This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
"There is NO such scenario whereby the Democratic leadership could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from them unwillingly. Clearly reading comprehension is not your forte."
I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?
Your parents still upset they wasted all that cash on your degree? You still pretending you have done peer-reviewed research but think "sampling" is somehow tied to math? LOL. friggin' looney.
Truth be told, the committed delegates in BOTH parties are actually free to vote their will. Since they are selected for their strong support of the candidate that won their state, they rarely do other than the voters directed them to do, but they can.
One scenario where that might happen, and where BTW it ought to happen, is if a horrendous corruption or vote-rigging scam was discovered after the primaries but before the convention. In such a case, the delegates (super or not) would all be crazy to just vote for the soiled candidate anyway. They could reasonably assume that, had the voters known then what is known now, they would have cast their votes differently.
"I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?"
Wow. You truly are illiterate. FYI, I did NOT cite this article to demonstrate that I was magically able to locate the exact article on which you are basing your misconceptions--in fact, with your blatant disregard for documentation, I question whether you can read at all. What is at issue are the rules for nomination stated in that article. The article clearly states that there is NO such scenario whereby superdelegates could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from then unwillingly. In order to nominate Gore, Obama would have to willingly surrender the 1900 votes he has already won.
What are these rules so difficult for you to comprehend?
LOL.
I guess I shouldn't expect so much from a Safety School reject with a degree in Paparazzi.
"There is NO such scenario whereby the Democratic leadership could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from them unwillingly. Clearly reading comprehension is not your forte."
I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?
Your parents still upset they wasted all that cash on your degree? You still pretending you have done peer-reviewed research but think "sampling" is somehow tied to math? LOL. friggin' looney.
Truth be told, the committed delegates in BOTH parties are actually free to vote their will. Since they are selected for their strong support of the candidate that won their state, they rarely do other than the voters directed them to do, but they can.
One scenario where that might happen, and where BTW it ought to happen, is if a horrendous corruption or vote-rigging scam was discovered after the primaries but before the convention. In such a case, the delegates (super or not) would all be crazy to just vote for the soiled candidate anyway. They could reasonably assume that, had the voters known then what is known now, they would have cast their votes differently.
LIBS:
"I'll take my reading comprehension over yours any day, Yalie. I never said I got that info from that article, did I?"
Wow. You truly are illiterate. FYI, I did NOT cite this article to demonstrate that I was magically able to locate the exact article on which you are basing your misconceptions--in fact, with your blatant disregard for documentation, I question whether you can read at all. What is at issue are the rules for nomination stated in that article. The article clearly states that there is NO such scenario whereby superdelegates could take Obama's or Hillary's votes from then unwillingly. In order to nominate Gore, Obama would have to willingly surrender the 1900 votes he has already won.
What are these rules so difficult for you to comprehend?
LOL.
I guess I shouldn't expect so much from a Safety School reject with a degree in Paparazzi.
Pathetic.