Democrat Superdelegates: For or Against

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dspguy

Nice "fact" there, but if you dig deep, you'll realize you are incorrect.

1. Obama's vote total in Michigan was zero. Clinton had 328309 votes. Obama withdrew from Michigan because Michigan broke with DNC rules and moved its primary up in the schedule.

2. Florida, similarly to Michigan, also moved up its primary and broke with DNC rules. In support of the DNC, Obama did not campaign in Florida. Clinton did. She picked up approximately 300,000 votes over Obama in Florida. Who is to say how many of those votes she received because she campaigned and Obama didn't. It is definitely greater than 0.

3. The vote totals do not count caucuses: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Texas, and Wyoming. All of which Obama won. Collectively, Obama won 293 delegates to Clinton's 160. That's roughly 66% of the delegates.

So when you claim Clinton won the 2008 nomination popular vote by 300k, you are ignoring the 328k votes from Michigan where Obama withdrew from the ballot and the other 300k votes she gained in Florida in another state where Obama did not campaign since he refused to go against the agreed-upon rules. Oh, and on top of that, you want to ignore the fact that Obama won 66% of the delegates via caucuses which do not report popular vote. Yet, those are indeed votes.

Now that you are educated on the matter, you can stop repeating misleading information.

Clinton did win the popular vote in 2008 as the DNC ultimately decided to count FL and MI in a spirit of reconciliation.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Your unequivocal posts are so easy to rebut that its not funny. Seriously, how in the world is the poster you quoted "wrong" by stating that the super delegates are elites running the show? I'd consider that list to be comprised of party elites who are running the show overwhelmingly. But its about interpretation. Before you went on the attack stating that the poster was "wrong," you could have asked the poster what was meant by "elites running the show." Running the show could very well just refer to influence, official or unofficial.

By your own definition, you didn't rebut what I said. All you did was offer an alternative to what the poster meant by elitist .

Further more, if you define elitist by sinomy being a party elder( as you are doing now), then the word has no real meaning , which is infact part of my point .

Elitist just means you don't like the person, that's it, it's just a slur.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Clinton did win the popular vote in 2008 as the DNC ultimately decided to count FL and MI in a spirit of reconciliation.

Are you pretending not to understand the flawed in the " she won the popular vote " argument

Surely it doesn't hurt your pride to say " I can see Barack Obama didn't complete in 2 of the largest contest "

[dspguy]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Clinton did win the popular vote in 2008 as the DNC ultimately decided to count FL and MI in a spirit of reconciliation.

Ok... I'm going to guess you simply did not read any of my post on the matter. Obama had 0 votes in Michigan since he withdrew. He did not campaign in FL. Vote tallies from caucuses where Obama won delegates at a 2-to-1 clip...

So, yes - technically Clinton did win the popular primary vote by 300k due to her "win" in Michigan by 300k when Obama wasn't on the ballot. And 14 caucuses, all won by Obama, all in which he won 66% of the delegates... where 0 votes were reported.

I think with some common sense, we'd realize that unless Clinton would have won a head-to-head Michigan vote 100% to 0%, Obama had more support.