Start A Petition

Democratic Country Keeps Its Distance From Obama


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: democrats, clinton, elections, HillaryClinton, obama, politics )

Kathleen
- 3692 days ago - ft.com
No Democrat has been elected to the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916, yet Mr Obama appears to have little chance of winning there in November.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Rhiannon M (602)
Sunday May 11, 2008, 5:50 pm
Noted and read, thank you Kathleen. Its a very critical in my humble opinion about what the USA has become in many areas~ I call it the 'fast food country/people'. Not to slur those who do not fall in this area. The majority of people I have heard or talked to, want their news, food, transportation, like fast food...easy to get, not too many choices, and media fed. We as a nation have forgotten how to think for ourselves, we don't search for the real answers, and its a fact the newspapers, TV, all media are in the business of making money. You can bet the 'spin doctors' of the campaign work 7/24 to convince you why they are the best ..whether its a candidate. auto, pc, everything. I think many saw it in action when the 'war on terrorism' became a war in Iraq. Now I do not profess to know everything, but I do have questions that the Obama campaign has yet to answer and many things are not adding up. So I try to look at the Senate voting record so I can see what was voted for, what not, and how many times no vote was given....that can give a lot of info.
Sorry Kathleen, I got carried away...I am not a supporter of the antiquated idea of 2 party system or the electoral college. I don't think they are the best service to all the citizens of the USA. But as the saying goes ... thats just one person's opinion and we all know about opinions.
Thank you so much Kathleen. Great work!
 

Blue B (855)
Monday May 12, 2008, 10:04 am
What a crock! Why do you continue to post lies, Kathleen?

 

Kathleen O (0)
Monday May 12, 2008, 10:40 am
Blue, what lies do I post? If you actually read the article you would see that my description is a quote from the article. I don't post lies, I post links to articles. This article appeared in the Financial Times. Maybe you need a hobby other than sitting at your computer looking for articles and people to make nasty comments about.
 

Lori S (16)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 10:04 am
Interesting article. It's always nice to see what others are saying, whether I agree with them or not. I personally would like to see a President listen to what people are saying, rather than just picking and choosing what they only want to hear.
Reading that people will base their votes on wearing or not wearing a flag pin or that people "heard" a rumor that one is atheist or muslim reminds me of just how diverse Americans are, not to mention what is considered important to people.
So Thank you Kathleen - there is alot of truth in that article, but a different kind of truth for me. Keep submitting!
Love to all!
 

Maria V (60)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 12:20 pm
Obama will not be nominated. Clinton will. Even though we will learn a whole lot about Obama in the coming days..he will not be in the White House. I do see Clinton in the White House if not in this term it will be the next. She was born to lead.
 

Mary Noble (5)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 12:49 pm
Clinton will not be nominated. Obama will. Even though we will learn a whole lot about Clinton in the coming days..she will not be in the White House. I do see Obama in the White House if not in this term it will be the next. He was born to make friends of enemies and work with all world leaders!!!
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 1:01 pm
I think it is odd that the Senator who wants to be the first woman president wants to be an aggressive alpha male kind of leader.

We've had eight years of alpha male, obliterate your enemies style leadership. Talking to those who disagree with you takes a different kind of strength. Kennedy had it. Obama has it. Clinton doesn't. Whether enough people value that kind of strength is another question.
 

Florence Frey (6)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 1:06 pm
This article just goes to show how the general public can be "bought" by media lies. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could have voted for Bush not once, but twice!! People need to read and think, not take the media as gospel.
 

Maria V (60)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 1:30 pm
Mary, very original:) I am flattered. That is part of his problem he does have interesting friends - that most Americans would do not associate with. Most, if not all, Americans are more concern about the high cost of food, fuel and the environment, and what is going on here at home. In the last democratic polls Iraq and terrorism is at the bottom of the list, so far down it is about to fall off. Iraq and terror is more for the Republicans. Foreign enemies and world leaders are at the bottom of list too. But that is Obama's problem, he does not want to be An American Leader - he wants to be a World "rock star." As for Clinton being an alpha male, will women can have just as big cajones as the next male. And that is a good thing too, because the minute a democratic (Clinton) is sworn in, there will be another terror attack and she will have to be alpha male about it. Lets not forget how regretful Bill Clinton was not to do something about OBL, and I am sure eights in the white house Hillary Clinton was privy to a lot domestic and foreign information, plus her years in the senate. Obama? Right he lived as a child in Indonesia,his middle name is Hussein. A couple of years in the senate where he voted PRESENT 130 TIMES. And when he did voted it was soooooooo far left - that it even shocked my friends the ulter San Francisco liberals. When I said you will learn a lot more about Obama - I was alluding to that you will hear information that will stop his path to the White House. But don't take my word for it... time is passing quickly. Clinton will be President, she is very intuitive and she is listening to her inner voice.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 4:56 pm
If the HILDABEAST is nominated it will disenfranchise the BLACK VOTE. If BARAK OSAMA is nominated it will disenfranchise the HILDABEAST'S GROUP'ES and the longer the fight goes on the more DISENFRANCHISED the DNC will become. It seems like no one is going to win in this election. The Democrats cant figure out what there doing, Florida and Michigan Dem's are going to be really pissed off no matter what is decided about their delegates and us Republicans cant stand the democrat who has an "R" after his name who's almost as liberal as OSAMA himself is. So i guess were all SH-T out of luck this go around.
 

Mary F (8)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 7:25 pm
Just because the population of West Virginia has more than its fair share of ignorant and uneduated voters it should not be taken as a reflection of the entire U.S.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 8:59 pm
Although West Virginia isn't the liberal bastion of the left coast shouldn't be any reason to make the same mistake that OSAMA did in SAN FRANSILLY and declare that West Virginians are uneducated, gun toting, religious zealots Mary. I know a lot of HIGHLY educated individuals that are to stupid to tie their own shoes but yet there still allowed to vote. Besides they overwhelmingly vote Democrat so i guess you were right about them being uneducated.
 

Maria V (60)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 11:07 pm
Kevin is right(no pun intended.)I am so fed up and dismayed with the inability of the DNC to run their primary right.. I may wake up "right" lol. Regardless of your education or lack there of.. as long as you were born, as they like to say, in "these United States of America" and you are of legal age your vote counts! It is imperative that DNC puts into account the key demographics in the crucial states that will put a Democrat in the White House. And for the record, California - a BIG crucial state with a very "affluent", "educated" and young (or pays top dollar $$$$ too look ten years younger) latte drinking, I pay $3,000 rent for a one bedroom apartment state, voted for Clinton. And this was prior to the racist pastor surfacing and the elitist comment - so go figure.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 11:37 pm
"West Virginia is hostile territory for Mr Obama because it has few of the African-Americans and affluent, college-educated whites who provide his strongest support. The state has the lowest college graduation rate in the US, the second lowest median household income, and one of the highest proportions of white residents, at 96 per cent."

Even more interesting:

"Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president,” he said."

What does one have to do to be considered a "full blooded american"? I thought that to be president you had to be at least 35 years of age and natural born citizen of the U.S.

I wonder how Mr. Fry feels about the "full-blooded" american we have in the white house now.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 11:39 pm
Mary F writes:

"Just because the population of West Virginia has more than its fair share of ignorant and uneducated voters it should not be taken as a reflection of the entire U.S."

You can say that again.
 

Maria V (60)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 12:56 am
This is what I was afraid of...stereotyping people. Educated people can and do say ignorant and hurtful comments to and about people. Uneducated people can give great and uplifting insight to and about people. As far as I am concern both sides "ignorant" and "educated" have said hurtful and disgustingly ignorant comments about their fellow democrats. This could be the year that can end the democratic party as we know it. In the last election there was a lot of talk about getting back to what being democratic is... and we have not done that, and instead we are tearing up our party from within. All the while making the Republican party look Saintly and united. It is very sad. People are using racism as an issue. Why? It is NOT about racism! If racism is an issue... Obama would have not won "white" states in the beginning of the primary and be close to the nomination, as there are not enough African Americans to vote him to victory ... it was because many non black citizens voted for him both rich and poor, educated and uneducated. So what happen? Reverend Wright surfaced, his wife's non patriotic and "mean"comments surfaced. Obama's lack of patriotism, elitist comment, and his friendly association with shady and questionable characters came to light. And all of sudden it is all the blacks are voting for Obama -90%, and the non blacks are voting for Hillary. But if it was a "racist" primary from the start... we would not be sitting here having this discussion ...because Clinton or one of the other white candidates would have won months ago.
 

(0)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 3:07 pm
NOT noted!!!!!!!!
 

Darlene K (356)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 3:57 pm
Very Noted, Kathleen. I have been a faithful Democrat, since 1980 and I voted for Carter. This year I am seriously thinking of stepping out the Democrat Party for the first time, in my voting life. I am a Michigan resident, and the politicians and DNC can plays their games, but not stop my representation by voice or vote. These primaries have been ridiculous. Then to have one of our own candidates block our opportunity of a revote on June 3rd, was it for me. This candidate didn't care about "we the people" or our vote. This candidate only cared about their campaign. Actions speak louder than words on the campaign trail.

The I watch..., out of FEAR, the Dem Party start to rally behind a certain candidate for Fear of losing a base of voters. Well, I can still follow legislation and contact my Senators without choosing to be a Republican or Democrat. Yeah, as a Democrat I was very concerned with balancing the Supreme Court, but not at the expense of our nation's stability and our huge mess in foreign affairs that our President will face these next four years. In my opinion, the human population needs to stop allowing themselves to be programmed, and wake up to truth, so they can think for themselves and remember "who" they really are...
Much Love and Peace...Namaste, Dar
 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 3:59 pm
Maria,

Race was obviously an issue in West Virginia. The NYT wrote yesterday and I quote:

"Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said that race was an important factor in their vote, and more than 8 in 10 of them backed Mrs. Clinton, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls."

 

Past Member (0)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 4:03 pm
Kevin writes:

"Although West Virginia isn't the liberal bastion of the left coast shouldn't be any reason to make the same mistake that OSAMA did in SAN FRANSILLY"

Just out of curiosity, why do you call him Osama?
 

CallCongress WriteObama (162)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 7:14 pm
Kathleen: what country are you referring to? I htink you meant county.

This is a sad, sad article to read, because it really emphasizes how people can be so mislead and so driven by fear and lies. Obama is absolutely not a Muslim, but more people in West Virginia believe that than anywhere else. Jeremiah Wright is a non-issue to anyone who's paying attention, but if one's only info sources are the MSM & talk radio, he's been morphed into Satan, then they are buying it.

Oh, and even if Michelle was an atheist--she is definitely not--then voting against Obama for that belief is prejudice born of fear and ignorance.

“If he is the nominee, the Democrats have no chance of winning West Virginia,” said Missy Endicott, a 40- year-old school administrator. “He doesn’t understand ordinary Americans.”

These people are good, and not stupid, but they are being lied to and they are not getting the info to change their minds. They will need plenty of help before November to gain a real understanding not only of Obama but of the evil wrought by the GOP. And if necessary, Obama can easily win without WV, but that does not mean they will be left behind. Like other desperate Rust Belt states, WV stands to benefit greatly from Obama's vision for reestablishing the working class manufacturing sector in the US.



 

Gorilly G (339)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 7:17 pm
Wellllllllll I am for Obama....Thats all I am gonna say...

Big Gorilly Hugs
 

Darlene K (356)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 7:25 pm
Joe..., what really amazes me.., is that the Democratic Party is in so much denial, that they actually are "clad POSITIVE" that they will have a strong enough Democratic base behind Senator Obama, to beat McCain. Very Strange.
 

Maria V (60)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 9:52 pm
It was very disappointing and telling that Obama was not gracious enough to West Virginians and address them - with a concession speech, congratulate Clinton, and at the very least try to speak to his fellow WV Americans and try to connect with them as the Uniter he so desperately wants to be seen as. The senator instead dismissed it ...well we know she was going to win anyway. Not being highly educated does not make West Virginians, or working folk for that matter, less human and American. It is that arrogrant, dismissive and elitist persona that will cause the death of his political career. Educated or not... they will make note of that and will remember come November. Obama has such a God complex that he is not concern about WV after all there are "57" states in America, loosing WV well not hurt him - - not even 40% - - so he thinks. He needs to stop and look back at all the voters that worshiped him and believed him that now stand in the shadow of the DNC defrauded by Obama's own words, his associations and lame excuses for his closet disdain for America. But now, I noticed that he is sporting a American flag pin. How convenient! He is almost there - what the heck! It will not hurt his less patriot friends and American terrorists surely by now they know where is heart and interest lies. So he hopes that this late in the game wearing an American flag pin - photographed in front of a cross a la Huckabee will win/pulled back the "ignorant", working white folk, and those that fell out of love with him after getting to close for comfort. Amazing and incredibly foolish for him to think we are that simple minded and easy to manipulate. He will not be president. Please consider putting your hopes in another candidate, Clinton or another democratic. Obama will not be in the White house. More disconcerting information is trickling down the pipe line, it is being held back at this time,in my sense, so as to give Mrs. Clinton the opportunity to collect her votes so that there is no question that she was nominated by default. Call me crazy... and I could be wrong... but I feel very strongly about this.
 

C G (63)
Wednesday May 14, 2008, 11:32 pm
Obama will be the next President. There is no way that Clinton will win and all of the spin in the world cannot change what is obvious. The biggest obstacle he faces is not Clinton or McCain, it is the danger he faces from the same forces of hate and corporate power that has struck down previous leaders who represent real change. For those of you who keep trying to play the lame racist card of Jeremiah Wright, you might want to pay attention to how "well" that worked with the two recent Republican candidates who got their asses handed to them trying to use Wright against their Democratic candidate in very conservative districts. All the "original" uses of Hussein and Osama with Obama only exposes the desperation and ignorance of those using it, and as Obama's national victory over Clinton has demonstrated, it has not fooled the American people. So keep throwing flag pins, guilt by association and phony Muslim /hate connections at Obama and continue to be frustrated that he is a remarkable leader who will continue to defy those Karl Rove/Clinton tactics and make people who hope to continue dividing America with hate irrelevant.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 7:42 am
If you think that the Democrat party isnt in shambles just read the posts here. People are so absolutely devided just here on care2, it has been said that OSAMA is a GREAT LEADER, think people HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING WORTH WHILE THE WHOLE TIME HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE so how does that make him a GREAT LEADER. The HILDABEAST has done nothing but ride BILLS COATTAILS if it hadn't been for him she would be absolutely NOTHING exccept a LYING ATTORNEY. Us poor REPUBLICANS are stuck with a LIBERAL who couldn't get elected in his own state as a DEMOCRAT so he decided for his benefit to become a REPUBLICAN just so that he had a chance to get elected. Alan Keyes and Ron Paul are starting to look REALLY REALLY GOOD RIGHT NOW.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 11:24 am
Joe writes:

"This is a sad, sad article to read, because it really emphasizes how people can be so mislead and so driven by fear and lies. Obama is absolutely not a Muslim, but more people in West Virginia believe that than anywhere else."

Yes, but I think in some cases it is a two way street. You cannot force people to believe things about someone that they don't want to. I truly believe there is an element in WV and in other places where people choose to be ignorant of someone because they are different than themselves.

I suspect Obama sized up the situation as he saw it and moved on. I'm not sure.

Dar writes:

"what really amazes me.., is that the Democratic Party is in so much denial, that they actually are "clad POSITIVE" that they will have a strong enough Democratic base behind Senator Obama"

What surprises me is the number of Clinton supporters who stated that they were tired of the Bush regime. They are so tired that they will vote for McCain, who is just like Bush, versus but their support behind Obama. At the very least I think that's hypocritical.

Kevin writes:

"If you think that the Democrat party isnt in shambles just read the posts here. People are so absolutely devided just here on care2, it has been said that OSAMA is a GREAT LEADER"

So Kevin, why do you call him Osama? His name is O-B-A-M-A.

 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 11:27 am
Charlie writes:

"All the "original" uses of Hussein and Osama with Obama only exposes the desperation and ignorance of those using it"

Yeah, the ignorance meter is running really high right now. These people think they are funny by trying to compare him with Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. They are actually showing their true ignorant, bigoted colors.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 11:49 am
Michael you call him O-B-A-M-A i call him O-S-A-M-A because that's how "I" see him. A man is judged by the COMPANY that he keeps. So he keeps company him the RACIST Rev. WRIGHT, Bill Ayers and slew of other DESPOTS. That he expounds MARXIST AND EVEN SOME OUTRIGHT COMMUNIST IDEALS and See's "HIS" country differently then i see it. People here on this site would have you believe that the WEST VIRGINIANS have totally different views of OSAMA then every other place in the country because they have been bombarded with the LIES OF RIGHT WING MEDIA, like W. Virginia is some foreign country that doesn't get the same TV and RADIO as the rest of the country. As 90% of the Conservative base has been PISSED OFF by John McCain "D" Arizona for failing to Attack O-S-A-M-A about the Rev Wright and Bill Ayers controversy it certainly isn't coming from the RIGHT WING CAMP but straight from the HILDABEAST's MOUTH. So YES i truly believe that the DEMOCRAT PARTY is very quickly losing to someone none of "US" conservatives want.
 

Kathleen O (0)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 12:08 pm
"Kathleen: what country are you referring to? I htink you meant county." Joe, I questioned that too. I use the C2NN toolbar, though, and it fills in the title automatically. I even clicked back to the article to check, and that's what the title was. NOW, I checked back and the title has been changed to "W Virginia keeps distance from Obama". I wish I could change the title here, but I can't.

I really don't know how people can keep harping on whites in West Virginia overwhelmingly voting for Hillary as being racist but 92% of blacks voting for Obama in some states is not. And these writers and the TV reporters single out the most idiotic, hillbilly leaning soundbites simply to make Hillary look bad. I can't imagine that the entire state of West Virginia is made up of uneducated, bigoted, lowlife people. About 75% of the people have a High School education as opposed to 80% of the US population; 15% have a Bachelor's Degree as opposed to 24% of the general population (according to West Virginia QuickFacts). The way Obama supporters have talked about West Virgina and Kentucky residents is shameful. Just because they don't support your candidate doesn't make them less important or less valuable than you or your candidate, who discredited them from the beginning. "If I can't win I'm taking my ball and going home!"

I want a president that represents ALL the people of this country. Looks like Obama only sees value in the people who worship him - how can he EVER unite the democrats, much less the country?
 

Darlene K (356)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 1:25 pm
You got that right, Kathleen. Thank you.

Michael, who said I was voting for McCain????????? Lord have mercy....
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 3:31 pm
Dar,

I never said you personally. It's a comment I've heard from a number of Clinton supporters.

Kathleen writes:

"I really don't know how people can keep harping on whites in West Virginia overwhelmingly voting for Hillary as being racist but 92% of blacks voting for Obama in some states is not."

That very could be an example of the reverse being true. I don't like the racism from either side.

"The way Obama supporters have talked about West Virgina and Kentucky residents is shameful."

The Clintonites haven't exactly always been a shining example themselves.

"I want a president that represents ALL the people of this country. Looks like Obama only sees value in the people who worship him - how can he EVER unite the democrats, much less the country?"

Looks like? Would you mind citing a few examples? I think we all want a President that will do those things.

Kevin writes:

"Michael you call him O-B-A-M-A i call him O-S-A-M-A because that's how "I" see him."

I don't know about you, but where I come from I call a man by his proper name. Exactly which of his ideals are communist? The fact that he wants to get universal healthcare for all? Or is it something else?

 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 3:32 pm
Kathleen, you speak of uniting the democrats. Can Hillary truly do this? If there's one thing she has helped to do that is divide the party.
 

Darlene K (356)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 3:55 pm
Michael, Hillary hasn't tried to block any votes of the American people. Hillary wasn't the one who blew off W. Virginia, and didn't even give a speech, after the campaign. Senator Obama is causing his own strife.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 5:29 pm
Yes, Obama did kind of ignore West Virginia.To be completely honest, I think that was a mistake. How big or little a mistake that'll be might not be known for quite a while. I suspect for the Democratic nomination it won't be as big as when he runs against McCain.

How has Obama blocked the votes of the people? Are you referring to 'Florigan'?
 

Darlene K (356)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 6:43 pm
heehee, Florigan...or Michida...lol. Humor is good for the soul!
 

Lori S (16)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 9:24 pm
It's a wonderous thing, living in America and being able to watch the Democratic process of electing a new President. Emotions run high, candidates are running the race -and the people love it. Some, pick their choice early, others wait to find out more. Yes, many people follow and are concerned about issues that may concern them in the future - others prefer the tabloid media aspect of the race.
I do see just how much fear is used to get votes. The innuendo regarding patriotism, Muslim, atheism, Marxism, communism and, relating Mr. Obama's name to the only Osama that people know - now thats what I call preying on the uneducated - I don't even like to use the word uneducated because a person doesn't have to be educated to see through this creative visualization technique. If people say these things long and hard enough, people may believe them, as already shown in this news item.
Who knows, it may work, it seems to have worked for Mr. Bush's second term - and I refer to the innuendo regarding "Iraq and terror being more for the Republicans" (quoted from above) - well, that backfired a bit cause we are certainly reaping what we have sown - his disapproval rating is quite embarressing.
Anyway, I don't believe this is the end of the DNC - this is all part of the democratic process - too many get spoonfed their news and watch the 'entertainment' news and the 'opinion' news instead of doing research on their own, especially now that we have technology and more resources.
I do hope more people will get more focused on the issues that will affect US and our everyday lives as well as our future - as opposed to worrying about is someone has their flag pin on today.
PS- I'm not wearing a flag pin, are you? silly? it's supposed to be - but love to every single one of you.
 

