Why are we going against the will of America? Not enough Democrats want Obama. Hillary and Barack have both lost the contest.
If you're going to allow the stupid superdelegate process they can vote whoever they want in the stupid system.Why are Obama supporters going to allow superdelegates to hand Obama the nomination?
nuts electing nuts
why would we not allow superdeleggates to hand Obama the nomination?Why are Obama supporters going to allow superdelegates to hand Obama the nomination?
What is your suggestion?
Hopefully, the supers will vote for who has the best and only chance of beating McCain (Hillary)Why are Obama supporters going to allow superdelegates to hand Obama the nomination?
It is because they are disciples not supporters. They follow blindly.
Nobody ever said that either candidate had to win the majority of state votes.
And your question is very odd if you're a Republican, since Bush essentially STOLE the last 2 elections against the will of the majority of the people.
What is your solution ?
The rules were established before the primaries began. If you want to CHANGE the rules in the middle of the game then at least come up with a suggestion of what you want done.
What say YOU ?
The superdelegate votes will practically disenfranchised the state votes which is something bad in the system followed in the nomination of the party for the President.
Since neither candidate will have the magic number to clinch the nomination then super delegates will throw their support behind the candidate who has the most votes, most pledged delegates, and most states won.
Now that is a fair outcome. So why are you whining?
Agreed. Whatever happens, the superdelegates will decide this election, most likely at the convention this August.
Let's say for the sake of argument we were totally opposed to the superdelegates handing Obama the nomination, as you put it.
Given that they can vote however they please, and we have no control over that, the word "allow" doesn't even come in to it.
In other words, yours is a rather inane question.
Senator Obama has more states won (double by comparison); more delegates; and holds the most voters by populous. By contrary its mathematically impossible for Hillary Clinton to mustard the lead, with the remaining races scheduled.
With this in mind; and the feuding between and within the Democratic Party; if would be a well advantageous to invest in the person with the lead and who is more electable. Thereby putting the tension on the back burner giving ample time to heal within the party; prior to the General Election in November with a more unified front of the DNC. There is no way the Republicans can overcome or retain the White House with a united DNC.
You've got it all wrong. Obama is ahead. The superdelegates are going to insure his nomination. Educate yourself.
Actually, goto the dnc website, he was on CNN a couple hours ago and said if the super delagates dont choose a candidate very soon, he will have come to some type of compromise, that he would use his power to step in (because neither candidate will have the amount to win) and just appoint someone else altogether. He said, "This isnt about obama and hillary, this is about whats right for America."
Just because Obama is slightly ahead due to the fact that certain segment of the population voted for him (as if it were a popularity contest) doesn't mean that he's the most electable. Sorry....but he is not! The super delegates now seem not to want to have that burden, I guess they just wanted to party %26amp; they never thought it would come to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment