Hillary Supporters unite....no bashing please! only smiles

[punkin]

As far as actual pledged delegates, the difference is only 37. Everything else looks like it is up in the air until the convention. Correct me someone if I am way off base here.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23611186]Why are they showing on CNN on the ticker....1520 and 1424 [/QUOTE]That's a 96 total difference right now, but HC has a 39 advantage in supers. This thing is pretty fluid and people are changing/adding/dropping out all the time. The pledged number is what CNN is giving to HC and Obama right now from the primaries. That number shouldn't change. That's at 1321-1186.

 

["Got Disney"]

we are all having different counts.....I am not counting the SD only because they can change at anytime. But it is 96 for sure that I get that cant be changed....right

 

[DISUNC]

I am gonna post this article from geraline ferraro, in regards to SD's again.
It is noteworthy!

Class, I will Highlight some of the BIG POINTS!


" But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this years primaries  clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the partys membership  but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. Thats hardly a grassroots mandate.

More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.

In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.

He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the partys nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time  not nonmembers or day-of registrants  to vote for the partys nominee."

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/conniefloyd/Cpx5

All this means that the SD should vote FOR the DEMOCRAT party, and since Hillary has won the TRUE DEMOCRAT vote (this has been proved in all the closed elections) Then the SD SHOULD vote for Hillary!

I do beieve, when all is said & done, This is what will happen.

 

[DISUNC]

That's a 96 total difference right now, but HC has a 39 advantage in supers. This thing is pretty fluid and people are changing/adding/dropping out all the time. The pledged number is what CNN is giving to HC and Obama right now from the primaries. That number shouldn't change. That's at 1321-1186.

Wait a few days....there is still no definative Delagate vote. that takes some time!

 

[punkin]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23611466] we are all having different counts.....I am not counting the SD only because they can change at anytime. But it is 96 for sure that I get that cant be changed....right [/QUOTE]

I am still counting 86.

 

[Tanuki]

One really good thing that should come from this race being so close is that more people could tune in to watch the Convention on TV this summer. It looks like it could come down to the wire.

 

["Got Disney"]

I am still counting 86.

I have not looked online just going by CNN...turn on CNN and we will be the same

I am gonna post this article from geraline ferraro, in regards to SD's again.
It is noteworthy!

Class, I will Highlight some of the BIG POINTS!


http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/conniefloyd/Cpx5

All this means that the SD should vote FOR the DEMOCRAT party, and since Hillary has won the TRUE DEMOCRAT vote (this has been proved in all the closed elections) Then the SD SHOULD vote for Hillary!

I do beieve, when all is said & done, This is what will happen.

But the Obama camp goes back and forth...they say vote the people...so they feel that the popular vote (not the Democratic vote) is what should count...the will of the people. But they are now stating that they should go with what the delegate count turns out to be

The delegates have also stated that they will vote the will of the people....at least the ones that have went from Hillary to Obama....seems like they (SD) are not following there rules in that case.

If Hillary wins would be great if she took VP for Obama and than Edwards for Attorney General.

 

[DISUNC]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23611835]
But the Obama camp goes back and forth...they say vote the people...so they feel that the popular vote (not the Democratic vote) is what should count...the will of the people. But they are now stating that they should go with what the delegate count turns out to be .[/QUOTE] I dunno anything about that, or the reasoning.

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23611835] The delegates have also stated that they will vote the will of the people....at least the ones that have went from Hillary to Obama....seems like they (SD) are not following there rules in that case..[/QUOTE]
But THAT is NOT what a SD should do! SD are 'leaders not followers". The 'will of the people" should NOT be Rebuplicans voting in Democrat primaries.
If SD vote 'the will of the people" THAT is when there will be a HUGE bruhaha at the convention.

 

["Got Disney"]

I dunno anything about that, or the reasoning.


But THAT is NOT what a SD should do! SD are 'leaders not followers". The 'will of the people" should NOT be Rebuplicans voting in Democrat primaries.
If SD vote 'the will of the people" THAT is when there will be a HUGE bruhaha at the convention.

I agree.....but they have been and I have had a big question mark over my head about that. It was all coming down to them feeling if they did not vote that way than it would split the party.....

