Democrat Superdelegates set to Undermine the Will of the Voters - Page 2

mudwhistle · 06-06-2008, 07:46 AM

The point is that the superdelegates have hijacked the Democrat nomination process and are disproportionately favoring the candidate who got less votes.

When you all thought that would be the way Shrillary Clinton won the nomination, you were outraged. Now that it turns out that's how Obama is getting the nomination, you're all OK with it.

There are a lot of hypocrites and moral relativists on this board.

anhailla · 06-06-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

The point is that the superdelegates have hijacked the Democrat nomination process and are disproportionately favoring the candidate who got less votes.

When you all thought that would be the way Shrillary Clinton won the nomination, you were outraged. Now that it turns out that's how Obama is getting the nomination, you're all OK with it.

There are a lot of hypocrites and moral relativists on this board.

ahh.... muddy your just sore because you know that the neocons just lost the White House for 8 LONG YEARS.

When Obama gives Presidential addresses, you can check in here and we will translate for you what an eloquent, intelligent President is saying.

ibex · 06-06-2008, 09:48 AM

There are a lot of hypocrites and moral relativists on this board.[/quote]

And one of the biggest is just above the nice lady with the basset hound avatar.

Cookie · 06-06-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibex

Mark, are you reading any of this? Thanks Curator, I was waiting for somebody to give the TRUE popular vote which includes the caucuses that Hillary wants thrown out.

How is it true? No sources were given. Otherwise, it's = to making shit up.

Curator · 06-06-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie

How is it true? No sources were given. Otherwise, it's = to making shit up.

If we must count Michigan's popular vote total where Hillary was the only one on the ballot then we must also include the uncommitted in Michigan as well as the caucus states who supported Obama. It is widely known that there was a grassroots effort in Michigan to vote uncommitted in support of Obama.

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA along with uncommitted in Michigan

Obama = 18,107,710 or 48.1% of popular vote versus 18,046,007 or 47.9% for Clinton.

If this is too hard to understand I suggest reviewing some 4th grade math.

BillCosby · 06-06-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

17,821,967 Democrat primary voters selected Hillary Clinton. 17,535,335 voted for Barack Obama.

In spite of this, we are told that Obama has the nomination clinched. This is partly because of a convoluted rules system that gave Obama more delegates from the states. It is partly because the Michigan-Florida "compromise" gave him delegates where he earned no votes.

But it is mainly because he enjoys a strong majority of support from unelected "superdelegates," party bosses who have decided to subvert the will of the people by voting against their party's primary constituency.

I hope Hillary Clinton fights this at the convention. The Democrat party should have some respect for democracy.

To bad the contest was not about the popular vote. You could be dancing on the Obama political grave right now.... Obama said months ago that he played by the rules set down. Not by him....... I guess he should of concentrated on the popular vote........

Funny how when bush2 didn't win the popular vote it was ok. Nary a peep out yea......... ThnX gawd jeb & the cousins & scalia were there to ensure that gawds will was done & bush was elected w/out a majority of votes from the American ppl..... Least wiZe that were allowed to vote....

mudwhistle · 06-06-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curator

If we must count Michigan's popular vote total where Hillary was the only one on the ballot then we must also include the uncommitted in Michigan as well as the caucus states who supported Obama. It is widely known that there was a grassroots effort in Michigan to vote uncommitted in support of Obama.

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA along with uncommitted in Michigan

Obama = 18,107,710 or 48.1% of popular vote versus 18,046,007 or 47.9% for Clinton.

If this is too hard to understand I suggest reviewing some 4th grade math.

Even if that were correct, and we add the "uncommitted" votes to Obama's total, it's still showing the superdelegates to be disproportionate.

Obama has 425 superdelegates to Clinton's 275. How does 48% of the vote amount to 60% of the superdelegates? He should have more like 345 according to your totals.

The superdelegates are not representing the will of the people. They are subverting the democratic process to get their chosen candidate on the ballot.

Exactly like you were all afraid of. But it's OK with all of you because all that matters is that your candidate is winning.

Obama's "change" and "new kind of politics" is the same old Chicago Democrat political machine - lie, cheat, steal, strongarm, etc.

BillCosby · 06-06-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

The superdelegates are not representing the will of the people. They are subverting the democratic process to get their chosen candidate on the ballot.
.

So what........ It is not your party........ It was not set up to represent that.... That is not a secret........

Curator · 06-06-2008, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Even if that were correct, and we add the "uncommitted" votes to Obama's total, it's still showing the superdelegates to be disproportionate.

Obama has 425 superdelegates to Clinton's 275. How does 48% of the vote amount to 60% of the superdelegates? He should have more like 345 according to your totals.

The superdelegates are not representing the will of the people. They are subverting the democratic process to get their chosen candidate on the ballot.

Exactly like you were all afraid of. But it's OK with all of you because all that matters is that your candidate is winning.

Obama's "change" and "new kind of politics" is the same old Chicago Democrat political machine - lie, cheat, steal, strongarm, etc.

2118 was the threshold to win the nomination. After he clinched he picked up a flood of supers in the last 48 hours.

Why am I explaining this to you? Don't you have your second cousin to take to her High School prom.

BillCosby · 06-06-2008, 01:00 PM

Speaking of popular votes.............. mcbush isn't running against anyone & is still having difficultly pulling in #'s above 70%.....

in his own party...

06-06-2008, 07:46 AM	#11 (permalink)
mudwhistle Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tennessee Posts: 949 Thanks: 178 Thanked 34 Times in 20 Posts	The point is that the superdelegates have hijacked the Democrat nomination process and are disproportionately favoring the candidate who got less votes. When you all thought that would be the way Shrillary Clinton won the nomination, you were outraged. Now that it turns out that's how Obama is getting the nomination, you're all OK with it. There are a lot of hypocrites and moral relativists on this board.
	Top

06-06-2008, 09:48 AM	#13 (permalink)
ibex Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,116 My Mood: Thanks: 192 Thanked 200 Times in 133 Posts	There are a lot of hypocrites and moral relativists on this board.[/quote] And one of the biggest is just above the nice lady with the basset hound avatar.
	Top

06-06-2008, 01:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
BillCosby The party of the pissed!! Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 4,504 My Mood: Thanks: 183 Thanked 119 Times in 92 Posts	Speaking of popular votes.............. mcbush isn't running against anyone & is still having difficultly pulling in #'s above 70%..... in his own party... __________________ Preventive war is not war!!!!Counter-terror is not terror
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode