Oh boy. Someone call the hypocrisy police....I wonder

[cboy4]

how many potential flip-floppers we have on our hands?

I'm being told that Obama won Texas, despite having fewer popular votes, because he got more delegates.

I think the candidate who wins the most popular votes in anything is the winner, regardless of any rules that state otherwise.

However, I was told:

============================

"Please refer to the rules. Thanks."

and

"That's the system, cboy!"

===============================

Interesting.

Because all I hear is how unfair it will be if the superdelegates decide this in favor of Hillary Clinton, because after all, Obama had the most delegate votes.

But wouldn't that be the system?

So is the system only unfair if Obama ends up losing the nomination?

Or is the system fundamentally unfair for everyone?

I think the person with the most popular votes in anything deserves to win. You know, 2000 and everything.

At least I'm consistent.

Some Obama supporters? Mmmmmm, not so much.

[LostinVA]

1. Do I need to change my Gay Police avatar?

[cboy4]

7. No, you should embrace the hypocrisy policy agency

as a partner in the fight against crime.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. ...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Obama won the popular vote in the Texas caucus.

And by a wider margin then he lost the vote in the Texas primary.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[tandem5]

69. eh? You can't vote in the caucus in Texas without first voting in the Primary...

She won the primary by 100k. He won the caucus because fewer people went to the caucus after the primary - So no matter the margin in the caucus he lost the popular vote in Texas.

on edit: For clarification the implication that there might have been new voters in the caucuses (that didn't vote in the primary) that made unaccountable inroads into her popular vote lead in the primary is not valid due to rule I described above.

[not_too_L8]

74. It's easy to vote in the primary

It's easy to vote in the primary, in and out doesn't take much effort. Republicans and other infiltrators will vote in the primary to throw the count to the camp they have a better chance of beating. However the caucus takes time and effort, it's much less likely that an infiltrator will go the distance in a caucus there by giving a more accurate count of who will vote for the Democratic nomination in the GE

[tandem5]

77. its a slippery slope when one argues for the quality and importance

of some people's votes over that of others.

[not_too_L8]

81. I never said one was more important

I believe both have their own merit, the primary having the advantage of large turn out which represents a broad spectrum of the population, but has the disadvantage that it is easy for ones who may not have the party's best interest at heart to vote in the primary.

On the other hand, the caucus has a smaller percentage of the population to represent, but has the advantage that the effort required to caucus will deter many infiltrators, and thus represent a better view of who may actually vote democrat in the GE

[tandem5]

87. Look in the case of Texas one has to vote in the primary in order...

to vote in the caucus. So people who participated in the caucuses in Texas were a subset of the "broad spectrum" and their votes counted more than those who voted in the primary alone. If you think this offers a "better view" consider that if it is to be a true caucus, with discussion and debate, there has to be a set start time and a significant amount of time devoted, which puts certain people who are disabled or have strict time schedules at a disadvantage, a disadvantage that will not be seen in the general election. You could counter that in most cases you could just sign in and leave, but that is completely contrary to any arguments made for caucuses in the first place so why have them at all in conjunction with a primary? As for your unsubstantiated claims of election altering "infiltration," Texas could have simply held a closed primary - if independents (or Republicans) feel passionately for a candidate they can re affiliate themselves as needed - let the effort and foresight of changing one's party affiliation ahead of time be the benchmark for voter commitment in the general.

[not_too_L8]

88. All very good points I will continue to consider...n/t

[tandem5]

91. In any case, thank you for your replies - a refreshing change to the normal

"dialog" on this board.

[not_too_L8]

92. Thank you, it...

seems none of are current selection methods are perfect, but I think the closed primary system may be the best way for now. What's most important is that people participate in our election process in a positive way and most of all, vote!

Dems Unite

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Oh The Hypocrisy From Their Side Has Reached Astounding Proportions For Sure!

And I wonder if they know that 57% of Democrats think the popular vote is what matters, whereas only 25% of them think delegates are.

[dionysus]

9. gues you had these this morning...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Bad 'Gues'. But I Hope You Enjoyed Chowing Down These This Morning:

[cboy4]

19. .........

:spray:

[dionysus]

22. oooh i typo'd a word!! aren't you clever!!! this coming from the walking temper tantrum...

when hillary drops out you and cboy can share a banky...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Whoopsie! Looks Like The Bottom Left Pill Is Kicking In!!!

[cboy4]

18. You sound like what the Republicans were saying in 2000.

Do you really think the outcome of that election was fair?

[dionysus]

24. thankyou for playing really bad analogies....

[tyne]

14. If the popular vote is

truly what matters, then why do we, as dems, have these primaries set up this way...with delegates?

Obama campaign saw the race in real terms....it was a delegate race...so they strategized to win delegates. If the race, in real terms, was a popular vote race, their strategy would have been to win the most popular votes.

Why the hell do Hillary supporters always want to change the friggin rules? It's not Obama's, or his supporters, fault that Hillary planned a strategy based on big states and inevitability.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. The Point Is That They Both Matter.

Those who hold onto the 'only the delegates matter!' line are doing so quite ignorantly, and often times hypocritically.

[tyne]

27. Of course they both "matter"...

but the race was set up as a run for delegates. You reach a certain number of "delegates"...not popular vote. Obama campaign had strategy that even targeted certain areas of certain states because they were rich in "delegates".

Again, it is not the fault of Obama that Hillary didn't adequately plan or put forth superior strategy.

[MagsDem]

67. Neither can win on pledged delegates

And the supers can take any damn thing they want into consideration as to who they vote for. But Obama supporters don't like those rules. They don't like THAT system. Hell, they don't even want to count FL because Hillary won.

You guys should all get honorary degrees in hypocrisy.

[iamjoy]

5. Welcome To 2000 Redux

The popular vote seems to matter not. Once again a court case from Florida may well decide the election. :crazy:

It is interesting that Clinton won popular votes in both Nevada and Texas, but Obama got more delegates out of each state. However, I think overall, Obama is ahead in popular votes.

[tyne]

30. By 600,000

[olkaz]

46. How do those two things go in the same post?

"Welcome To 2000 Redux"

and

"I think overall, Obama is ahead in popular votes."

What's the deal?

By the way, I love cars. Oh, and I hate cars.

[iamjoy]

73. Contradictory I Know

I should have elaborated more.

In a sense, the individual state in a primary is like the nation during a general election, with each district in the primary taking on the role the state does in a general. There are states in which Hillary has won the popular vote, but Obama has gotten more delegates because of the way the delegates are allocated (often by Congressional district). That's where the comparison works - Nevada and possibly Texas were like the US in the 2000 Presidential election (minus the fraud).

The difference is, when you look at the nation overall, Obama still leads in popular votes for this primary (when one totals all the states).

[rateyes]

6. Let me help you here:

Clinton won the popular vote in the Texas Primary by a small percentage. Two-thirds of the delegates were elected in the primary.

Obama won the popular vote in the Texas Caucus by a larger percentage. One-third of the delegates were elected in the caucus.

Obama won the delegate count because adding the primary delegates and the caucus delegates together to determine total delegates, Obama received more delegates.

So, Clinton won Texas. And, Obama won Texas. And, the end result is that, because of Texas, Obama gets more delegates from Texas to the convention than does Hillary.

Get it?

[cboy4]

11. So are you going to be kicking and screaming if the

superdelegates decide Hillary Clinton will be the nominee?

You didn't talk about that amid all of your typing.

[rateyes]

17. Why would I do that?

The rules are the rules. I don't care which one gets it, as long as it's done according to the rules.

But, your assertion that Clinton won the popular vote in Texas is a half-truth. She won the popular vote in the Texas PRIMARY. Obama won the popular vote in the Texas CAUCUS.

Why are you kicking and screaming over the fact that the superdelegates will probably choose to support the candidate that gets the higher popular vote when adding both votes in the primaries and caucuses? Is it because that, playing by the rules, it looks like your candidate is not going to win?