No matter what they decide there will be voters that are shouting "NOT FAIR"....some will get over it and move on and back there party and some wont. I don't think the party will split to a point of no return.

also hope that Hillary keeps up with what she is doing. By hitting Obama with tactics it is making him stumble over his words. If he cant handle them from Hillary as mild as they have been than he wont be able to do it against McCain.

In addition.....Sometimes I wonder if he came into this with the premise of a clean campaign to keep anything he has hidden from being used against him. Or being made to look like anyone that does use it against him will be running a dirty campaign... just a thought.

they keep stating that Hillary is looking at a ticket with her as a POTUS and Obama VP so wonder if Obama and Hillary worked this out a long time ago!

 

[Hound 109]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23610851]They said on CNN last night that the Black communities have more delegates attached to them due to the last voting counts from last election. They said something about it being like that due to not many votes being cast there in the past.

I was like... that makes no sense. Nothing against Obama. It seems so strange how they are distributed. Why cant they just make each area the same and who gets those areas gets those delegates....but guess that would be toooooo easy for them to figure that out

Maybe we should all go in and show them how it's done [/QUOTE]

In Texas, this isn't the case. Precincts (actually state senator geographic seats) that have a higher proportionate Democratic turnout in a previous election receive a proportionately higher number of "local" delegates (which affect the number of total state delegates).

Note i didn't say "black" or "white". But people:

- The state senate (& US congressional) districts were drawn up (gerrymandered) along ethnic (racial) lines. (by Democrats & Republicans)

To state "why can't we all be colorblind when discussing turnout & delegates"... conflicts with reality & common sense. The "media" & the candidates realize this, which is why they follow focus groups & "exit polls".

If I (or i suspect anyone else here) discuss that "higher income, college educated" aka technologically savvy, starbucks sippin folks in their 20s & 30s are supporting BO by a wide margin, it's because we 1) observe it in our daily life & 2) saw the media report the same thing.

If I (or anyone else) state that predominantly black neighborhoods support BO & turn out the vote, it's not a racial comment. It's an observation based on what we see on exit polls & elsewhere.

If i (or anyone else) states that working class whites & hispanics were not as important in DC & Wisconsin.....but would come out in bulk for HC in Texas & Ohio.....it's not because there aren't whites who support BO (there are) or that all Latinos vote alike (they don't).....it's because we read the polls, we watch what happened in Cal, AZ & FL.....we talk to our many Latino friends & scope out the demographics of our respective states & then we come to the conclusion that HC would "spank" BO in Ohio & Texas. (which she did)

FWIW, my cue (two days ago) was the huge "Early Voting" turnout in Bexar & Hidalgo counties, which typically have low voter turnouts.

Guys.....it isn't a racial thing. My kids is Korean & I'm colorblind....blah blah blah.....

I and many folks here on the dis (but especially in this thread) are political geeks. We lean democratic because we LIKE diversity. I personally love Bulgogi.....& Carnitas & Tres Leches cake...... & Pork w/ Collard Greens & spicy vinegar..... & I love the fact that I saw Indians, Algerians, Chinese, Blacks, Hispanics & Caucasians in my multicultural upper middle class caucus in my neighborhood. Heck, I moved to west Austin for the amazing schools & the diversity.

I & most HC supporters look at BO as incredibly gifted, smart, a fabulous public speaker, attractive, & inclusive. & he's multi-racial which probably is a net benefit in the eyes of the world (& possibly at home).

But....I look at HC as being tough as nails & more seasoned. She's been "beat up" (like me) & i think that's important & is why i support her.

I support BO for VP (now) & for President in 2016. But I like my "tough chick" & i don't give a rat about the ethinicity or gender of either one. Don't worry that this will go to the convention. The Dems will have headlines for weeks & we will join hands no matter who is nominated.

 

[lilyv]

/

But THAT is NOT what a SD should do! SD are 'leaders not followers". The 'will of the people" should NOT be Rebuplicans voting in Democrat primaries.
If SD vote 'the will of the people" THAT is when there will be a HUGE bruhaha at the convention.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/pelosi-voters-will-determine-dem-not-party-leaders-2008-03-05.html

So is Pelosi's voice relevant?

