Super Delegates?

[lithera]

As far as I can tell, that whole concept is pretty retarded. What the hell.

Anyway, not a bad night for either Democrat.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Sucks to be Mitt Rommney, though.

Comments

[thezzyzx.livejournal.com]

I could see Obama sweeping both Saturday and Tuesday at which point, he'd suddenly be the front runner!

[lithera.livejournal.com]

I hope so!

[thezzyzx.livejournal.com]

Not only that, but he has enough mainstream support that the super delegates shouldn't be THAT big of a deal. Fingers crossed.

[jeditigger.livejournal.com]

He's currently the front runner in regular delegates, from what I've heard, but it's pretty darned close.

And it sucks to be Rommney anytime, I'd think. What a yahoo.

[lithera.livejournal.com]

They're really close in regular delegates. Add in the super delegates and he's almost 100 behind.

[jeditigger.livejournal.com]

From what I read the first time I heard about Super Delegates, they're very rarely used to override the popular votes' delegates.

But blarg.

[moesmith88.livejournal.com]

Someone explained the "Super delegate" thing to me, as it was a means to prevent another "Jimmy Carter" incident in 1976 - i.e., someone arrives on the scene who doesn't fall in line with what the Democratic party elite want as a candidate, but who still manages to capture the popular vote.

The "Super-delegates" are supposed to help maintain the status quo, or something along those lines...still says "crazy" to me. But, then again, I don't like the "Electoral College" thing, either.

Ah well, what do I know? I grew up with a parlimentary system, and that seems to make sense to me ;-)

[lithera.livejournal.com]

That's the thing - I don't like the status quo. I think it currently sucks. Stupid super delegate.

[moesmith88.livejournal.com]

According to wikipedia (because we know everything they say is gospel...heh), one super-delagate is worth over 150,000 votes...one person, one vote? Not even close.

We're thinking of doing the caucus thing this Saturday; neither of us have ever 'caucused' before, so it could be interesting...

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Please do! In this state, for whatever stupid reason, the caucus is what really counts.

[moesmith88.livejournal.com]

We'll see what happens; L considers herself an Independant, and to participate in the caucus, you have to say whether you are a Democrat or Republician before they'll let you take part - the oath you have to swear is just like the oath on the back on the envelopes of the mail-in ballots.

Granted, the language for the Democratic side is a lot softer then the Republician, (The Democrats says that you consider yourself a democrat, whereas the Republican side requires you to swear that you are an actual party member) but it still requires you "pick a side" and she is very uncomfortable with that - and, I'm not going to push her, one way or the other.

And, the fact that the primary doesn't count bugs me - if it wont be counted, why are we having it? Why not save the time and money for something else? grrrrrrrr...

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Agreed, agreed, agreed.

[moesmith88.livejournal.com]

I get the sense we'll end up going house hunting Saturday afternoon, and save our democratic participation for November...

I hope you don't mind me extending this thread far beyond what it would normally be; it's slow this morning and my boss isn't coming in until after lunch - if it weren't for the windows to my office and my high visibility, i'd probably just crash out til lunchtime ;-)

[thezzyzx.livejournal.com]

Oh and if it makes you feel better, according to CNN's counts, there are under 300 remaining super delegates and over 2000 remaining regular delegates.

Clinton received SD support at a 2-1 ratio. I think that'll even out, but assume that continues to happen. That'll give Clinton a lead of about 180 delegates with 2000 in play. Even in that bad scenario, Obama would only have to win 55% of the delegates to take the lead. I think that's quite possible with most of the Clinton strongholds gone and her low on money.

[seanb.livejournal.com]

Look at the current article on http://www.electoral-vote.com/

His basic claim is that Caucuses are very good for Obama, who "has a smaller, but extremely active and loyal following, especially among younger voters."

"Now it becomes clear why Obama won North Dakota but Clinton won Oklahoma, a demographically similar state in the same part of the country: North Dakota had a caucus and Oklahoma had a primary."

[lithera.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I was noticing that, too.

[fireballof3.livejournal.com]

Well the other thing I heard about the Super-delegates (dunno if it's true) is that they are more prone to switching sides. If one person shows good momentum, they'll all flop in behind them and push the race one way or another.