Monday, June 23, 2008

If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Switched their Super Delegate totals, Hillary Clinton would be the Presumptive Nominee!

Besides the "Great 12 State Fiasco" in which Hillary Clinton wins 11 of 12 States and picks up 555 delegates while Barack Obama LOSES those same 11 of 12 states and picks ups 550 delegates, there is the Caucus Theft Caper in which Barack Obama doubles the amount of delegates Hillary Clinton gets even though polling shows in many of those caucus contests the two were a lot closer together in popularity, which now brings us to "The Charge of the Super Delegate Brigade".

Even with all the manipulation done to help Barack Obama eeke out a delegate victory over Hillary Clinton, did you know that if the Super Delegate numbers were simply switched, Hillary getting Barack's total, and Barack getting Hillary's total, Hillary Clinton would actually be the presumptive nominee.

So the reason this was not allowed to happen was because of the caucus contests, that clearly did nothing to accurately and fairly reflect the will of the voters in those states.

All I ask is that all caucus contests be revoted using a primary style of voting, and that these primaries be funded by the american military reducing their fuel consumption by 10% for just a couple of days. That's all it would take to pay for the revote.

8 comments:

rationalpsychic said...

I voted in a caucus state. Let's get over it and beat the Republicans.

Lordlokipv said...

I voted for Hillary, And to me it not weather your Democrat or republican it who is best for the job, I was voted Democrat, because they were better for the job,, Now ,, I would rather see McCain, win this one, Obama will really screw this country up, bush already screwed it up as it is , now barack will run it to the ground, And I care about my country to much to let that happen, if you want thing to stay the same vote for McCain, if you want thing to get 100% worst vote for obama, man is a liar and, is dangerous, I am sorry to those who blindly going to vote for Obama because he a democrat, If Hitler a democrat your going to vote for him please tell me not so, This election I have to who is better or who will not screw it up as much,, that is Obama,, weather you like it or not, The truth hurts,
And when you have Obama supporter on MSNBC saying at the time between hillary and obama, Obama supporter said if Obama don't win the primary, they will Vote for McCain, if Obama support can say they will do it, then it should be ok for Hillary supporter to do the same,, You can not have it both ways, and the obama camp know it, Trust us all Hillary Voter Hillary lost, Fair and square, it over we are over it, It still doesn't mean that barack is getting our votes or hillary voter. He need her vote, remember Barack only have half the democratic votes,, he may pick up 1/3 to half of hillary voters not enough to win,

Anonymous said...

OMG you have officially crossed the threshold of insanity

you're right, if all of the superdelegates switched, hillary'd bet the nominee. and if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

A.M. said...

That's not what I said. I said if they switched the number of super delegate votes each got, Hillary would have won and Barack would have lost.

In tandem with the caucus scandal and no fair reflection as I demonstrate in my http://www.FAIR-REFLECTION.com blog, the case is there that Hillary should be the nominee.

Donald Brown said...

I'm an Iowan, and I'm proud of our caucus system. No, not every state should be a caucus, but some states having a system where those participating actually get together and work things out is a good thing.

And Florida and Michigan shouldn't have gotten any delegates at all. Look, because of states moving their schedule up, the contest started stupidly early. The ONLY control a party has over the schedule is, if you break the schedule, it doesn't count and your delegates don't get seated. If the Democrats had completely caved, the first contest for the 2012 election would be held in early fall of 2011. With only the partial cave, it still might happen.

This long drawn-out nomination system has been bad for the party. And for those who are worried about the implications of money in politics, longer nominations means more $$ and more nominations necessary.

The only "caucus scandal" is that you guys don't like the results from them.

A.M. said...

It is nice to get feedback from somebody from the state of Iowa. By the way I feel the flooding that went on could have reduced if the rivers had been periodically dredged by a government run program.

--------------------------------

If the DNC had "caved" you claim there would have been chaos in 2012.

I believe that If a primary dating method is used, all the states would happily oblige.

Here is what I would do to prevent from happening what you claim will happen. I would categorize all states into four group sizes based on electoral college size.

One from each electoral college size group would have their democratic nominee elections every two weeks. I would establish the initial order by putting the states in the first set of elections based on the highest voting percentages in the prior presidential election, and so on down the line. I would then rotate that order every four years so that everyone gets earlier dates rotated in even if their voting percentage is not the highest or near the top.

I would also do one more thing. One additional state can jump to the first week as well IF they have the highest vote total percentage in the previous presidential election among all the remaining states. I would allow this "fifth state" or wildcard, to be allowed to be added for every remaining set of elections.

Once actual voting percentages in the prior presidential election are factored in, then states will at least see that no matter what may be going on behind the scenes, they can still move nearer to the front depending on their own states presidential voting percentage during the last presidential election.

There are a lot issues that you didn't bring up.

While I agree that the state of Iowa probably does a fine job of weeding through the presidential candidates, is it, or is it not true, that your state tends to not vote for women for poltical office when the opportunity is there?

Secondly, apparently John Edwards basically moved to Iowa and practically lived there for a couple of year before the Iowa caucuses. That level of pandering is not necessarily a good thing, is it?

Hillary Clinton was facing one candidate who practically moved to the area (Edwards), another candidate who's own state of Illinois actually borders Iowa (Obama), women are not generally well received, add in the strategy of sharing voting blocks among certain candidates to ensure they finish in the top four, and we have a system that although solid in many respects, also has some holes in it as well.

It is common knowledge that Edwards, Richardson, and Obama pooled their resources to balance out their voting blocks from precinct to precinct. It is also probable that later on Edwards released his own caucus voters to vote for Obama in the Caucus state contests held in February. Notice that Edwards quit just before the caucus contests in February.

Lets also not forget that Obama gained a huge advantage by being able to impress Iowa voters by bragging that he took his name off of the Michigan ballot.

It is erroneous to punish Michigan without first examining WHY they moved their contest date forward. They did so because Michigan was desperate to be heard and have their wishes acknowledged by the democratic candidates. This is a valid premise for moving a primary date forward as the auto industry has been decimated in the state of Michigan.

On top of that, North Caroline got 28 EXTRA delegates FOR NOT moving up. Was Michigan offered such a deal?

And Florida basically was hamstrung by its own republican led legislature.

At the end of the day, Barack Obama pandered to Iowa by taking his name off of the Michigan ballot, and then was given a break by being given a huge amount of delegates from Michigan.

Anonymous said...

I support your right to operate and maintain a blog about this, but don't you find it ironic that you claim you're being censored for opposing Obama, yet you support a message board (hillaryclintonforum.net) that bans people for having an opposing viewpoint?

A.M. said...

Yes and no. There are so many shill groups out there that purport to be "democratic" but are support groups for Barack Obama. Daily Kos, democratic underground, mydd, Huffington Post.

I kind of like the fact there is a place where Obama supporters are not welcome. It's actually a breathe of fresh air in what has been one of the most fraudulent media reporting in a campaign that I can remember.

The problem with the Obama side is there is around a 30% rabidly educated, arrogant, "progressive" group that are insufferable to communicate with.

You sound like you are not one of those 30%. but 30% is pretty high but what can be considered uncivil, unethical supporters of Barack Obama.