« Back to story "Who Are The Superdelegates?"

Story Comments

Posted by: ybdogsct 1 year, 7 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

Neutral
ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago

This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

LOCKY:
"Obama could have won every state by a landslide and the "Super delegates" could still decide to give John Kerry another go at it."
Firstly, a Democratic candidate needs 2025 delegate votes to win the Democratic Party nomination. The number of superdelegates in play is FAR short of that mark.
Secondly, while the idea of superdelegates may seem unsavory at first, it does have its usefulness. Superdelegates can ensure that the candidate supported by most registered Democrats gets the nomination, despite the influence of Republicans and Independents in Open Primaries. This blunting sabotaging efforts, like Limbaugh's so-called "Operation Chaos."

(comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
Reply
13 Replies

loading ...
- libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
  - Neutral
    ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    LIBS:
    ""Superdelgates" is a completely stupid idea"
    Tell that to your Republican "Automatic Delegates." While the idea of superdelegates might seem initially unsavory, they do serve a useful purpose.
    Not that your opinion matters. After all, who are you to meddle in intraparty affairs for a party of which you are not even a member? LOL.
    LIBS:
    "you might have read accounts of Democrats nominating Al Gore."
    Not all media rumors are considered "possible." Perhaps you didn't finish reading your own story because EVEN THAT unlikely scenario would require Obama surrending the nearly 1900 delegates he has won.
    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859...
    "Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along."
    There is NO such scenario whereby the Democratic leadership could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from them unwillingly. Clearly reading comprehension is not your forte.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    3 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
      - Neutral
        ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        Truth be told, the committed delegates in BOTH parties are actually free to vote their will. Since they are selected for their strong support of the candidate that won their state, they rarely do other than the voters directed them to do, but they can.
        One scenario where that might happen, and where BTW it ought to happen, is if a horrendous corruption or vote-rigging scam was discovered after the primaries but before the convention. In such a case, the delegates (super or not) would all be crazy to just vote for the soiled candidate anyway. They could reasonably assume that, had the voters known then what is known now, they would have cast their votes differently.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
      - Neutral
        ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        LIBS:
        "I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?"
        Wow. You truly are illiterate. FYI, I did NOT cite this article to demonstrate that I was magically able to locate the exact article on which you are basing your misconceptions--in fact, with your blatant disregard for documentation, I question whether you can read at all. What is at issue are the rules for nomination stated in that article. The article clearly states that there is NO such scenario whereby superdelegates could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from then unwillingly. In order to nominate Gore, Obama would have to willingly surrender the 1900 votes he has already won.
        What are these rules so difficult for you to comprehend?
        LOL.
        I guess I shouldn't expect so much from a Safety School reject with a degree in Paparazzi.
        Pathetic.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
- Neutral
  slate1 year, 7 months ago
  
  This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
  
  despite the influence of Republicans and Independents in Open Primaries.
  Oh but the fun the Dems had in the early open Republican primaries didn't bother the likes of you on the Left.... stop whining,,,,, people can do with their vote as they wish,,, even if that means voting for a Democrat,,,
  
  (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
  Reply
  6 Replies
  
  loading ...
  - Neutral
    tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    Or a Republican, lol. Seriously though, the last time Virginia had a caucus instead of a primary, the Republicans nominated Olie North for Senate! Thank God the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans wouldn't go for that one. We've had primaries for both parties ever since.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    0 Replies
    
    loading ...
  - Neutral
    ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
    
    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
    
    SLATE:
    "Oh but the fun the Dems had in the early open Republican primaries didn't bother the likes of you on the Left."
    Sure it bothers me. Where did I say it didn't? Go ahead and quote my exact words back to me, if you can.
    SLATE:
    "stop whining,,,,, people can do with their vote as they wish,"
    I suggest you take your own advice and stop your whining. The Party primaries are INTRAPARTY AFFAIRS, and since you're NOT a registered Democrat, your opinion is even more inconsequential than usual.
    Your sense of self-righteousness is laughable considering the fact that the Republican Party also has Superdelegates; they just call them "Automatic Delegates."
    LOL. Pathetic.
    
    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply
    4 Replies
    
    loading ...
    - Neutral
      slate1 year, 7 months ago
      
      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
      
      I agree you are quite pathetic indeed with the attitude you have on the subject at hand.
      I am registered with no party, would that mean to you that I can't or don't deserve a vote? Or that I'm not allowed to vote any way I want? On a closed elitist mind would thnk that way.
      If you had one candidate worthy to actually win without going all the way to this late in the game and the supers not have to come to play then you'd not have to have so many sleepless nights pondering the possibility that you may not get what you demand.
      If the primaries in question are OPEN then they are OPEN to all Dems, Repubs and INDs., not just those you feel are worthy to cast a vote,,,,
      You call me Self Righteousness? hehehe then why is it You are the ones upset because your lttle parade isn't going well. Heck I think it's fun to watch you guys freak out about it.
      
      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply
      3 Replies
      
      loading ...
      - Neutral
        ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        SLATE:
        "I am registered with no party, would that mean to you that I can't or don't deserve a vote? Or that I'm not allowed to vote any way I want?"
        Actually, that would mean to me that you are clearly illiterate, as I ALREADY stated below: "Of course, it would also be possible to close all primary elections, but I think disenfranchising Independents would be a graver injustice."
        You can vote in any open primary you wish, but that should not override the Democrats' ability to choose their own candidate. This is NOT a general election; it is a PARTY PRIMARY and the PARTY chooses its nominee.
        The fact that you continue to confuse the goals of the general election with the goals of a party primary comes as no surprise.
        LOL.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 8) (recursion depth : 5) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...
      - libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
        
        Neutral
        ybdogsct1 year, 7 months ago
        
        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
        
        What's the matter? Can't find a substantive argument to counter my own document-supported logic?
        Why don't you cry about it?
        I guess they didn't teach you that in Paparazzi school.
        LOL.
        
        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 9) (recursion depth : 6) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        0 Replies
        
        loading ...