Super Delegate votes - alt.fan.cecil-adams

Message from discussion Super Delegate votes

xhos...@gmail.com

View profile

More options May 20, 3:10 pm

Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams

From: xhos...@gmail.com

Date: 20 May 2008 19:10:59 GMT

Local: Tues, May 20 2008 3:10 pm

Subject: Re: Super Delegate votes

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

"Bill Bonde { ''the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack'')"

<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Greg Goss wrote:

> > "Just when we thought this superdelegate stuff couldn’t get any
> > weirder, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D), who had told NBC’s Mike
> > Viqueira after the Indiana primary that he’d cast his superdelegate
> > vote for Clinton because she won his district, revealed that he
> > actually voted in the PRIMARY for Obama. He said he’s still going to
> > vote for Clinton at convention, so for now, we’ll leave him in
> > Clinton’s column in the NBC NEWS count."

> If everyone did this, wouldn't it make superdelgates meaningless?

No, it would add at least a tiny aspect of winner take all. Well,
adding a tiny aspect of winner take all might itself be meaningless in some
grand philosophical sense, but mathematically it would mean *something*.

> If that's the case, why bother having them?

So they have something to whine about when/if the convention doesn't come
out the way they want, and then tinker it to something else equally
pointless. Sure, it is kind of like running around stomping on butterflies
in Brazil because you don't like the weather in Chicago, but hey, What do
you expect? They are Democrats, it's what they do.

Xho

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.

Reply to author Forward