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.
“…The DNC’s Insurance Policy Against The Stupid Voters”
The problem with this concept is that the DNC relies on stupid voters to get their candidates elected come November. *heh*
I’m beginning to wonder David. 40% is a huge percentage to be decided by a “super delegate”…
Liberal demacratic donkey brains the size of a walnut at least the faitful four legged one is more loyal and more intellegent:))
This super delegate thing ensures that the elitists will have their candidate, damn the grass roots and the peons.
I hope it will be their undoing. It will ensure HilLiary will be the candidate, which itself is good. But my prediction still stands that she will offer Obama the VP slot. That combination could be very effective.
It took awhile to be used, but this will come into play this year…
Democrats just can’t help stuffing the ballotbox, even their own!
I posted this so that we can all see just how unfair the system is. Republicans are far from perfect,we all know that, yet may not want to admit it, but a voter going in to cast their ballot for a Democrat should know that they are the nominating process. This tells me that for all the preaching about being a big tent, blah blah blah..just cast a vote and we will let you know if we agree or not! They will tell the people how to lead their lives including who is best to do it..
22, just remember this when the Donkeys come here braying about every vote should count, except the military’s.
All I know is that at this point if I even vote, it is going to be for Hillary.
A vote for Hillary is the only true vote for conservatism!
How is Hillary a conservative?
Never said she was.
But as I stated before, to get a real consverative leader in the Whitehouse (which none of the curent crop really are), you are going to have to really hurt the pocketbooks of the citizens. I have no doubt Hillary will do that.
This is what happened when Reagan was elected. Carter hurt everyone’s pocket books so bad that there was a real need for a good conservative to save the country and that man emerged. We have no such thing in the less than mediocre field of so called “conservatives” that the Republicans are offering.
So now folks are gonna tell me this: support the lesser of two evils. Vote for whoever the Republicans put up.
NO!
Supporting the “lesser of two evils” is still supporting evil. If I vote (still doubtful at this point in time) I may vote for Hillary and she is indeed evil, but I am not gonna support her. I am supporting the end result: getting a good conservative that will buck the system in the Whitehouse. If the Repoublicans don’t wake up, then it’s over for them for a long while becasue looking at the feild of morons you folks are putting up is just as pathetic as what the Dems are showing me.
But Good God, look at the damage Peanut Brain did:
1. Set the stage for the emergence of Iran as a leading terrist power in the ME. Turned a former ally into a mortal enemy.
2. Gave away the Panama Canal. Who runs it now? China? Wouldn’t surprise me.
3. Ran the U.S. Military into the ground. What was left of Esprit de Corps after Vietnam was utterly destroyed by Carter. I know; I was in Army boot camp one year after the fall of Saigon.
4. Did his best to wreck the economy with 18% interest rates and stagflation. NOTHING was going on then.
5. Was a total idiot with energy policy; do you all remember the 1979 gas and energy “crisis”? I haven’t forgot.
The economic stuff we could survive (although it would be painful) but could we survive another Carter-like foreign policy disaster? The world has grown up since 1976 and the enemies are worse, imo. at least the Soviets didn’t want to die.
We simply cannot have HilLiary/Obama for President.
Ted, do you think Fred Thompson is a moron? I sure don’t.
Robert: What are your thoughts on a Fred/McCain ticket? I like Fred, I just don’t care for John!
Voting for McCain makes as much sense as getting drunk and yelling at a tiger.
I agree. I just can’t hang with some of McCain’s issues. I could vote for Thompson/Romney.
I also do not think Romney is a moron. I don’t know much about him, and I may have to educate myself on that soon. But I do not see the Republican/Democrite field as being a bunch of morons.
Edwards on the left and Huckabee on the right represent pandering fools to the nth degree!
I like Mitt and think that a Mitt/Fred ticket would be wise!
JMO…
Mitt isn’t a part of the problem and Fred wasn’t a part of the problem..
“Ted, do you think Fred Thompson is a moron? I sure don’t.”
I think Fred Thompson is about a good a leader as a cinder block. He inspires nothing, can barely run his campaign let alone a country.
He voted for a flag burning amendment, which scares the bejebus outta me. He is also pro-free trade, which means he’s in the corporations pockets.
You can have the moron.
See, these aren’t just policy differences, these are fatal flaws people. Like Thompson…pro free trade and anti-free speech?
God help us.
“The world has grown up since 1976 and the enemies are worse, imo. at least the Soviets didn’t want to die.”
If this is the single most compelling argument you have for voting or a candidate then your man should me Guiliani. No one will kill terrorist faster or with more fervor than he will.
But I won’t vote for him, becasue there are more than one way to kill a country.
Ted, I don’t think that that was Robert’s only reason, but it is a big one. I know your position on the candidates and your vote, but I don’t agree with you. It seems that you are willing to allow destruction in the hopes of the second coming of a Ronald Reagan..This isn’t 1980. We are living in a global world with a global market. We have NAFTA to contend with..The landscape of anytown USA has changed from the Mom and Pop stores to big-box and large department stores. It isn’t coming back.
40.
Egads Pam…do you have any idea how scary you sound. Really…read what you said.
What you have stated is the downfall of America. You are looking at China owning a huge amount of America Treasury Fundsand the Saudi governement (not the people, but the GOVERNEMENT) buying the American banking systems, shruggiing your shoulders and saying “Oh well.”