[cboy4]

23. Hey, as long as you plan on being consistent and

congratulating Hillary if she wins by virtue of the superdelegate vote, it's all good.

And BTW, I don't support Obama or Hillary. I voted for Edwards.

So your comment about my "candidate" is not applicable to your argument...much to your dismay I'm sure.

[rateyes]

28. Not to my dismay...

I voted for Edwards, too. But, now that he's out of the race...who do you hope gets the nod?

[cboy4]

35. Hillary, but she's not my candidate.

She is who I want to win by default.

There's a difference.

[Usrename]

52. You seem to have thought about this a lot.

Can you describe a plausible path to victory for her.

I'm curious about what you think Hillary's path to victory really is.

How is she going to win this thing? Can she lose the delegate race, lose the popular vote, and somehow come away with a win from the convention?

And if she does, this strange scenario helps the party how? She won't ever win a general if she does that, will she? Her negatives will be even higher than they were when this thing started. A year ago half the people in the country wouldn't vote for her. If she snakes the nomination away from a movement that won more votes and more delegates, then she'd be almost guaranteed to lose every state in the general election, wouldn't she? The half of the people that can still stomach her now will never vote for her if she continues down this road. It's just a little too devisive for a lot of folks.

So, how does she get to the Whitehouse?

Do you have any plausible scenario?

Isn't winning the Whitehouse what's important?

[cboy4]

54. Usrename, you seem to be insinuating that I think it's a good

thing for superdelegates to decide the nominee.

I haven't said such thing.

I'm saying, if the popular vote doesn't matter during the primary process "because it's part of the rules," (according to Obama supporters), then these same Obama supporters can't throw a fit if the superdelegates ultimately choose Hillary Clinton. Because that would be part of the rules!!

Rules are rules.

I'm looking for consistency.

That's all.

I happen to dislike the primary rules from start to finish.

And that's what makes me consistent and eligible to criticize those who are flip-flopping.

[Usrename]

57. Can't disagree with that.

You have to have noticed that the process is becoming more and more devisive as time goes on. This cannot be good.

I believe a whole bunch of voters that really belong on our side against McCain and the Republicans will get turned off by all this after a while. Many folks that make up the mushy middle of America don't have any strong, passionate political beliefs, and a lot of them see unity as a strength. That's how the Republicans have managed to capture their support over the past few decades.

I know it seems at odds with the liberal or progressive view that strength is signified by individuality or a willingness to go against the flow. I just don't think that's how a lot of people view things. There is security and strength to be found in being unified, and this may be the MOST important aspect of combating the campaign of fear. Our party must not continue to be viewed as a collection of disorganized weaklings who don't really stand for anything. We might as well just hand the Whitehouse over to McCain if we cannot find a good way to unify the party behind one candidate and one message.

[grantcart]

8. Since super Tuesday 80% of the superdelegates have endorsed Obama

Your hope of superdelegates ripping the nomination away from Clinton is evaporating and they will soon be ensuring the nomination before the convention sorry about that.

[Saturday]

12. Ummmm, superdelegates can change their minds. nt

[grantcart]

34. and every single one of them that has changed their mind has changed from

Clinton to Obama

[cboy4]

15. You're on record as avoiding the question.

:thumbsup:

[grantcart]

38. "on the record" how silly ok here it is "I am on the record as saying

people who use phrases as 'on the record' talk like adolescents who have just gotten their first thesaurus".

On the record - the collective wisdom of the 700+ superdelegates is going to confirm the collective wisdom of voters in the primaries
and the caucuses.

Obama has

more delegates
more primary wins
more caucus wins
raised more money
has more donors
has more votes
has more votes from the largest 7 contested states so far
has more endorsements from dem Senators
has more endorsements from dem Govenors

Clinton has a speech.

[cboy4]

43. Ouch. That was a good insult grantcart, but you still won't

answer the question.

That's because you want to leave room to be a primary rules flip-flopper, depending on how this all plays out.

[grantcart]

49. I won't answer the question simply because your OP was so poorly

written with 5 question marks I sincerely have no idea which question you thought was so telling and compelling that it did not pale in comparison with all of the things I listed in my reply.

If you would respond with any single question when I get back from the gym I will answer your question and then we can "put it on the record" and you can go tell your parents.

[cboy4]

53. Why are you having so much trouble with this topic

grantcart?

I intentionally worded it so even the dumbest of people can comprehend.

And I know you're not dumb, right grantcart?

So you're just being difficult.

However, if you truly are baffled by the simple question, maybe you should ask any of the other DUers who were successful in responding to break it down for you. I know how confusing multiple question marks can be for adults.

[grantcart]

59. which of these questions do you consider the point of your OP?

how many potential flip-floppers we have on our hands?

But wouldn't that be the system?

So is the system only unfair if Obama ends up losing the nomination?

Or is the system fundamentally unfair for everyone?

[cboy4]

61. The point is: I say Hillary won Texas.

However, some Obama supporters told me, no, he "won" Texas -- despite losing the popular vote -- because he "won" more delegates.

I say that stinks, because more Texans voted for her. And they say, well tough, those are the rules.

So I say fine. If the superdelegates choose Hillary, those are the rules too

Yet, for some reason, Obama supporters have a problem with that rule.

So is the system only unfair if Obama ends up losing the nomination?

Or is the system fundamentally unfair for all of the candidates?

[grantcart]

64. Its a strawman because when you use the phrase "Obama supporters"

you are referring to a couple of people posting on a board somewhere.

For the record anyone who proclaims at one point that they are for superdelegates acting one way in one set of circumstances and another way in the same set of circumstances would be in fact expressing a contrarian point of view.


It is an intellectually inconsistent argument, it is not however hypocrisy.

hy·poc·ri·sy /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

Hypocrisy does not apply to discussion of ideas it has to do with professing a moral code and at the same time acting in completely opposite way, that is hypocritical. Telling people that drinking is evil and then going out drinking is hypocritical. Prosecuting people for prostitution and then using their services is hypocritical.


For 'the record' anyone who proclaims at one point that they are for superdelegates acting one way in one set of circumstances and another way in the same set of circumstances would be in fact expressing a contrarian point of view should be considered:


deceptive, delusive, delusory, disingenuous, duplicitous, fallacious, impostrous.


In anycase now that we are 'off the record' (whew - the pressure) I have never been that worried about Superdelegates. For the most part this is not their first rodeo. And as Hillary says they will bring their 'life experience'. I do not believe that having established a commanding lead in

delegates
primaries
caucuses
money raised
donors
popular votes
popular votes in big states
dem govenor endorsements
dem senate endorsements

that the superdelegates would consider it fair that the nomination should now go to someone else. Most of this hysteria is actually raised by news media people outside of the party who think Democrats will implode and are trying to hype a story.

If I were a Clinton supporter I would worry that her superdelegate lead is

1)diminishing



2)heavily concentrated

-she has 40 delegates in NY alone.

3) Appears on some levels to be superficial. For example Senator Boxer, Senator Clinton's longtime friend and in-law has announced that she will vote for Senator Clinton but refuses to endorse her campaign and will not campaign for her.

Many of Clinton's superdelegates signed on when they thought she had a lock on the nomination and some had dreams of plum jobs. The closer it comes to Obama's nomination becoming finalized these opportunistic superdelegates will jump rather quickly.

I think the hypocrisy police may now be dismissed.

[cboy4]

65. Grantcart....it's semantics frankly.. But if you feel happy

arguing that it's not hypocrisy, terrific.

The bottom line is what we have is Obama supporters who are embracing the rules which help Obama and criticizing the rules they feel will hurt him.

And I'm just waiting for these people to throw a fit if the superdelgates choose Hillary Clinton.

So, fine, cancel the hypocrisy police.

