UPDATED AND BUMPED: As I have been telling you since January 20, 2008, the Democratic nomination will be decided by the super delegates and not the voters. Hot Air just picked up on this, as did Ace. Open Left has this:
From this point, quick math shows that after Super Tuesday, only 1,428 pledged delegates will still be available. Now, here is where the problem shows up. According to current polling averages, the largest possible victory for either candidate on Super Tuesday will be Clinton 889 pledged delegates, to 799 pledged delegates for Obama. (In all likelihood, the winning margin will be lower than this, but using these numbers helps emphasize the seriousness of the situation.) As such, the largest possible pledged delegate margin Clinton can have after Super Tuesday is 937 to 862. (While it is possible Obama will lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, it does not currently seem possible for Obama to have a larger lead than 75). That leaves Clinton 1,088 pledged delegates from clinching the nomination, with only 1,428 pledged delegates remaining. Thus, in order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates. Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out.
WATCH THIS SITE!
End Update
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I mentioned in this thread that Hillary Clinton was declared the winner in Nevada, but Barak Obama was awarded the most delegates. I asked how that could be. Noel asks if this will get press coverage. I wanted to share with you the Democratic Party’s delegate process.
Democratic Super Delegates Explained Party Relies On Super Delegate Guidance
Former President Bill Clinton may play a bigger role in the nomination of the Democratic candidate for president than many people realize. The former president is a “super delegate” to the nominating convention in Denver in August.
Clinton is joined by Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, many state governors, members of Congress, retired congressional leaders and all of the national committee members for the Democrats. Each member of the super delegate group, which consists of about 850 people, exercises more power in the nominating process than other delegates. The Republican Party does not use the same system.
There are more than 4,000 delegates in the Democratic National Convention. Some are “pledged” delegates based on voter support in state elections. Nearly 40 percent of them are super delegates whose support is not pledged to a particular candidate. Candidates must obtain 2,025 votes to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
Super delegates can vote for any candidate in the Democratic nominating process. They are not tied to a candidate based on voter preferences in any state. Super delegates may also announce their support for any candidate prior to an election. But because they are “unpledged” delegates to the convention, they may shift their support to another candidate at any time.
The 1972 Democratic National Convention produced George McGovern as the Democratic presidential nominee. Although he won the nomination by a wide margin, he lost the presidency in a landslide to Richard Nixon, winning only one state and 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Because of this, the Democratic Party instituted super delegates as a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process. Political experts say this system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate.
The Nation brought this up after the Iowa Caucus where we saw Barak Obama declared the winner. Remember that Iowa was the first state to head to the polls and Hillary Clinton came in third in that state, but this is how the delegate totals looked:
Clinton – 169
Obama – 66
Edwards – 47
Allahpundit posted: Stupid: Obama camp spinning Nevada loss as delegate win. According to DNC rules, the delgates are what makes the winner.
Talk Left seems to think that: Obama Trying To Play Bush To Hillary’s Gore, but the reality is, he is playing by the rules the the Democrats set up. Did they have anything to say when Hillary took the majority of the delgates in Iowa?
It appears that MSNBC agrees with Obama
The 2008 Convention Watch has a great piece here. This link to the DNC explains a bit more for us:
UNPLEDGED AND PLEDGED PARTY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DELEGATES
The procedure to be used for certifying unpledged party leader and elected official delegates is as follows:
Not later than March 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall officially confirm to each State Democratic Chair the names of the following unpledged delegates who legally reside in their respective state and who shall be recognized as part of their state’s delegation unless any such member has publicly expressed support for the election of, or has endorsed, a presidential candidate of another political party;1. The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,
2. The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
3. All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
4. The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
5. All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.
Via Memeorandum, Chris asks who won Nevada. Chris should really do his readers a favor and shed some light on why the fight erupted in the first place.
Here is the CNN Scoreboard
Dan Riehl says Obama won the delegates
Ed says:Barack’s Nightmare?
Upon review of this subject matter, you’ll have to forgive me for not feeling to sorry for Bill Clinton
Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Stix Blog, Shadowscope, Big Dog’s Weblog, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, InvestorBlogger dot com, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, Stageleft, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
50- Gee Ted, your main difference seems to be exactly what I was getting at, and also one of the biggest factors of what has changed since the days of Reagan. We are bombarded with 24/7 coverage and information is at our fingertips instantaneously..Seems it really isn’t a tired mantra.
You pointed out one show, 60 minutes, to show me that the media was biased in 1982? That, in your opinion, counters “you didn’t have journalists endorsing campaigns, nor anchors laughing at a speech..Today we see the alphabet networks openly pushing their democrat candidate of choice on us..”?
51.
Perhaps you should re read what I said. Commentary on the anchors, and there were actually op-ed article in the 80′s Pam. Most of those people who were writing then and well known political pundits (anchors and op ed writers) now: Bob Woodward, Walter Cronkite, etc, etc. Bias abounded in the 80′s, folks were just ignorant of it. It was more than just one show. And all you have to do is look at the practices of newspapers endorsing a candidate to see this also. All you have to do is examine the covereages of those candidates.
There are many more outlets available now due to cable and the internet. However, that doesn’t mean the available outlets in the 80′s weren’t biased. They were. Just look at how they covereed Reagan himself. The networks really disliked him, painted him as a bigot as a single example.
Your “times are changing” in relationship to a candidate IS a tired mantra for sure. The same thing 200 years ago should be expected now: honesty, integrety, holding the citizen’s best interests above all others. None of them do it, No REpuplican and no Democrat. Chanting “times are changing” is no excuse to expect otherwise.