I don’t want Ronald Reagan and I don’t expect it. What I do expect though is someone who is at least acceptable, that at least has America and her citizerns best interest in mind.
I’m listening to Romney endorsing this “stimuls package” as I type this. This is EXACTLY what we don’t need- both the founding fathers and Reagan had that commonality. Gubmint interference just makes things WORSE.
What I want is someone with integrity and you folks nor the Dems are showing me that.
I am not saying “Oh Well”, I am saying that it needs to be dealt with now, not after 4 or 8 years and it has gotten worse.
I speak of the Mom and Pop stores from a reality based perspective..The average citizen is going to shop a Wal-mart,Kmart, or Ace Hardware over a higher priced locally owned operation..Why? Money! We have gotten a taste of choice and better pricing.
“I am not saying “Oh Wellâ€, I am saying that it needs to be dealt with now, not after 4 or 8 years and it has gotten worse.”
Then explain what you meant by:
“This isn’t 1980. We are living in a global world with a global market. We have NAFTA to contend with..The landscape of anytown USA has changed from the Mom and Pop stores to big-box and large department stores. It isn’t coming back.”
How do you want to deal with it? For sure if you are saying it needs to be dealt with none of the bozos your party is offering is going to do so, with the exception of Ron Paul (and God help us if HE gets elected!)
Oh and one other thing.
“We are living in a global world with a global market.”
In a free market society such as America’s there is no such thing as a global market. Our free market society (owned Americas, BTW) dictates that when business competes in the free market all things are equal. This simply is not so in the global market. All things are not equal for business to compete in. labor costs are at inequity and we are the highest taxing business nation in the world. As I watch not just help desk and manufacturing jobs but profesionals position such as accouting a lawfirms go over seas I can painly see the effect of an open boarder policy: The average Americn wage will continue to plummet and standards of living reduced.
What you folks who shrugg their shoulders and go “Oh well, it a global market now” fail to realize is that it has always been one.
So what’s changed?
The one peice of leverage we have is that our market is the biggest and most profitable in the world.
Voting in HilLiary to save the U.S. reminds me of Vietnam: “We destroyed the village in order to save it.”
Ronald Reagan was not 100% either. He had his share of problems.
The perfect President probably does not exist.
Fred Thompson inspires me. Listening to his plain talk, absent the flip-flopping, pandering, and mealy-mouthed weasel words that come from too many others, inspires me. Thompson is a true conservative. That inspires me.
Can’t run a campaign? You mean the theatrics? You mean the phony posturing, pandering, and misrepresentation in front of the MSM cameras? Selling out for contributions?
I don’t need that. If everyone thought like me Thompson wouldn’t need a campaign. State his position, present his record, and he’d be elected.
Too bad more don’t think like me.
Ronald Reagan was not 100% either. He had his share of problems.”
Of course, no man is perfect. But these men don’t deserve to stand in Reagan’s shadow
“Can’t run a campaign? You mean the theatrics? You mean the phony posturing, pandering, and misrepresentation in front of the MSM cameras? Selling out for contributions?”
No, I mean inspiring enough to want people to vote for him, like they did Reagan.
It is now self evident that he can’t run a campaign, as he is no longer campaigning.
“I don’t need that. If everyone thought like me Thompson wouldn’t need a campaign. State his position, present his record, and he’d be elected.”
I stated it before which you conveniently skipped. Conservatives are no in the corporation’s pockets, pro free trade and anti free speech. These are not conservative values. Pro free market is. Being a globalist like Thompson is NOT being pro free market.
“No, I mean inspiring enough to want people to vote for him, like they did Reagan.”
Reagan ran against Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984.. Let’s not pretend that he had great obstacles to overcome..he inspired many of us, but we were at a turning point in this nations history. We were fed up with high taxes, long gas lines, Iran, and Vietnam was still on many a mind.
Reagan didn’t have an MSM that the candidates of today have..In those days, the newspapers were not pages filled with personal opinion. Journalists took the time to present a balanced story..lay the facts out and let the chips fall where they may..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..
Much has changed since the days of Ronald Reagan.
49.
I was speaking specifically to Thompson when I said that. Tell me it isn’t true, if you can. Thompson’s shortcoming was wexactly what I stated and the fact that he is a globalist.
And please don’t tell me the MSM was unbiased in the 80′s- that just isn’t the truth. Just a cursory look at the anchors speaks volumes. You just weren’t aware of it as you are now. hell, thee wa a whole show dedicated to biased journalism…it was called 60 Minutes.
“Much has changed since the days of Ronald Reagan” is a tired mantra. Most Amerian politics have been relatively constant since the 1900′s from a historical viewpoint. Many then were just as strident and venomous in the lashings as they give now . The main difference is now some people are more aware of what goes on. You don’t have a 3 day old story biased published in a newspaper or on a network as your only source of information. Some people are aware that you have to put on your bullshit goggles now when ever you read anything that is remotely political, fropm global warming to the Iraq War.
Yeah…much has changed sicne Reagan and the more things change the more they stay the same. He was indeed a once in a lifetime happening, like Kennedy, Lincoln Washington and a handful of others.
But is that really a reason to settle for less, I mean really? Looking at the feild, I would vote for anyone, Republican or Democrat, who would have a teaspoon of integrity. I’d debate policy later. We just don’t have that, and to be honest because of our complaceny we just aren’t looking for it. I
If we aren’t even looking for it, How the how the hell we gonna find it?