But connect me to the deceptive, delusive, delusory, disingenuous, duplicitous, fallacious, impostrous (sic) police.

[grantcart]

70. no its poorly worded and difficult to understand your point

and its hard to figure out if it is a rhetorical question or a question that you want answered. And then you take a conceited posture over not getting an answer. In any case you are focusing on trivial questions.


Why is Senator Boxer refusing to endorse or publicly campaign for her long time friend Senator Clinton?

Barbara Boxer, one of the state's best-known superdelegates, has confused some by her stance. Boxer does not plan to endorse Clinton or Obama as long as both are running. But even though she has not thrown her support to either candidate, she does plan to vote for Clinton at the convention


Why do more of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton's peers - United States Senators - endorse Senator Obama rather than Senator Clinton, even though she has had many many more years to cultivate those relationships?


Why do more Govenors support Senator Obama rather than Senator Clinton, even though she has had many many more years to cultivate those relationships?

[cboy4]

76. Of course, it couldn't be a case of you having poor

reading comprehension skills, as opposed to my "poorly worded" work, could it grantcart?

Who cares that I'm conceited and sarcastic? You don't think you are too?

Notice not one other poster has gone on and on about this like you.

Everyone else, whether they agree with me or not, had figured it out.

You, on the other hand want to talk about endorsements for Hillary and her superdelegate lead, which have nothing to do with the fairness of the primary selection process rules.

We're going to have a lot of people going ballistic if Hillary Clinton is selected via the superdelegate process.

And all I'm saying is many of those people will be hypocrites, because up until that time, if it happens, they'll have been fine with the primary process.

[grantcart]

80. You were very patronizing in demanding answers to your questions.

I have given you 3 specifics questions

Will you now respond with the same courtesy I provided to you or will you run away or simply avoid the questions with more diatribes?

[cboy4]

82. LOL. I was demanding answers? What, did I have a gun

to people's heads?

This is a discussion board and so I threw out a question.

The nerve I have.

And I don't think I threatened you for a response.

Now, even if you had provided me a courtesy, which you did not (unless you consider insults and sarcasm a courtesy), your three questions don't concern someone like myself who doesn't support Hillary Clinton.

I want her to win by default, since the person I voted for (Edwards), dropped out.

So I'm not sure why you'd be asking me those questions.

[grantcart]

84. well I was certainly not asking you those questions in anticipation of an

intelligent reply.

[cboy4]

85. Grantcard, there's clearly something wrong with your

cranial reasoning mechanism.

I don't know if you have an undiagnosed learning disability, or something related, but you've done nothing but act confused about a very simple point that every other poster has been able to successfully tackle?

Why not you?

And then you ask a series of unrelated questions, but lash out when I inform you that they're not only irrelevant to the OP -- they're also irrelevant considering I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Maybe if you hadn't approached this in such a confrontational manner, you wouldn't be going home with your tail between your legs.

[MagsDem]

68. Unfortunately none of those things mean a win for him

Even if they were all true.

[olkaz]

10. Hey, if you don't like it, get active and change it.

But don't sit here and whine about the rules because they don't support your candidate right at this moment.

And stop acting like Caucus results are somehow illegitimate. A ton of people spend a ton of time participating.

Anywho, if something happened and the superdelegates all went to Hillary, sure, I'd be upset. But I'd still vote for Hillary in the general and work to get her to serve my interests somehow.

Explain how I am not consistent.

[cboy4]

13. LOL. Well, if you'd be upset about the superdelegates,

that means you're inconsistent.

Because the superdelegates are all part of the rules I'm being scolded about.

I voted for Edwards, by the way.

So Hillary is "not my candidate."

I just feel the need to point out hypocrisy.

[olkaz]

20. Seriously? That's your point?

I'm not allowed to be unhappy with a particular result?

Being unhappy with a result is different than being hypocritcal about the process that arrived at that result. Are you even paying attention?

But go ahead and keep calling people hypocrites, I like it.

