clinton is still in the race.... at least for the time being. Under the current rules, its very possible Obama will get to 2026 delegates and secure the nomination when the primaries are done in roughly two weeks. But next week the rules committee will rule on Michigan and Florida. Its likely not going to be good for Clinton but she can appeal the ruling which would leave this undecided until the convention. Without a ruling, there is no way to know what delegate count is needed to win the nomination.

    If you decide Michigan and Florida will be seated, Obama will need 2209 delegates to win. Given the current makeup of Michigan and Florida, even with a new primary, its unlikely these states will do anything other than make the race closer and make it all but impossible for Obama to reach the 2209 delegate count before the convention. So without a nominee before the convention it will be determined on the convention floor and there is no such thing as a pledged super delegate then.

    3) Looking at the general election, its clear that Clinton has several pluses. First, her support from white blue collar voters gives her a clear edge in the blue states. But it also helps her to a big lead over McCain in Ohio. Also, her appeal among Hispanic voters gives her the edge over McCain in Florida. In the latest national polls, Clinton is starting to outpace McCain in several key states like West Virginia, Missouri and Arkansas. Obama doesn't have these advantages and thus is finding the going tough in key battleground states. If the election were held today, Clinton would win 24 states and 317 electoral votes, easily out-pacing McCain. Obama on the other hand, is down to McCain in Ohio, Florida and Michigan and is down double digits in states like West Virginia and Arkansas, two states Clinton would win easily. Obama currently has 19 states and 242 electoral votes.

    What this does is point to a huge convention battle. Unless Obama can start winning over white voters, he could find winning in November very difficult. If its clear this isn't happening by late August, you can bet Clinton will use this as her rallying cry. Nominate me... I can win... Obama is unelectable. By making sure the delegate issue is unresolved and continuing to hit Obama on race issues, she can make a solid argument that the super delegates should scrap what the primaries have done and nominate her.

    This is so Rovian, I'd swear Karl is somewhere behind the scenes. Make Obama so unpalatable to white voters he can't be elected and then the Democrats would be stupid to nominate him. Its dirty politics at its best but when the fighting begins, you can throw away the rule book.
    • krazikamikaze, on 05/23/2008, -2/+51. You can focus on whatever group you want, but the simple fact is if you look at the national picture Obama is currently leading Clinton 12.2% in national polls according to realclearpolitics.com (which averages many polls--all of which show Obama in the lead).

      2. You can't seriously expect that any ruling by the DNC will give Clinton a significant majority of the delegates. Both primaries were clearly unfair for Obama (Michigan is obvious, and in Florida as the newcomer he needed to campaign to raise awareness). If Clinton ends up winning the nomination as a result of Michigan and Florida, everyone who voted for Obama will be pissed off. Right now only a minority of Clinton voters are pissed off.

      3. November polls this far out are notoriously bad, especially when one party doesn't even have a nominee yet. There are many people out there that are still swearing allegiance to Clinton and won't even vote for Obama in Obama vs. McCain as a result. They're using the threat of staying home or voting republican to force people to choose Clinton, but you can be sure only the die-hard Clinton fans will follow through with their threat. Once shes out and endorses Obama you can be sure Obama will gain voters from this group of people.

      Clinton is certainly doing her best to make people hate Obama, but he's still a more popular choice than Clinton.
    • jontalisman, on 05/23/2008, -4/+4Good analysis, but blaming Rove for Obama's huge mistakes in judgment is a piss poor conclusion.

      Obama made himself unpalatable to white voters when he said his own Grandmother was a typical white person who was afraid of blacks.

      Not to mention his long, close association with an obviously racist windbag named Rev. Wright.

      Also, Obama's remarks about bitter voters in small towns who cling to guns, religion, etc. have only served to make his chances to win the general election even slimmer.

      Any super delegate worth his/her salt, should wait until the convention to decide their choice so they can see if he ***** things up any more for himself with white voters.



      • absurdist, on 05/23/2008, -0/+2OK, Jon, I know you're a Hillary partisan, and you've dodged this question every time I've asked it, but I'll ask again...

        I've said many times that if Hillary is nominated, I'll vote for her, because she's still better than McCain, and because this country can't afford more Republican Supreme Court appointees. CAN YOU SAY THE SAME ABOUT OBAMA?!?!?! Or are you going to continue to dodge the question and demonstrate the bankruptcy of your position?
        • jontalisman, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Absurdist, I've never dodged that question. In fact, I've said a number of times that I will support whoever turns out to be the Democratic nominee for President.