"Superdelegates, she said, should weigh a number of factors, including whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) won whatever district the delegates represent, as well as “their own belief.”

What do you think about this, Disunc?

 

["Got Disney"]

posted 4 hrs ago......http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll


Wednesday, March 05, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama nationally by five percentage points in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton now attracts 48% support while Obama earns 43%. Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Virtually all of the interviews for today’s update were completed prior to the announcement of Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas last night.

Prior to the past three days, Clinton had trailed Obama every single day for three weeks (see recent daily results). Clinton has regained a solid lead (twelve percentage points) among women nationwide. That margin that expands to twenty points among white women. Yesterday’s victories for Clinton mean there is a growing likelihood that the campaign could stretch on in to the summer without a winner. Rasmussen Reports will be polling the Democratic Primary Race in Mississippi, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and other states this week.
It is important to note that while Clinton had a very good day on Tuesday, Rasmussen Markets data still shows Obama with a 71.4[/COLOR][/URL] chance of winning the Democratic nomination. That’s down from a recent high of 87%.

 

[punkin]

The NY Times numbers now are at 101 delegate difference. I give up. This is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

But THAT is NOT what a SD should do! SD are 'leaders not followers". The 'will of the people" should NOT be Rebuplicans voting in Democrat primaries.
If SD vote 'the will of the people" THAT is when there will be a HUGE bruhaha at the convention.

I think you're going to find a lot of trouble getting that line of thought past the majority of the Democratic voting public. There was some talk just a week or two ago where many Clinton supporters felt that Obama supporters were full of themselves and that their opinion mattered over all others. Some Dems even thought that Obama's attitude lost him some support. We have also discussed the fact that the pledged delegates, not the super delegates should decide who wins the nomination. I believe the large majority here and over on the Obama thread agreed that the superdelegate system sucks.

However now that it's virtually impossible for the Clinton campaign to catch Obama in pledged delegates, it appears as if the Clinton campaign is saying that even if by sheer numbers, the pledged delegates decide that Obama should be the nominee, the superdelegates are the true party leaders and that they should decide for poor little us, the voting public. All I'm saying is don't be surprised if you start seeing the Clinton campaign being charged with the same cavalier, holier than thou attitude that Obama was accused of having just a few short days ago.

 

[DISUNC]

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/pelosi-voters-will-determine-dem-not-party-leaders-2008-03-05.html

So is Pelosi's voice relevant?

"Superdelegates, she said, should weigh a number of factors, including whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) won whatever district the delegates represent, as well as “their own belief.”

What do you think about this, Disunc?

#1 I am NO Pelosi fan AT ALL!

#2 What is she really saying in that quote..she is NOT making a definative stand. She is also up for reelection in a district that went Obama. So she bascically covering her own butt on this one.

Some of the SD have a dilemma. If they are SD's who hold a office now, someday they will be up for election....should they go with their constituients (even though some of them are republicans who voted for obama) or should they do whats best for their party?

But remember there are Many (if not most) SD who do not hold any elected office at this time. So they dont have the pressure, and they will most likely vote for Clinton, cause she has proved to be the Real Democrat choice.

 

[Hound 109]

If the "pledged delegates" don't exceed the minimum amount for nomination, all bets are off. (since neither candidate was able to seal the deal).

Then the Supers (unfortunately for them) must determine who to go with. It's a dumb process, but the one the Dems came up with.

"Pledged" delegates would be a factor. But also 10 other factors would likely be considered.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

If the "pledged delegates" don't exceed the minimum amount for nomination, all bets are off. (since neither candidate was able to seal the deal).

Then the Supers (unfortunately for them) must determine who to go with. It's a dumb process, but the one the Dems came up with.

"Pledged" delegates would be a factor. But also 10 other factors would likely be considered.

So then you guys feel that the supers should break with the pledged delegates and vote as they see fit? I thought that we all felt that the supers should follow the pledged...

