Thank you for enlightening me. This is indeed a shock, considering how terribly they seem to do with the basic life skill of balancing a budget.

Hello democrats: republicans can do math. Obama is going to be the nominee, either way. Kicking up dust in NC to further discomfit him is just good tactics, for the general and to prolong the dem primary season. And, if by some miracle Hillary does win there and it results in her getting the nomination, the party is fatally split, which is also in the republicans’ interest.

But nice try.

That’s great. Unfortunatly, the rules state that superdelegates can vote for “whoever they damn please”, not “what Oliver thinks is fair”.

If you don’t play it out the whole way (to 2024) then this happens.

Yeah, and if Obama is the nominee, McCain will carry California and New York in the GE the way Republicans usually do.

Listen… it’s true that the superdelegates can vote for whomever they wish. It’s within their rights. However, it would be an extraordinarily bad idea for them to overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses. What do you think will happen if Obama leads in delegates, but the superdelegates break for Hillary? Do you think that black folks are going to be excited about this development? Do you think they’ll come out in November? I’d bet my left testicle that their turnout would be minimal. How about all the young voters that just got into the political game because of Obama? Anyone who thinks that they will just smile, laugh, and happily vote for Hillary is a fool. You’ll see depressed turnout from this group too. The supers know all this (or should), and therefore will break for Obama; should they not, they know the Republicans have the upper hand in November. So they’re not going to do it. It’s suicide.

Personally, I recognize the rights of the superdelegates to break for Hillary if they so choose. However, I have the right to withhold my vote. And I will exercise that right in November if they superdelegates go for HRC. I will do this both in protest of the superdelegates’ idiotic decision, and because I feel that Hillary has acted poorly enough on the campaign trail to lose my prospective vote. But again, this is all so much masturbation… it’s not going to happen.

Sorry Oliver, but what YOU think the supers should do and what they’re actually allowed to do are two entirely different things. Don’t like it? Push Dean and the party to change the process for next time.

I suspect that if the situation was reversed and Hillary had the lead (but not a lock), you would be telling us that the supers should disregard “the choice of the people” and vote in the best interests of the party, look at electability in the general election, etc, etc, etc. In other words, vote for Obama.

When was Mr. “Kryptonite to Stupid” kidnapped and replaced by Veruca Salt?

Look, let this go. All candidates agreed that Florida and Michigan were going to get shafted by their local Democratic machines’ inability to follow the rules. HRC didn’t make any major noise about “those poor, poor voters” until it became clear that she wasn’t just going to steamroll over the entire field.

The only fair and practical solution is to split the delegates in half, but HRC refuses this solution because–go figure–it won’t allow her to win.

If you’re a super (and what the heck, why aren’t you?), then YOU: not me, not Dean, not the voters in your district/county/state, YOU, get to decide who to vote for. Like it or not, the Democratics before you set up this system for good or for ill, and it takes 2024 to get the nomination. Obama can’t get there without “stealing” some Supers himself.

4). Super Delegates. Finally is a fact that is generally overlooked by pundits. At the close of the primaries, Obama will not need a stampede of Super Delegates to clinch the nomination. In fact he will only need about 40% of those that remain today.

Let’s make the most conservative assumptions about the outcome of the remaining races: Guam, even; North Carolina, 58%-42% Obama; Indiana, 54%-46% Clinton; Kentucky, 60%-40% Clinton; West Virginia, 60%-40% Clinton; Oregon, 56%-44% Obama, Montana 56%-44% Obama; Puerto Rico, 60%-40% Clinton. That would leave Obama at 1,846 delegates at the close of the Primaries.

He would need only 41% of the Super Delegates remaining today to clinch the nomination with 2,025. And let’s remember, he has picked up almost one Super Delegate a day for the last month. There is no reason to believe he won’t keep picking up Super Delegates as the contest continues. So by the end of the primaries he will need an even lower percentage of the Super Delegates that remain.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/last-night-clinton-won-th_b_98165.html

What happened in 2000 is completely different. The Supreme Court should not decide the president.

On the other hand, super delegates are entitled to decide the nominee when the race is close.
The problem with your comment is that you implies that supers should not exists. What’s their role if they can only confirm the lead in normal delegates?
They’re there exactly to subvert a small (where small is “not enough to reach 2025″) lead in pledget if they want so.
Tell me what the supers are for?

The 2000 election was stolen because the Supreme Court practically decided to assign delegates to Bush that in reality should have been assigned to Gore. Sorry but I think this is steal election. Make the super delegates have their choice as provided by the rules, is not stealing, get over it.

You guys can try to justify it any way you can – apparently the voters in Illinois don’t matter because that’s where Obama’s from and I guess you guys are ok with stripping Sen. Clinton’s NY delegates using the same standard – but there is no way for Sen. Clinton to now overtake Obama in delegates. I believe she’s supposed to get about 12 or so net delegates out of PA, which still gives something like 140-150 lead to Obama (although even if it were 1 delegate he still has the lead).

This Hillary’s tactics are non exixstent.
1) Repeatedly Hillary said, in an extremely clear way, that she will do anything to help Obama become president if he is the nominee. Did you heard something similar from Obama? Not. What Michelle Obama said when asked about this thing? “I’m not sure. I have to think about it”. Good way to unite the party…

2) As I said in my previous comment, if Hillary gets the nomination she wouldn’t have steal anything. And, as every polls irrefutably shows, also Obama can’t win in November without the votes of Hillary (whose voters are more likely to vote McCain or stay at home than Obama’s voters).

I’m sorry, but no she wouldn’t.
The rule is: you reach 2025 delegates and you are the nominee. Otherwise it means the race is close, almost tied.
That 2025 is the threshold that if not reached imply the race is very close.

What happens when the race is close? Supers get to choose… the one they want. They can have their choice based on several factors: pledged delegates, popular vote count (including or not including Florida obviously, since in Florida votes have been casted), electability, simpaty, whatever.

When the race is close, like this one is, the decision belongs to supers, so stop bitching about stealing. These are the rules.

By your logic, won’t Obama also have to STEAL the election?

If the use of superdelegates to reach the required threshold is your definition of theft, both Obama and Clinton will need to do so.

But glad you’re so objective.

Also, if we’re talking about STEALING, what about disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan? After all, it was Obama and Dean that stopped any possibility of a revote (because, among other things, mail in ballots are so undemocratic).

Obama 08 = Bush 00. They’re both unity candidates that are Rorschach blots. Both received great support from the rich. And both are not above disenfranchising the voters of Florida to win.