          Furthermore, I've never knowingly voted for a Repugnant in my life and don't plan on starting any time soon either. Can you say the same?
        • absurdist, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1Absolutely. I would write in Zippy the Pinhead or J.R. "Bob" Dobbs before I would ever vote for a Republican. And my voting record goes back to 1976. The Democrats may have been pulled in the wrong direction in a lot of ways for a lot of years, but they're still infinitely superior to the Republicans and their policies.
    • mrraven200, on 05/23/2008, -2/+21. Obama is winning the popular vote period, end of story so I doubt what you say is true.

      2. But even if it was true and If the only way the Dims could win is to appeal to white racism it isn't worth it, the gains we have made since the civil rights movement in evaluating people by "the content of their character and not the color of their skin" (Martin Luther King) are FAR more important than which corporate sock puppet becomes President for maybe 8 years. A scorched earth Clinton campaign that used dark undercurrents of racism to sabotage Obama at the last minute would not only probably disastrously divide the country and put as at the brink of civil war but erase arguably the greatest domestic accomplishment the U.S. has ever birthed the civil rights movement. The fact that "gen y" now doesn't care about the color of the skin of the person they are text messaging is a DIRECT consequence of the civil rights movement, to sacrifice that so the vile power mongering Clintons could crawl back into the White house would be beyond disgusting, I'd vomit in my mouth and not a little I assure you.
    • rawheadrex, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1A lot of Obama supporters are now feeling more generous towards Clinton because in a sane world, for all intents and purposes, this primary race is over, and Obama is the Democratic nominee. That plays a large part in poll number that suggest many more Obama supporters are willing to vote for Clinton in the GE than Clinton supporters are willing to vote for Obama.

      However, IF Clinton and the DNC go so far as to overturn the will of the voters (yes, that includes voters in Caucus states) and give Clinton the nomination based on her electability argument that is tenuous at best, the wrath of Obama supporters will come thundering down, and if Hillary's filth hasn't split the DNC yet, you can be sure that such a wrath will.

      This isn't a threat; I will find myself morally incapable of voting for Clinton if she robs Obama (and the voters) his nomination. I'm not threatening to vote for McCain, like some idiot Hillary supporters are; I won't stay home and act like an irresponsible rebel. I will go to the voting booth, write in Barack Obama, and that will be my vote.
      • sanosuke001, on 05/23/2008, -0/+0I wouldn't vote for any of the three candidates as it stands but your statement that you would vote for Obama regardless of the outcome is exactly what this country needs. Vote for who you feel is the best candidate, not who one party chooses because you don't like the other party.

        People blindly voting for, or voting based on racists or ignorant beliefs, is the reason these elections are stuck with two major parties and that we usually have a poor turnout.

        Vote for who you feel is the best candidate overall and stop /baa'ing with the rest of the sheep.
  • BlueJay33, on 05/23/2008, -5/+4I agree, what are they waiting for, these fence sitters are spineless cowards, pick a freakin side already, and end this thing!

    Carter, Gore, Biden, Webb even Dean after June 3 you all know by waiting any longer you are hurting your party, when the primary ends and the DNC has decided about Florida and Michigan, there is no point in prolonging this. I am so sick of this, it is time for the general election somebody anybody vs that loser McCain.
  • elislider, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2will the real superdelegates please stand up? *does crappy white rap*
  • krazikamikaze, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5I would love nothing more than if the superdelegates would step up and end this thing, but I think some of them may be afraid that if the superdelegates push Clinton out before all the primaries are over that insane yet vocal minority of sore losers over on the Clinton side will claim that the superdelegates betrayed the will of the people. That will just make them piss and moan even more and make them more likely to not vote for Obama out of spite. Of course it's absurd (Obama is clearly the winner by any rational measure), but I've spent enough time at blogs like hillaryis44.com to know that the facts mean nothing to these people.
  • superkendall, on 05/23/2008, -2/+6Leadership would be selecting Clinton. At this point, choosing Obama is submitting to the rule of the mob, even if it's the right thing to do or what they will do anyway.
    • mrraven200, on 05/23/2008, -2/+1"Rule of the mob" you mean democracy the idea that the person gets the most votes wins? Queen Hillary didn't get corinated despite the best efforts of the establishment/media, cry me a river why dont'cha?
  • Spoomeister, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2The whole point of the superdelegates is to take a deliberate, careful read of what's best for the party, not simply to follow the herd. They already have the vote of the herd; it's called pledged delegates.