Past Member (0)
Thursday May 15, 2008, 9:58 pm
I don't even own a flag pin. Besides a lot of those are made in China anyway.

 

Past Member (0)
Friday May 16, 2008, 3:31 pm
Total delegate count update:

Obama 1,904

he needs 121 more to clinch to nomination

Clinton 1,717

she needs 308 more to clinch nomination.
 

Kathleen O (0)
Friday May 16, 2008, 4:56 pm
Michael your numbers are not correct. You are including "superdelegates" in your count and unless the DNC changes the rules for Obama they do not count toward the magic number needed for the nomination because those people are not "pledged" delegates and can change their endorsement at any time. The real numbers are:

Obama: 1608.5 (416.5 needed to clinch)

Clinton: 1444.5 (580.5 needed to clinch)

From www.demconvention.com:
"As distinct from the pledged delegates, about 19% of the delegates at the Convention are automatic, “unpledged” delegates; the media often refers to these delegates as the “super delegates.” These individuals serve as delegates by virtue of a position of party leadership they have held, as explained below. While unpledged delegates may as a practical matter have a presidential preference and/or even publicly endorse a candidate, officially they serve at the Convention without being formally pledged to any candidate."

Also from that site (I site I suggest everyone who would like to know how this really works check out):
"Why do these numbers differ from what the media is reporting?

The delegate figures presented in these reports include the actual certification numbers of pledged delegates made to the DNC Secretary by the states. After a state selects its delegates, the State Party certifies to the DNC Secretary the names of those individuals and the presidential candidates to whom they are pledged.

In their reporting, media outlets often include projections and estimates of the allocation of delegates between presidential candidates. Additionally, some media outlets include the public endorsements of unpledged delegates (aka “super delegates”).

Since unpledged delegates do not formally cast their vote until the Convention, their numbers are not included in this map. These are the actual pledged delegate figures certified by State Democratic Parties to the DNC."

So in reality Obama needs more delegates to clinch the nomination than are left to earn and will only be able to get the nomination by a vote at the convention.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday May 19, 2008, 8:07 am
My numbers are not incorrect. The winning candidate won't clinch without the superdelegate total. It's also interesting to note that a good number of the superdelegates have switched from the Clinton camp to the Obama camp.

Chairman Howard Dean said that June 1st would be the deadlines. They wanted a nominee picked by then. I distinctly remember the party saying that they DID NOT want this to drag until August.
 

Kathleen O (0)
Monday May 19, 2008, 9:08 am
Sorry Michael, but your numbers, which include unpledged superdelegates, are NOT accurate. And unless the DNC changes the rules and counts them before the convention there is no way Obama is going to numerically "clinch" the nomination before then. Howard Dean is not God. He will not change the rules to include Florida and Michigan; if he changed the way delegates are allocated in order to favor Obama there would be hell to pay. The party may not want this to "drag until August", but the majority of regular democrats do.

As you pointed out, several superdelegates have switched from Hillary. This is exactly why they DO NOT COUNT at this point in time. They could just as easily switch back to her any time. If the DNC pulls some acrobatics to MAKE this race end early by changing their own rules, whatever candidate they pick will more than likely be seen as illegitimate by fully half the voters. This will kill them in the fall, so I truly hope they just let it play out.

I have learned more about the "democratic process" this primary season than I ever cared to know and I think that is true of many people. The DNC cannot change the rules to benefit one candidate when they have refused to even bend the rules to benefit the other without serious consequences.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday May 19, 2008, 9:40 am
Ok, fine superdelegates out. Clinton is still, according to your math, 164 delegates behind. Howard Dean isn't god and I never said that he was. He gave the June 1st deadline to hopefully reunite the party in time to beat the republicans in november. If this battle drags on till August, the chances of beating the republicans in november will be slim.

