|
Post by Hex on Mar 10, 2008 12:30:53 GMT -4
Thread is not intended to start trouble. I just had some questions, maybe some of you did as well. Here's a place to ask or investigate.
POSTED FROM A PRIOR THREAD
Someone with more politcal than I could answer this question for me. To get the Democratic nomination, the leader needs to obtain I think like 2025 delagate votes. Obama has i think like 1345, while Clinton has 1200 or something. 8 states are left. Does this mean this is basically going to go down to the wire? What happens if neither of them make the 2025 number? DOes the nomination just go to the candidate on top? and what are superdelagates? dot hey have more of an effect that regaulr ones?
Side note: We should take a pool on who the VP chosen candidates would be. I think if Obama wins, he'll take Edwards.
See, you can discuss politics nicely without anger
|
|
|
Post by Hex on Mar 10, 2008 12:39:39 GMT -4
NEW POST
So I did a little information hunting and this was the best I could determine.
Between the states of OR, MT, SD, IN, KY, PA, NC, and MS (and Guam and Puerto Rico...why do they get a say?) there are still like 700 delagates left. Obama needs 680, and Clinton needs 821. I still do not know how either will win the nomination because according to Yahoo! Political Dashboard, one needs 2025 delagates to collect the nomination.
What I think is awkward is that since the Repubs know who their candidiate is, they get a longer prep time, while the Dems still think about who they are sending. And if only 700 remain, how can Clinton get the nomination? Is this where superdelagates come in? I have no clue.
The state of Mississippi only has 40 delegates, and the next votings aside from that are in April. All states finish their reporting by June 3rd. So do will we not know who the Dems are sending to November until then?
Politics confuses me.
Then I see that the Dem. Natl Party took Florida and Michigan and stripped them of their delagate because they did their Super Tuesday stuff before they were supposed to. Doesn't that hurt their party?
|
|
|
Post by funkpuppy on Mar 10, 2008 13:08:39 GMT -4
I invite everyone to smite HEX each time he brings up a political topic or post... Just go back to Rock Ridge where politics are easier to understand or turn on your TV Santana is pitching
|
|
|
Post by Paco_Guerrera on Mar 10, 2008 13:47:36 GMT -4
At this point there is no way either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can win the nomination using pledged delegates alone. To clarify, pledged delegates are the delegates won in state primaries and caucuses. Because Democrats like to make things difficult, each state splits their total number of pledged delegates between the candidates based on who wins in each voting area of each state (at least I think thats how its done). For example, we just had the Wyoming caucus. Wyoming has 12 pledged delegates. Obama won the state with 61% to Hillarys 38%. In the end Obama got 7 delegates and Hillary got 5. The way this is going to be chosen is through Superdelegates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperdelegateBasically Superdelegates are not won through voting by the people. They are automatically seated based on their position within the democratic party. The main difference between them and pledged delegates though are that they are free to vote for any nominee they want and are not bound by the popular vote in their state. Using Wyoming again, this state has 6 superdelegates. These guys can vote for Obama, or Hillary, or any other democratic candidate that they choose. The superdelegate vote is what will choose who the next democratic presidential nominee will be. Theres currently a big hullaballoo going on since people dont necessarily want a group of about 790 total individuals being the deciding factor in the democratic nominee. So far Obama has around 199 superdelegates pledged to him and Hillary has around 238 with the rest as currently undecided (though these numbers could change in a heartbeat since Hillarys superdelegates can change their mind and decide to support Obama instead, or vice versa). There is pressure on the superdelegates to vote based on whichever candidate does better in the primaries and caucuses, which would give the edge to Obama as he has won far more states then Hillary. Other people think they should just use their own independant judgement regardless of how the popular vote went. In the end though, it will come down to whoever these people think has the best chance of winning in November.
|
|
|
Post by Hex on Mar 10, 2008 13:50:20 GMT -4
So technically Clinton has more super delagate votes, while Obama has more "popular" delagate votes, based on voting? That causes a tough juxtaposition. Thanks for the answer help.
|
|
|
Post by Paco_Guerrera on Mar 10, 2008 13:55:10 GMT -4
Superdelegates can change at a moments notice. They are not bound in any way to any one candidate. Hillarys superdelegates can switch over to Obama and vice versa. It all comes down to pressure by each canidate and the Democratic party. Nobody wants a long drawn out process. the more the democratic nominees fight amongst themselves is less time for a potential presidential nominee to deal with John McCain. At some point I expect the Democratic party to step in and be like hey, time for you guys to make a choice and stfu. Obama is the lead nominee right now. Even if Hillary wins every remaining state, it is highly unlikely due to the way works that she will be able to surp Obamas pledged delegate count. Even in her recent victories in Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas, she only managed to gain like 9 overall deleagates and is still trailing Obama by over 100. The only chance Hillary has at this point is to either give up and hope for a VP nomination, try to make Obama unelectable somhow by trashing him and playing on the fears of the american people that omg obama is a muslim terrorits at 3 am in the whitehouse!11!, or sit around and hope Obama pulls a Howard Dean and shoots himself in the face.
|
|
|
Post by saint on Mar 10, 2008 15:14:33 GMT -4
This thread should be locked, and everybody involved should be given horses and beer.
|
|
|
Post by Nethyr on Mar 10, 2008 16:45:10 GMT -4
I don't know about the thread locking but...
|
|
|
Post by saint on Mar 10, 2008 17:36:03 GMT -4
That is so ing weird.
|
|
|
Post by Hex on Mar 10, 2008 17:36:08 GMT -4
at least someone else cares about the state of our union!!! Thanks billie ray!
|
|
|
Post by saint on Mar 10, 2008 17:39:20 GMT -4
I love conservative talk radio now. It's my new addiction. I think it's all this country music I've been listening to for the last month.
|
|
|
Post by Paco_Guerrera on Mar 10, 2008 18:33:01 GMT -4
Im pretty sure that picture was taken in the democratic national headquarters back in 2004 the day after the general election.
(oh snaps, making the picture relevant'd!!)
|
|
|
Post by funkpuppy on Mar 10, 2008 18:54:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by abone on Mar 23, 2008 13:19:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Paco_Guerrera on Mar 24, 2008 13:29:47 GMT -4
I dont know about that guy. I hear he has anger control issues anytime acid is splashed on his face. With all the acid in the White House, is this a chance we should be taking?
|
|