    And even if there was a huge spike of 100 superdelegates announcing support for Obama, Clinton would just trot out the line that she's already tested, that being "superdelegates can change their mind at any time, right up to the convention".

    So, let the supers take all the way up to the convention to decide. It's how it would be anyway. And Obama is going to have to deal with a lot worse that this if he becomes president, so it's much better to see how he can be diplomatic, positive and effective (y'know, all the things he campaigns on?) right now.
  • jontalisman, on 05/23/2008, -6/+9What's the matter, Obama nuts? Why hasn't the Messiah sealed the deal yet?
  • brownrecluse888, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2Why should they decide now? They should wait until it is 100 percent one candidate or the other. The whole point of the supers is to do what is best for the party. If Obama is a tiny bit ahead in delegates, but for some reason(very doubtful) clinton is polling way higher than obama against mccain then they should go for clinton, that is why they exist. We may not like it any more than gore winning the popular vote but not winning the election.
  • yellowsnowcone, on 05/23/2008, -4/+2How come Obama hasn't won by now? Why doesn't he have enough votes to win the nomination?

    He should have had this thing locked up ages ago.
  • life38, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1It would be best to have the superdelegates provide the the final tally of votes to clinch the nomination before the committee meets the end of the month. Thereby giving the committee to decide how to represent Michigan and Florida.
  • Sheavenger, on 05/23/2008, -3/+1I find it very disturbing that We the People don't demand that the Supers make their decisions now and before the last remaining states because then, We the People will have decided and all voted. This way the Supers take no control of this Historic election between a Woman and African American candidates. They have no right to play these parlor tricks because they don't like who We the People have selected as OUR POTUS.
    I for one am gonna blister some fax machines, telephone lines and e-mails to end this "Pit Bull blungeoning of our prize candidates that are needed in the Senate regardless of outcome. This is ridiculous and and childish to have a detour in the election of our candidates. It should all be run by the popular votes. Most of the voters that have voted for Hillary know it's time to unify, but is it just stubborness or also misinformation about Obama to her own supporters to keep them lulled into the "let's do it for Woman vote. If this were Barbara Boxer, or Blanche Lincoln, or Woolsey, or even my girl Elenor Holmes Norton.
  • deadnewton, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1no...not yet...this is the time they make some money...stupid. idiots, worthy people...damn
  • nightchaser, on 05/23/2008, -2/+2They don't have the courage. Hillary Clinton is the antichrist.
  • jglaser, on 05/23/2008, -2/+6I want to exclusively block the Huffington Post from my digg account.
  • Sheavenger, on 05/23/2008, -2/+4As I said If this were Barbara Boxer Blanche Lincoln or Lynn Woolsey or MY girl Elenor Holmes Norton, I'd vote in a heartbeat.
    If it were Chelsea Clinton, maybe even, but another four or eight years of She nanigans and Bill running around selling US anything to make money, NO THANKS. They may have helped to balance our budget in the nineties, but the selling our of our livelihood, namely manufacturing, and outsourcing our our jobs, have damaged this country almost beyond repair. If somebody doesn't get it right this time, there are gonna be some pretty pissed off We the People!

    Believe it.
  • ralph12c41, on 05/23/2008, -1/+3What a screwed up political party...no wonder they can't govern. It's not over because Obama can't win and the party elders know it... take it to the bank!!
  • drgooch, on 05/23/2008, -1/+5I think you guys would like to see a gang bang between Obama and Huffington.
  • AtlanticVortex, on 05/23/2008, -0/+6Wow, another Huffington Post article... I swear we must have at least two a day to meet the extreme leftist quota on digg.
  • Slackdragon, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2Call me when each citizen, legally registered, gets a vote that means something. And that vote can't be trumped by a super delegate, mega-delegate, electoral collage, rigged ballot box machine, blue pixies or Illuminati.

    That means if 303,824,646 Americans vote and 51% vote for Candidate A, then He or She is the winner. Simple, pure, and down to the individual. THAT would be awesome. Majority rule.
  • mrraven200, on 05/23/2008, -1/+2Time for the Dims to cut Hillary's mic and tell her to STF IF they want to win in 08, and if not, not. Really they should have stage hooked her months ago, sometimes you can be too "nice" and end up taking actions that screw the downtrodden which is not nice at all.

    It should be like the end of those bugs bunny cartoons thaaaaaaaat's all folks cue orchestra.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.