Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So, we found out that elected delegates don't matter weeks ago,

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 09:57 PM
Original message
So, we found out that elected delegates don't matter weeks ago,
once it became evident Hillary wasn't going to win them. "Oh, no," they said, "the superdelegates can vote however they want to, and they'll ignore the undemocratic caucuses, open primaries, red-state primaries, small-state primaries, liberal-state primaries, interior-west primaries, southern primaries, primaries with black voters, and primaries with white liberal voters. No, the superdelegates will vote however they please, and whoever gets 2025 first wins it all."

Now that Obama's closing on an absolute mathematical delegate majority, we find out superdelegates don't matter either, because, as our buddy Terry McAwful (and, following that, the entire Hilly Fan Squad here) told us today, "superdelegates don't vote until the convention." Now, this statement is completely meaningless, since technically no delegates have ever voted "until the convention" and we've managed to have nominees before, so I'm not quite sure where he's going with that, but hey, I'll just take him at his word.

So, er...I really want to be a good Democrat here. Could someone please tell me what matters for declaring a nominee? That is to say, if it wasn't superdelegates, and it wasn't pledged delegates, and it wasn't the complete delegate numbers...what criteria was Hillary Clinton thinking of when she said we'd have a nominee by Super Tuesday?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. Her criteria:
Edited on Wed May-21-08 10:09 PM by BattyDem
The nominee's name must be Hillary Clinton. If it's not, we don't have a nominee. :eyes:


On edit: Just realized my subject line was grammatically incorrect. :blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. bingo. It's a little girl yelling for her crown essentially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. If you take the cosine of the popular vote, and then
Edited on Wed May-21-08 10:02 PM by truedelphi
square it, and perform a couple of quadratic equations on the length of the rivers that run through the states that are not fly overs, you would have more of a clue.

It was all spelled out in her handbook, "Democratic Nominations for People who Don't Care What Rules A Candidate Originally Agreed Upon!" or some such volume
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's all lies by the Clinton campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Once Obama started to campaign - and succeed - in getting pledge to Hillary delegates switching they
no longer "mattered"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Of the two candidates, only one has defended the notion of switching delegates.
That ain't Obama. Seriously, are Clinton apologists actually, literally addicted to accusing Obama of their candidate's malfeasance?

The one and only pledged delegate to switch was a former Obama supporter that Clinton stupidly failed to vet, and who later decided of his own accord to support his original choice for President. He's an idiot, a moron--and only one person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC