by Student Guy, Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:04:48 PM EST
Tags: AZ, NM, NH, superdelegates (all tags)
and it was blogged here at least once. I haven't seen any full results outside of my comment in the open thread about the Iowa results and nothing about the AZ choices.
If you heard about the NM choice I would greatly appreciate a link to the info.
Up to date information gets posted at http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
The AZ one for Obama is a surprise. There's another add-on from AZ selected but he says that he is weeks from reaching a decision about who to support.
yeah I agree with you that the filling of the vacant DNC position by an Obama supporter is a surprise along with the election of an undecided superdelegate in AZ which went decently for Clinton.
Yeah. I think the expectation was that Clinton would be putting two from AZ in her column tonight.
The Arizona superdelegate elected is the state Democratic vice chair. She had more support among the Dem leadership, the fact that she had already endorsed Obama didn't stop her from winning. They weren't obligated to pick a Clinton supporter because she won the state, they were choosing who they wanted to be vice chair of their state party.
Typically add-ons do follow the state results though. But Terry Goddard (uncommitted) got it because he is the state Attorney General. Jay Nixon got one of the add-on slots in Missouri for the same reason.
If AG Goddard ends up backing Obama despite Hillary's point win here, he will join Govenor Napolitano in a list of politicans that I will REFUSE to vote for when or if they come up for re-election or run for another office.
Why is that? Superdelegates are free to vote for who they'd like.
They are, but I am as well. Napolitano railroaded Clinton here and got embarassed by Obama getting blown out of the water. I refuse to support her after her rhetoric towards Hillary, and I will refuse to support AG Goddard if he decides to support Obama as well.
Fair enough. I personally think politicians should be judged on how well they perform their job and use that as a basis on whether to support them, but obviously if who they support in the primary is the top priority for you, then you should feel free to vote however you'd like.
I support Hill but this argument doesn't always work in her favor. Cantwell and Patti Murray are still in her favor despite Obama winning Washington state. The senator from Hawaii is still supporting her despite Obama's win in that state; the female senator from Maryland is still supporting Hill despite the double-digit victory for Obama in that state. Superdelegates should be basing their decision on only one factor in my opinion; that is, who has the best chance of defeating John McCain. The DNC should be conducting serious and objective internal polling on this question in every state but Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.
using Rep Lewis and Rep Scott who flipped according to who their district supported (due to heavy constituent lobbying).
I haven't seen an analysis in a while, but last time I saw it done it was determined that it wouldn't significantly alter the outcome of the race -- in fact, it might actually shift a few more delegates towards Obama. For all the talk about Kerry and Kennedy, I think it might be interesting to call the bluff.
For the record, this is a statement of interest not advocation. I fail to see how allocating all of the superdelegates from a state where a candidate won 51% of the vote, or giving more power to states with more Democratic elected officials is particularly fair either.
constituent feed back is important. I say let the supers be lobbied by the people. After all Rep Lewis and Rep Scott were.
I don't get this anger towards superdelegates who happen to back the other candidate. I support Obama, but the fact that Barney Frank endorsed Clinton doesn't stop him from being one of my favorite Congressmen. Same goes for Barbara Boxer.
after all constituent feedback is important to politicians as people like Rep Scott and Rep Lewis would agree.
Clinton backer superdelegate? Don't you mean anti-democratic, closet racist?
After all Obama's a black man so denying him the nomination according to James Clyburn and other Obama surrogates would be racially offensive.
is a complete highjacking of the thread and I encourage people to ignore it.
If you want to talk about Clyburn start a thread about him. This is about the delegate going ons of the day.
Sorry didn't realise i was dealing with the Topic Cops.
what ever you were going to say with out thought to the context of the thread because that is thread hijackery. Not doing that is a sign of politeness. You represent your candidate poorly.
I often wonder why in life some people get all worked up about things that could easily be ignored. If you want to ignore my comment then ignore it and anyone who feels the same can follow your lead. Asking other people to ignore my comment is self defeating anyway, it only draws attention.
instead of using a rating because I reserve ratings for personal insults..
And i reserve ratings/comments for things that matter like generally offensive comments or personal insults. I see things i dont think are that relevant all the time, i think thats the beauty of debate.
So at the end of the day, both Obama and Clinton added one?
and so far the day is 1:1 with 1 not yet determined and 1 undecided.
However the expectation of the day was Clinton: 4 Obama: 0.
Just goes to show that expectations are not the way to go this season.CW has been turned on its head too many times this season.
Who could believe FL of all places would be in the mess it is in at this time?
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
