Headsetoptions.org Web Design, SEO, WordPress, Etcetera

Leave a Comments | Trackback | RSS 2.0

1. 1. Nick Normal | January 21, 2008 #

   why did Obama get more delegate votes in NH but Clinton was listed the winner? why do they currently have the same number of delegate votes in NV but Clinton is projected the winner?

   can someone actually elaborate to me - in concrete non-abstract bullshit explanation - how this actual delegate process works?

1. 2. hso | January 21, 2008 #

   @ Nick Normal

   I will take a crack at your questions, in short what you are seeing is a flawed democracy at work

   First off, both democrats and republicans have their own set of rules for delegate allotment, these delegates are split based on percent of vote a candidate gets (must be at least 15% to get any delegates). Democrats in addition to pledged (elected) delegats have what is called “Super” delegates (like ex-presidents, governors, congressmen…), these delegates can choose who they support.

   In NH, the number of pledged delegates were 22. Obama got 9, Clinto 9 and Edwards got the rest (4). NH also has 5 “Super” delegates, of which 3 supported Obama (making his total 12) and 2 supported Clinton (making her total 11).

   Makes sense now? You can learn more at CNN (this is another thing I never thought I would be doing, quote CNN)

1. 3. Nick Normal | January 28, 2008 #

   yeah actually I did know about the Superdelegates phenom, and have been spreading word about that to my peers, pissing them off too! but then can you answer me this: why did the Republicans do away with (as of this year) the Superdelegate phenom, and the Democrats kept it. also, what mechanism or body is in place ABOVE both parties (i.e. the Law) that allows them to manipulate the very fabric of American politics in this way? why can one party choose a different method than the other, and why don’t we really have an ultimate say in our own electoral process!? HAH!

   I’m fooling myself, thinking I’m involved!

1. 4. hso | January 31, 2008 #

   @ Nick Normal
   You are not fooling yourself, what we are seeing during the primaries and caucuses is essentially a crude method to div up the delegate. You vote to influence the outcome but really it is not where you pick your candidate, but rather the delegate who will eventually choose the candidate. As far as I know, the law has no say in how each of these parties run the process.

1. 5. Guido | March 13, 2008 #

   WOW!!!!
   A blogger who’s not a raging liberal!?
   I am stunned, I thought I was the only one!
   Look, I agree, Hillary is dangerous, but I want to add, I would vote Hillary (…tough, tough) over Obama any day. Let me also add this - If it comes down to Hillay and McCain, you can take you pick, the 2 are the same.
   The reason I would never vote for Obama, is because he hasnt said anything of ANY weight!
   Ask a Obama supporter why they like him, you’ll find burried deep in there somewhere, that his politics don’t matter, he’s just a kick-ass motivational speaker who has decided he doesnt want to go to work in Senate today, or last year for that matter.
   That alone speaks volumes about his overall character.
   Also, and liberals will downplay this till Newt Gingrich runs for president, you have GOT to remember this guy has NO and let me repeat this, NO executive experience.
   When it comes down to the national televised debates between McCain and Obama, it’s going to be a slaughter, an utter slaughter.
   On the fence independants (like myself) will easily be swayed to McCain due to the man’s (pretty notable) resume.
   I am NO McCain fan (I was all about Mitt or Alan Keys) but at the minimum I would feel safer that McCain could run a country.