I'm really sorry that Florida and Michigan didn't get their delegates included. Had they followed party rules, we wouldn't be in this situation right now. There would already be a nominee.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday May 19, 2008, 9:49 am
I think the real questions is:

How likely are the Obama delegates willing to flip back to Clinton?

I would say at this stage of the game not very likely. While neither candidate can win without the superdelegates, they will most likely look towards the actual committed delegate count. They party also knows that to beat McCain the candidate will have to sway the indies as well as conservative voters.
 

Kevin Carty (10)
Monday May 19, 2008, 5:08 pm
Michael had they counted the votes you are absolutely right it would already be over and Hillary would be the Nominee. it plays in Osama favor to not have Fl. and Mi not counted and why he is not pressing the issue.
 

Past Member (0)
Monday May 19, 2008, 6:38 pm
Even with Michigan and Florida Hillary would still be short. Clinton would have 1,622 committed delegates(105 from Florida and 78 from Michigan) and Obama would have 1,730 committed delegates(67 from Florida and 55 from Michigan).
 

Kathleen O (0)
Monday May 19, 2008, 7:20 pm
The truth is, we don't know what the effect of having Michigan and Florida count would have been for either candidate. I agree with Kevin that Hillary would now be the nominee simply because the momentum would have been very different had those two states been counted. It could have definitely been a very different campaign. Unfortunately we will never know.
 

Darlene K (356)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 12:12 am
Yes Kathleen, the momentum would have been different, but I am not sure the media would have given it enough credit..lol. I am so disappointed in the party..., our votes should have never been treated like nothing. Democracy my white wings..., heh. Caucuses was Obama's only savior, even without Michigan and Florida, otherwise Hillary would be the Democratic Nominee.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 12:27 pm
Kathleen writes:

"The truth is, we don't know what the effect of having Michigan and Florida count would have been for either candidate. I agree with Kevin that Hillary would now be the nominee simply because the momentum would have been very different had those two states been counted."

Ok Kathleen, you just contradicted yourself. How can you say you don't know what the effect of Michigan and Florida would have been for either candidate and then say in the same breath that Hillary would have been the nominee because the momentum would have been different?

Not knowing the outcome would also mean not knowing the momentum things would have taken.
 

Kathleen O (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 1:14 pm
This is laughably petty, Michael. My opinion is not a fact, just what I believe.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 1:34 pm
Sorry Katleen, I call it as I see it.

I'm sorry if you don't see the contradiction.

You cannot say that Hillary would have been the nominee when you said in the previous sentence that you don't know what the outcome would have been had Michigan and Florida count been included.
 

Kathleen O (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 2:39 pm
I CAN say it and I did but, since it obviously is bugging you, how's this:

The truth is, we don't know what the effect of having Michigan and Florida count would have been for either candidate, but I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that Hillary would now be the nominee because I PERSONALLY BELIEVE the momentum would have been in her favor had those two states been counted.

You can obsess on semantics all you want but it doesn't change the fact that Obama will not have the "magic number" of delegates before the convention.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 7:16 pm
Kathleen writes:

"I CAN say it and I did but, since it obviously is bugging you"

No, it doesn't bug me, but I just noticed the contradiction.

"I PERSONALLY BELIEVE that Hillary would now be the nominee because I PERSONALLY BELIEVE the momentum would have been in her favor had those two states been counted."

Why didn't you say that in the first place?

"You can obsess on semantics all you want"

It's not obsessing on semantics. A contradiction is a contradiction; I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

"it doesn't change the fact that Obama will not have the "magic number" of delegates before the convention."

No, but he's real close.
 

Kathleen O (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 7:32 pm
Michael writes:
"Why didn't you say that in the first place?"

Oh, how I wish I had. Glad we can move on now.... :)
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 7:55 pm
You know what Kathleen, I am a man of honor. I suppose I was obsessing on semantics somewhat. Let's forget it and move past it.
 

Lori S (16)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 10:14 pm
You know, I think both Kathleen and Michael C. are both classy people! Kudo's to both for being able to hold a civil difference of opinion, without the usual name-calling and patronizing attitudes that are seen in many places.
Agree or not, I respect you both!
Love to all, sincerely
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday May 20, 2008, 11:21 pm
Thank you Lori. I appreciate that and yes, Kathleen is very classy and a nice person.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.