Obama claims 9 delegate margin of victory from Super Tuesday

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

845-836

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080206/cm_thenation/15281018

[Lief 🗽]

Wow.

[bgwah]

OMG IT'S OVER HILLARY WINS

[Lief 🗽]

Clinton may win NM 14 to 12 though.

Also, it's time we stop ignoring super-delegates.

[Joe Republic]

Clinton's campaign is yet to release their own estimates, I notice.

[J. J.]

Clinton may win NM 14 to 12 though.

Also, it's time we stop ignoring super-delegates.

Without that, MSNBC had Obama with a three or four lead, excluding the super delegates.

[MODU]

From my understanding of Super Delegates, they can be reassigned over time.  So, just because Killary might be leading with them now, she can easily lose them too.

[Alcon]

From my understanding of Super Delegates, they can be reassigned over time.  So, just because Killary might be leading with them now, she can easily lose them too.

Indeed, they "swarm."

There's a good reason that superdelegates aren't being included, even if their absence does distort the reality of the race a little.  Their presence would do so more.

[MODU]

From my understanding of Super Delegates, they can be reassigned over time.  So, just because Killary might be leading with them now, she can easily lose them too.

Indeed, they "swarm."

There's a good reason that superdelegates aren't being included, even if their absence does distort the reality of the race a little.  Their presence would do so more.

And personally, only the Democrats could over-complicate the primary system with "super delegates" to begin with.  The process should be done away with in the future.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From my understanding of Super Delegates, they can be reassigned over time.  So, just because Killary might be leading with them now, she can easily lose them too.

Indeed, they "swarm."

There's a good reason that superdelegates aren't being included, even if their absence does distort the reality of the race a little.  Their presence would do so more.

And personally, only the Democrats could over-complicate the primary system with "super delegates" to begin with.  The process should be done away with in the future.

Some RNC members are unpledged delegates, although there are far fewer of them.

[MODU]

Some RNC members are unpledged delegates, although there are far fewer of them.

Yup, and that should go away too.  However, they aren't designed to tip an election the way the Democratic version is.  If the establishment doesn't like the way the public is voting, the super delegates can radically change the vote-total outcome.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some RNC members are unpledged delegates, although there are far fewer of them.

Yup, and that should go away too.  However, they aren't designed to tip an election the way the Democratic version is.  If the establishment doesn't like the way the public is voting, the super delegates can radically change the vote-total outcome.

It wouldn't have taken that much to change the 1976 nomination vote.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some RNC members are unpledged delegates, although there are far fewer of them.

Yup, and that should go away too.  However, they aren't designed to tip an election the way the Democratic version is.  If the establishment doesn't like the way the public is voting, the super delegates can radically change the vote-total outcome.

The worst part of the whole process isn't that; it's that in some states there isn't a secret ballot.

[M]

Some RNC members are unpledged delegates, although there are far fewer of them.

Yup, and that should go away too.  However, they aren't designed to tip an election the way the Democratic version is.  If the establishment doesn't like the way the public is voting, the super delegates can radically change the vote-total outcome.

It wouldn't have taken that much to change the 1976 nomination vote.

Really? To who, Muskee?