New Batch of Superdelegates to Choose a Candidate

[merh]

New Batch of Superdelegates to Choose a Candidate
76 New Delegates: Not All Have Decided Who to Support
By DAVID WRIGHT, VIJA UDENANS and STEPHANIE DAHLE
May 3, 2008

-snip-

"We came up with this idea late, literally in the middle of the night," Democratic strategist Tad Devine said. "This might satisfy both sides."

The idea was to give each state a few extra superdelegates, late in the game, who would be chosen by local officials to better reflect the results of a long nomination fight.

In Illinois, it's no surprise that all three add-ons  including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley  favor Obama, the favorite son.

Likewise, in New York, all four add-ons  including state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo are for Clinton.

-snip-

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4780121&page=1

[DJ13]

1. Do we really NEED more SD's to be cowardly undecided?

:eyes:

[merh]

4. It makes no sense to me at all.

After all this time how can they be undecided?

[grantcart]

22. it isn't a change pls see down thread

[merh]

28. Would you please read the thread.

my comments were to the other poster, as to why the SD's won't make a decision.

[grantcart]

42. That is why the OP is so completely misleading

While it is true that there are some SDs that are undecided that is not true with the add on Super Delegates, almost all of them

ARE CHOSEN BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE.

So far of the 24 Add on Super Delegates only 3 are undecided the other 21 were picked because they were for a particular candidate.

On Friday, for example NY added 4 add on SDs and they were, as expected, all for Clinton. On Monday 3 Super Delegates will be added for Obama




Here is a link that will help you see the entire story

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

[swishyfeet]

2. Would the 2025 go up too?

If not, it just helps get us there quicker - which is fine by me.

[sniffa]

6. I don't think so

These add-ons are reflected in the number. Of course I just think that, and I'm sure someone knows better than I.

[grantcart]

21. no pls see down thread

[Yael]

51. No, we don't get there any quicker, and no, NO NEW DELEGATES were added

The OP didn't know what they were looking at, so just parroted it. It has been explained a few times in this thread.

[shraby]

3. Isn't that changing the rules mid-stream?

[sniffa]

8. No

It's a poorly worded article.

[Zhade]

58. Oh, thank you for that. I came to the same erroneous conclusion myself.

Whew.

[FARAFIELD]

5. What in the hell is this story.

The dates of SUPERDELEGATES add-ons (the 76 that the story is referring to has been set for about a year). God get your facts right. You are taking a quote from DEVINE so out of context its like saying ted levine said "its white" while the moon was full, when in reality he is talking about a marshmallow. for a list of the add on schedule go to

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

[FARAFIELD]

7. on further review, just to make my point

Look how your thread made people THINK that 76 new delegates had been ADDED to the total. So either you wanted them to think that, or you didnt know that the schedule had been made late last year. WHich was it?

[high density]

11. Well a majority of the SDs in the schedule that you posted are finally coming up to being chosen

in the coming weeks. So it's not surprising that this has come back up into the news. Maybe you should email that ABC News reporter instead of biting off the head of the DUer that simply posted a link to it.

[FARAFIELD]

34. WRONG!!!

The shitty ABC reporter didnt post it the DUER did. Dang if you cant bite the head off of a fellow DUER whose head can you bite off (errr... unintenional pun). Anyhow he blew it not knowing or by just posting it. So yeah he gets his head bitten off.

[grantcart]

36. he refuses to edit it so that it seems as if this is some sudden change

rather than explain it is a well established part of the system. By focusing on the 'middle of the night' comment (which is completely irrelevent) he makes it seem like a conspiratorial move.

of the 76 Add on delegates 24 have been chosen and announced.


There is no controversy here, no one in the DNC or outside of the DNC have complained, and no candidate has complained.

[sniffa]

50. Um, not quite

The DUer posted it because the article seems to indicate that these delegates are a new thing. If I didn't know about the Add-Ons prior to reading this piece, I might react the same way.

[Zhade]

60. I *did* react that way. The OP is (purposefully?) misleading!

NT!

[AllentownJake]

9. This is not new

Is speaking of when they updated the SD process to begin with. Not anything new

There were going to be 76 unannounced SD since the beginning

Check it out here.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

[merh]

13. thank you for the link to the explanation

I was really confused.

