You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #10: I'm not arguing against your opinion that the supers should declare for the good of the party. [View All]

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
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-23-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I'm not arguing against your opinion that the supers should declare for the good of the party.
This is because I tend to agree with that.

What I'm saying is that the supers (though their leaders and individually) have all along said that they felt most supers would support the candidate with the most nationwide pledged delegates at the end of the race. From Pelosi to individual supers, that's what's been said most often. I think they wish the voting was over so they feel they can come out for Obama without radically swaying the total numbers before the state by state delegate selection process is done.

Now of course, some Supers have declared. Which has led to a rough parity in declared supers, although the momentum is all Obama. Here in MT we have one super delegate out of 8 who has declared, and he's for Obama. His statement was something to the effect of, 'I didn't get involved with politics so I could stand on the sidelines.' I like how that delegate thinks. But the rest of our slate is waiting until the people get a chance to vote on 6/3/08, or at least that's been their general comments about committing.

I can't blame them quite yet. I have a feeling that the Richardson endorsement is going to help create some movement though. I doubt it's being done in a vacuum. Instead I bet it's got a lot more to come with it. That was one main reasons Carvelle leveled the 'traitor' charge, in an attempt to scare others from doing the same thing and suffering the fate of being called out on national tv. My bet is that in most cases it won't work. For instance, I doubt that the Clintons scare Jimmy Carter. My feeling is if you got him, nows the time. It's the last leg of the pledged delegate race, we already have a sense as to where Pelosi is, and to where a lot of the un pledged supers are at in the sense that they all seem to be migrating to Obama when they declare. Something like 62 for Obama and less than 5 for Hill in the last month. That says a lot, because if Hill had them now would be when she would want to use them, to attempt to show viability.

So be patient. My guess is that people are working on this as we cruise the nets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | 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