You know, regardless of how we all feel personally, you are correct, and the rules are the rules. The supers can do what they want, as is their right and I have no problem playing by them, provided that if the supers go for Obama that there isn't charges of "unfairness" or "stealing" from team Hillary, just as you all would hope that we Obama supporters would feel the same way if Sen. Clinton gets the nod.

 

[DISUNC]

I think you're going to find a lot of trouble getting that line of thought past the majority of the Democratic voting public.
.

NOT AT ALL! How many times do I have to write that when ONLY DEMOCRATS voted in Democrat primaries...Hillary won.

The SD were designed to answer the problem. THEY ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.

There was some talk just a week or two ago where many Clinton supporters felt that Obama supporters were full of themselves and that their opinion mattered over all others. Some Dems even thought that Obama's attitude lost him some support. We have also discussed the fact that the pledged delegates, not the super delegates should decide who wins the nomination. I believe the large majority here and over on the Obama thread agreed that the superdelegate system sucks. .

Yup the SD does suck, I agree. BUT as long as the states committes allow Republicans & Indepents to vote in Democrat Primaries, the SD system is here too stay. Notice how the GOP dont have this problem? The SD is not the problem, its the States allowing Anyone to vote in Democrat elections is the REAL problem.

However now that it's virtually impossible for the Clinton campaign to catch Obama in pledged delegates.

Again that is not true, reread that article ( I have), The Title can very well be "Why the Math dont work for Obama"

The SD's will decide this election.
As will FL & MI
There is no way around this.

[ it appears as if the Clinton campaign is saying that even if by sheer numbers, the pledged delegates decide that Obama should be the nominee, the superdelegates are the true party leaders and that they should decide for poor little us, the voting public..

Yup when the 'voting public' is republicans &independants voting in Democrat primaries...I absolutely agree !

All I'm saying is don't be surprised if you start seeing the Clinton campaign being charged with the same cavalier, holier than thou attitude that Obama was accused of having just a few short days ago.

As far as which camp is more cavilier, honsestly I dont care. That is all subjective.

But this race is gonna get downright FILTHY/DIRTY! No if ands or buts about it! But it will recover...in time. But they are gonna have to close the primary elections for Democrats only!
WE DEMS have nobody to blame but oursleves for this.

 

["Got Disney"]

The NY Times numbers now are at 101 delegate difference. I give up. This is beyond my comprehension.

I think you're going to find a lot of trouble getting that line of thought past the majority of the Democratic voting public. There was some talk just a week or two ago where many Clinton supporters felt that Obama supporters were full of themselves and that their opinion mattered over all others. Some Dems even thought that Obama's attitude lost him some support. We have also discussed the fact that the pledged delegates, not the super delegates should decide who wins the nomination. I believe the large majority here and over on the Obama thread agreed that the super delegate system sucks.

However now that it's virtually impossible for the Clinton campaign to catch Obama in pledged delegates, it appears as if the Clinton campaign is saying that even if by sheer numbers, the pledged delegates decide that Obama should be the nominee, the super delegates are the true party leaders and that they should decide for poor little us, the voting public. All I'm saying is don't be surprised if you start seeing the Clinton campaign being charged with the same cavalier, holier than thou attitude that Obama was accused of having just a few short days ago.

The super delegates do matter and they matter also to Obama campaign and that is why they have paid out so much money to them...even more than Hillary's campaign. He has even said that it will come down to the SD because neither Him or Hillary will get the amount needed. If Obama or Hillary got the 2,025 than it would be a no brainer.But they have not and will not.

Only 96 delegates at this point ahead means nothing...look at the REP one with 1,289 and the other at 267... that is a no brainier. Why is it that the Obama supporters keep saying she should drop out ...still even thought she is lass than 100 behind and he has not made it to the full amount...He still needs 505 more delegates and she needs 601.....

The Obama supporters just want her gone...no matter what.

If the "pledged delegates" don't exceed the minimum amount for nomination, all bets are off. (since neither candidate was able to seal the deal).



Then the Supers (unfortunately for them) must determine who to go with. It's a dumb process, but the one the Dems came up with.

"Pledged" delegates would be a factor. But also 10 other factors would likely be considered.

Correct ...why do we seem to get that but so many Obama supporters don't??????