[Bensthename]

10. This is bull.

Were candidates given this notification in advanece? How long has this been planned?

[sniffa]

15. Yes, they were

It's not new, and it's been planned from the beginning.

Poorly worded article.

[Garbo 2004]

18. Since the beginning. "Add on" delegates not new. See demconwatch:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

[grantcart]

27. no changes pls see down thread for explanation

[RainDog]

12. this post should be deleted. it's flamebait. anxiety fodder. crap.

[high density]

14. Give me a break

It's information that these delegates are being chosen soon. What's the big outrage about this?

[grantcart]

24. your wording makes it appear that it is a recent change

it is very misleading


there is no change in the number of SDs these are simply the SD positions that have not yet been filled.

Your title and quote makes it appear that there is some sudden change in the middle of the process

Either you wanted to confuse people or you didn't understand it.

[merh]

16. Why should it be deleted?

It was an article from today, it is about something I am not clear on and fortunately, someone up thread gave a link to the explanation.

Are you into suppression of discussions?

[RainDog]

17. no

I've noticed that headlines in the news lately (and not just about politics) use misleading headers that are intended to mislead. maybe a clarification would be useful.

[merh]

19. Maybe read the thread.

As I said, it had me confused and a kind poster provided a link that explains this.

[grantcart]

35. The OP is too stubborn even to edit for clarification

[merh]

41. You need to stop posting in the thread and let it drop

and you need to stop hurling your insults.

Grow up, you can't control everything around you.

I appreciate those who have explained the article to me and who have provided the link.

Get over it.

[grantcart]

20. This is a very misleading OP. It makes it seem that the add on delegates is some kind of new

addition.


Add on delegates have been apart of the system and have been factored in all of the calculations -



IT IS NOT AN INCREASE IN SUPER DELEGATES IT IS A PART OF THE SUPER DELEGATE NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN USED SINCE THE BEGINING OF THE CAMPAIGN.

EITHER THE OP DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OR DELIBERATELY IS TRYING TO CONFUSE PEOPLE


You can find details and a schedule of the add ons here


http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

[merh]

23. Its ABC's article - that's their headline verbatim

it had me confused and I posted it.

Thankfully others have explained it.

thanks for the link

[grantcart]

25. ok pls update your subject line

people are so tense that this type of misunderstanding could launch 50 threads

thank you

[merh]

29. No, I posted an article (see subject line is identical to article's headline)

and I did so for discussion and clarification. Please read the thread.

[grantcart]

32. Are you completely brain dead?

This is one of the most artfully stupid headlines and editing I have ever said.

You edit the article to make it appear that it is a recent addition and that they did so recently in the 'middle of the night'

You clarify nothing and in your own words admit that you didn't understand the issues involved.

You wanted to discuss something?

What is it that you wanted to discuss? Are you advocating changing the rules for the next primary?


There are all kinds of ways of lying and this is a pretty predestrian form of intellectual dishonesty.

There is no change in the rules

There is no increase in the numbers of SDs

There is no sudden increase in the number of SDs committing to the campaign.

The states add on their additional superdelegates over a two month process.

Twenty four of the 76 add on delegates have already been chosen and announced.


You are not helping the larger community understand the issue or discuss it you are confusing and distorting the issue by a completely irresponsible editing of the article and not giving any background or facts.

Completely shameless.

[merh]

37. No, I am not completely brain dead

there is nothing shameless about posting an article for discussion.

Brainless would be dictating to another what should be posted and attacking them for posting it.

You really need to chill, I don't like the attack from hillary supporters and don't appreciate them from obama supporters.

Even though I support Obama that doesn't mean I won't call you on your totally rude and exaggerated response here.

Push away from your computer, take a break and look for some manners.

[Yael]

40. A better title would have been "State Add-ons being Chosen"

Because that is all it is -- and on a preset count and schedule:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

[merh]

43. Then you go post your thread with that title

for the love of god, read the thread, post information that clarifies and let the thread drop if it bugs you.

You guys are a hoot.

[Yael]

47. You must like to stir up stuff for the sake of stirring up stuff

I am already explaining this on every thread it is popping up on, and Jake has already opened a thread to explain it to people.

I'll just mark you down for 'late to the game, corrected, but still spreading false information'.