(I chose Obama since Edwards dropped out.)

[cboy4]

32. Alright, well maybe I misinterpreted your original

comments.

I'm just trying to make sure that people who will be upset if the superdelegates decide the race are consistent with their take on the rules.

[MadBadger]

21. Hillary Clinton said this race was about delegates

So therefore Obama won Texas if we go by her standards.

[cboy4]

36. No, no. I don't care what Hillary says....I'm talking about

the rules.

So should I put you down as being consistently supportive of the rules, even if the rules end up screwing your candidate at the end hnmnf?

Or will you be yelling and screaming on this board?

[MadBadger]

45. Superdelegates can go with whoever they want. I personally think they are pointless

I dont think they should overturn the will of the people...btw, I also dont agree with caucuses.

[Independent-Voter]

26. God damn if this Superdelegate nonsense doesn't make the Dems look like a bananna republic

I love that delegates are based on percentage vs. all-or-nothing, but really, SUPERDELEGATES? What the fuck is this nonsense?

[cboy4]

37. It's the rules. That's what I'm being told. n/t

[Barack_America]

29. Sorry, but those delegates were voted for in the caucus.

Texas was a part-election. Average the results between the two contests or go by the number of delegates. Either way you look at it, Obama won.

So I guess your next move here is to bitch and moan about caucuses. Have at it.

[cboy4]

39. Great. Those are the rules.

And if the superdelegates discount everything the people have decided, and choose Hillary Clinton, you will be just as supportive of the rules, right Kristi1696?

[Barack_America]

40. Is there a rule that superdelegates must vote against pledged delegates and the popular vote?

I wasn't aware of that.

I thought that the issue with superdelegates was a LACK of rules and guidelines about how they must cast their ballots.

[cboy4]

41. Is that a yes or a no Kristi1696?

I'm trying to get everyone on record.

[Barack_America]

42. Your question has no merit, as it is currently posed. So I will not be commenting on it.

However, if you'd like to address the questions I posed to you, perhaps I'll be able to.

[cboy4]

47. Whether you accept the primary rules no matter

who ends up the nominee is a question without merit?

I think we have your answer.

Although there's still time for you say "yes" or "no" yourself, for the record.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. The whole system is corrupt.

[JimGinPA]

33. Obama Got More Delegates in 2 Contests HRC Got More Pop. Votes - He Won 29 Other Contests Though...

Where she lost both.

[RockaFowler]

44. I asked this yesterday . . .

Why does Texas get to vote 2x?? They had the primary, so why do those same people get to caucus as well?? I'm confused

[TheWraith]

48. I take it that the ONE MILLION caucus voters don't count? nt

[Labors of Hercules]

50. I'm a little confused...

How does saying Barack won Texas (from a certain point of view) equal hypocrisy?

Are we saying Hillary didn't win at some point under similar circumstances? No.

I suppose you're going to tell us Michigan and Florida were fair Hillary victories as well, eh? :eyes:

[cboy4]

56. I know you're confused. I was told Hillary Clinton lost

Texas, even though more people voted for her because she got more delegates.

I was told the popular vote doesn't matter because "it's the rules."

The hypocrisy comes into play, when these same people, who scold me about the rules, say it's not fair that the superdelegates might get to decide in favor of Hillary Clinton. -- even though those are also the rules.

They argue, "What!!?? Obama got more delegates throughout the process. How is it fair that the superdelegates might be allowed to wipe all of that away!"

How is it fair?

It's the rules. Remember?

[Labors of Hercules]

58. judging unfairly is not the same as being a hypocrite:

hy·poc·ri·sy /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

[cboy4]

60. Yea, judging unfairly can be hypocritical if the part(s) you

think is/are unfair negatively affect your candidate, while all of the other rules are just fine.

