Hillary far behind in the only measure that matters - delegates; also far behind in popular vote

[Luke29]

Originally Posted by teatime

So you're denying the fact that there are still more than 300 uncommitted superdelegates?

Certainly not but i just don't see them transparently going against the final results of the primaries and caucases. The real question to you is - what is it gonna take for them to do that???

[Vanslyke]

Originally Posted by jnestorr

Certainly not but i just don't see them transparently going against the final results of the primaries and caucases. The real question to you is - what is it gonna take for them to do that???

Agreed, going against the popular vote would certainly be dangerous :/

[Luke29]

Originally Posted by Vanslyke

Agreed, going against the popular vote would certainly be dangerous :/

This is a delegate race - you can drink that coo-aid-spin but either way Hillary will finish trailing in both pop. vote and delegate count.

[teatime]

Please. So, when exactly are Casey, Kerry, Kennedy and the gang going to change their votes to reflect the popular vote in their states? Unless and until they do, only a bunch of hypocrites would insist that the superdelegates are all going to abide by the vote. And, unless they do, the superdelegates can do what they want.

[JoeP]

So you're denying the fact that there are still more than 300 uncommitted superdelegates?

She hasn't earned them thus far. She had a HUGE institutional advantage before she campaigned. Since then, not so much.

Again, not getting significant wins in TX, OH, and PA = Hillary loss.

She can't catch up and Obama continues to roll on.

There is no legitimate reason for a super to go her way.

[Outsiderlookingin]

Originally Posted by teatime

Please. So, when exactly are Casey, Kerry, Kennedy and the gang going to change their votes to reflect the popular vote in their states? Unless and until they do, only a bunch of hypocrites would insist that the superdelegates are all going to abide by the vote. And, unless they do, the superdelegates can do what they want.

Exactly because if the ones you mentioned had to do that then all the ones Clinton had at the start would also have to do that wouldn't they? I believe she has quite a few that went against their States.

[JimMe]

Originally Posted by JoeP

She hasn't earned them thus far. She had a HUGE institutional advantage before she campaigned. Since then, not so much.

Again, not getting significant wins in TX, OH, and PA = Hillary loss.

She can't catch up and Obama continues to roll on.

There is no legitimate reason for a super to go her way.

What, in your estimation, would be a legitimate reason for a super delegate to support Hillary? Would her surpassing Obama in the popular vote be sufficient? Right now she is behind Obama in the popular vote by about a quarter million votes. If, between now and June 3, she makes up that deficit (and that is not a mathematical impossibility) she can make the case to the super delegates that the popular vote entitles her to their support. I believe that is her strategy.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I personally don't feel that it would be a slap in the face to include Florida and Michigan in the process of selecting a nominee. The state's party leaders scheduled their primaries early, there were other issues to be decided and the state pays for the primaries, not the party. To discount those voters seems to me to be highly un-Democratic. That said, I do think the party leaders in those states deserve to be penalized in some way for not following rules they had previously agreed to. It's high time that the scheduling of primaries be shaken up. I've liked the idea of regional primaries, and rotating the regions so that no one area or state have undue influence over the nomination process. That would seem more equitable than having Iowa and New Hampshire dominating the beginnings of these races.

It would be very unfair to Obama. He agreed and she agreed to the rules which excluded those states. Let's look at both:

1. Florida. Somewhat fair because both names were on the ballot BUT Hillary Clinton was a much more well known name being the wife of a former President has a big advantage in a state where Obama could not air TV ads or campaign to introduce himself to the voters.

2. Michigan. His name was not even on the ballot. Not even a close call.

[teatime]

Originally Posted by Outsiderlookingin

Exactly because if the ones you mentioned had to do that then all the ones Clinton had at the start would also have to do that wouldn't they? I believe she has quite a few that went against their States.

If the Obamaphiles here are to be believed (which is dubious), some Clinton superdelegates have jumped ship but she still leads in superdelegates. And it's Obama who has been insisting they need to reflect the vote. Or, he was. Who knows what he's saying now.