IE -- an attention ho.

:hi:

[merh]

52. LOL - not true

I didn't see the other thread and I read this when I went to ABC to find the LOST episode I missed. It caught my eye and I didn't understand.

I posted it in this forum in the hopes that someone would explain it to me, which some have been kind enough to do without the pissy name calling.

I hardly post threads in this forum, you and others do a most admirable job of that.

I'm no attention ho, I'm just a confused Obama supporter. It happens, I'm not perfect and have never claimed to be.

[Yael]

54. Suggestion -- if you post it as is without comment, the assumption is that you agree

Add in a :wtf: or some line about "what are they talking about" and people might have responded differently. That, and you may not have put people into some kind of panic that the party elders hijacked the party overnight.

(Not to mention saving the rest of us the time and trouble to repeat-reply to each and every concerned person individually so that they would see it).

[merh]

55. Suggestion - stop telling people how to post

and stop posting to threads if you dont like them, maybe they will fall away.

You keep this subject alive - check out my posts, check out my posts on other subjects and then push away from your computer and get some air. You are all hyped up over nothing.

One other suggestion, buy a brown paper sack, when threads like this get you all wound up, put it over your mouth and nose and breath in and out, it will help you. (Your over reaction is laughable, I look for a frog in the sig.)

[Yael]

57. I am trying to communicate to you that sending out false information, not addressing

it when corrected and then defending your obtuse manners in this is assholery of the first order.

*plonk*

[merh]

61. LOL, the assholery is all your's

as is the over reaction to this thread. It is what it is, the headline was not my own and it doesn't need anything more than to be posted for others to offer the correct information (as is evident in the thread).

You guys have to chill, you are just being silly. Push away from your computer and take a break.

When you come back, look to see who it is that has been name calling and dictating and being rude. It hasn't been me.

[Zhade]

62. Uh, that excuse might work in LBN, but you CAN write your OWN titles in GDP.

NT!

[EFerrari]

64. If people will allow one OP to give them a panic attack

isn't that their problem? Really, let's chill. After you. :)

[Yael]

39. ABC news? The station of "Does Rev Wright love America as much as you do"?

And you take them at their word from a blog posting.

[iamthebandfanman]

26. uh, no ? n/t

[ericgtr]

30. This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard!

They just though it up in the middle of the night? It's really no wonder the democratic party can't get their shit straight, it's the blind leading the blind.

[merh]

31. No, apparently this is part of the process.

Read the links provided in the thread.

[grantcart]

33. this is a completely misleading edit this has been standard procedure

and there is no change in the number of SDs involved

Out of the 76 Add on delegates in the system 24 have already been chosen and announced.

They are a part of the SDs you see announced every day for either Obama or Clinton.


There is no controversy here.

[AllentownJake]

45. Yeah

The entire process is kind of screwy and this was there since the beginning. Hopefully the come up with something better in 2012. Not holding my breath. We are the better party but sometimes its like herding cats.

[Yael]

38. THIS IS NOT NEW. The head count has always been there. They are just assigning people to the count

Damn -- how many copies of this misleading ABC Snews article do we have to have posted tonight?

They are the unpledged SD add-ons and the counts and assignment dates can be found here:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

They are each either selected by the state party, or elected at the state convention.

[grantcart]

44. thank you the OP refused to edit for clarity

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dempartisan23]

46. i dont get it

more delegates?

[Yael]

49. No. No more delegates. Still at 2024 for the win.

OP read something misleading (well, downright incorrect) reported on ABC Snews and although called on it, refuses to correct it.

Each state has between 1-5 "unnamed add-on delegates" that are chosen by the party.

When the state party's go to convention, they either vote on or select the person to fill that seat.

Here is the schedule and counts for each state:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

[merh]

53. read the thread

there are explanations found within - the article is poorly written. This is nothing new.

[Zhade]

56. Changing the rules in the middle of the contest is CHEATING.

Is the concept of playing by the rules DEAD in this country?

EDIT: NEVER MIND, OP is misleading.

[AllentownJake]

59. Sigh

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/add-on-superdelegate-selection-schedule.html

This was always part of the rules. The OP is stubbornly refusing to change his headline.

[Zhade]

63. I know, it took me a few minutes to realize that.

: )