Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (67408)	5/21/2008 2:28:04 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 544128

We know now that the odds of supers going against the candidate with most pledged delegates are minimal. So the supers could only take the decision into into their own hands in a bizarre, improbable circumstance like the candidate with the most delegates has some sudden revelation that makes them not fit for a nomination. I'm sure that's what Hillary has been holding out for. Very slim odds.

To: Rambi who wrote (67408)	5/21/2008 3:03:25 PM
From: NAG1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 544128

Rambi, This short piece from an npr article on superdelegates describes what I have heard from several of the talking heads on the tv <<Not everyone feels this way. The Democratic Party devised the superdelegate system following the presidential election of 1972, when George McGovern lost to former President Richard Nixon in a landslide. Had party officials been more involved in choosing a nominee, perhaps they could have helped picked someone better-suited to win a national election, the logic goes. An exceptionally close primary is required, however, for this elite group's "super powers" to hold any sway.>> which seems to agree with what you heard on the radio today. I don't think the supers will "take it away" from Obama unless there is something else reverend-esque coming out about Obama before the convention. I think Clinton and her campaign realize this and have moderated her campaign rhetoric a fair amount allowing for the nomination process to play out in a way that is better for the democrats. She has come out and said that as a democrat, she can see no reason why anyone would choose McCain over Obama. The fact that she has said this I think is very telling about what she feels her chances really are. The article that we have been discussing is interesting with this in mind. It is interesting that the superdelegate process was set up in order to nominate a more mainstream candidate with a greater chance to be elected in a general election. The primaries, especially the caucuses, tend to favor those that are less mainstream because it is the more extreme, vocal parts of the party that usual go to vote and especially head out to vote in the caucuses. You would have thought that instead of coming up with this superdelegate system, they should have canned the caucuses and gone to straight election primaries, possibly with winner take all in order to better see what an electoral college roadmap would look like. Although totally an intellectual exercise, it would be interesting to see how the election would have played out without supers and straight primaries with no caucuses. Some who have looked at this and said an argument could be made for Clinton. That, I think, was the main point of that opinion piece. Neal