[cooolandrew]

51. As far as I know Barack does have the popular vote overall.

[snappyturtle]

55. I think if it comes down to the superdelegates deciding the nominee

we are headed for big trouble and this is why: Pledged delegates are backed by multiples of voters and that number depends on the state however, super delegates are 1:1, one vote per delegate. Now if we get down to just needing a handful of suppers to decide the nominee I think that is too much power in the hands of a few, very few. After millions of people have voted and then just a few do the deciding in the end (reminds me of SCOTUS 2000) it more than our democratic republic should tolerate. But, in the end, the rules are the rules. I hope it doesn't come to this.

[mudesi]

62. That doesn't mean her keeping this up won't HELP MCCAIN

You're right. It's perfectly acceptable for the super delegates to award Hillary Clinton the nomination.

If that happens, say hello to president McCain.

It's not against the rules for her to drop out, either.

[Orsino]

63. Refer to the same rules Clinton was using.

She, too, was trying to win the most delegates, and was just barely outcompeted.

[BringBigDogBack]

66. "I think the candidate who wins the most popular votes in anything is the winner, regardless of any"

I understand why you think that, but pop. vote doesn't determine the 'winner' in our process, nor does it in the general come fall.


If it were the case, this place would be much better off. Because we would have a President Gore. (and a shitty ass VP Lieberman, but hey, I'd take it at this point)

Having said that, Obama won TX in delegates. 2025 delegates determine this race. Not Xmillion voters.

[tandem5]

71. I'm waiting to see the reaction from the fact that Obama will probably only pickup...

maybe one or two delegates in Mississippi after a 15-20% victory due to obscene gerrymandering.

[Johnny__Motown]

72. Sorry.. Representative Democracy. we don't base Federal elections on the popular vote

It would have been much easier to set up your system way way back when this nation was born. it is clear that you don't understand how giving almost all the power to people in cities would be detrimental to our nation but that is ok, you don't need to understand that part.

All you need to understand that the SDs could over turn the elected delegates but that they do it at their own peril. Then would need one hell of a good reason to reject the will of the people and the "Big State" argument is just as bad as your popular vote position.



have a nice day

[tandem5]

75. you're mixing concepts...

"the will of the people" is a plurality position (popular vote), but a pro delegate stance is attributed to state power over individual voters. I live in California and it takes about 10,000 votes to appoint one delegate, in Wyoming with 100% turnout it takes about 4600 to appoint one delegate. Its true that "big states" get more attention, but the whole point of delegates, both in primaries and the general, is to give small states a larger voice.

[Johnny__Motown]

79. I am sorry if I was unclear

the will of the people in regards to their elected delegates.


Popular vote just doesn't factor into our system. Trying to say it does just muddies the waters.

[walldude]

78. I see your point and agree

that most votes should win. But if the shoe is on the other foot and Hillary wins the popular vote and the SD's go with Obama, Hillary supporters would be just as pissed as Obama's that the SD's went against the will of the people. If the SD's go against the popular winner, I'm going to be pissed no matter who the winner is. That's not just a shot at a specific candidate it's a shot at the American people. They might as well say Don't bother to vote, we'll take care of it for you.

[cboy4]

83. Yea, totally. Either side would be pissed.

And I'm not a fan of either candidate either, to be honest.

Interesting how you figured out what I was saying, while others were being, um, shall we say, difficult.

[walldude]

86. Yeah I would have preferred Kucinich or Edwards but

what can you do.. Your posts aren't hard to figure out if people look at them without the blinders, or the rose colored glasses.

[Spider Jerusalem]

89. It's about *delegates*. Not 'popular vote'.

So Hillary LOST.

Get over it.

[cboy4]

94. Is that what you said in 2000 when Al Gore got more

votes than Bush?

It's shocking you don't feel the person who gets the most votes doesn't deserve to win,

Oh, and the "get over it" slogan is heavily used by the Republicans.

[mculator]

90. An Obama supporter is a cow

in a herd.

[annie1]

93. i know, it's really weird. they plan to riot in the streets if the rules are followed ...

and it means their guy doesn't get the nom. Bullies.

[cboy4]

95. Yea, I know....but weird isn't necessarily the adjective I'd

use. lol