SC goes to Obama, Clinton loses black supporters...

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by scbelle

That's true of the Republican Party. In the Democratic side, all states have the same rules for the delegates-- you are awarded delegates based on the percentage of the vote you capture.

Your answer doesn't make sense to me...because in Nevada, Hilary got 51% of the popular vote and Obama only got 45%. Hilary only got 12 delegates, but Obama got 13. Why exactly is that?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by LeslieAGD

Your answer doesn't make sense to me...because in Nevada, Hilary got 51% of the popular vote and Obama only got 45%. Hilary only got 12 delegates, but Obama got 13. Why exactly is that?

The Democratic format can get really complicated, it's not just the raw # of votes over the whole state, it actually depends on WHERE in the state the votes come from and how many delegates different districts are worth.

This page has one of the clearer breakdowns: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols627.xml

• To win the race, a candidate must secure the support of more than half their party's delegates to their nominating convention in the summer - 2,025 out of 4,049 Democrat delegates; or 1,191 out of 2,380 Republican delegates.
• The more votes a candidate receives in each state the more delegates they win. Larger states send more delegates to the convention.
• In many Republican contests, the winner of each state takes all the delegates. But each leading candidate seems able to win some states.
• On the Democrat side, delegates are awarded according to districts won - making it harder for one candidate to acquire a dominating lead. Candidates can score highly by winning the key cities.
• Democrats also have a system of so-called Super Delegates - leading party figures - who can decide for themselves who to support. In this group, Hillary Clinton is ahead of Barack Obama.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If the Obama wins the popular delegate vote and the party still chooses Clinton, the Democrats will LOSE.

No truer words...

Originally Posted by AGDee

Each state has different rules. In some, the winner in the primary gets all the delegates. In some, the delegates are split according to the voting percentages. Some separate it even further and the delegates are split by the voting percentages but only if a delegate has attained a certain percentage of the votes, otherwise they go as "uncommitted" (like here in MI). It's pretty complicated and is determined by each states' parties. CNN has a list of how many delegates are needed to get the nomination and have a good breakdown of available delegates. Some states also have pre-set delegates or super delegates and it's all really bizarre, actually.

Do you have this link?

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

The Democratic format can get really complicated, it's not just the raw # of votes over the whole state, it actually depends on WHERE in the state the votes come from and how many delegates different districts are worth.

This page has one of the clearer breakdowns: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wuspols627.xml

My state's primaries are coming up and we are asking my Sorority Sisters to attend the caucuses. I need a good explanation as to why they should... We are attempting to promote more involvement in the "behind the scenes" political process besides voter registration and education.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

No truer words...



Do you have this link?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

[Drolefille]

New York Times does a good job as well, and doesn't assign the delegates until they're truly assigned, most of the states that have voted so far have NOT assigned delegates yet.

Btw, for those who would like to know what Obama actually intends to do, check out the website. He's not all talk no plans/action. Having done so myself I still agree with him over the other Democratic candidates above and beyond my non-issue based preferences.

[LeslieAGD]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Btw, for those who would like to know what Obama actually intends to do, check out the website. He's not all talk no plans/action.

I actually did check out Obama's website a couple of months ago and that's when my opinion of him began to decline. However, in an election, you can't assume that all voters are going to be proactive and search out your campaign ideas. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people in this country who will vote stictly on who they "like" or based on what they see in campaign ads.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Btw, for those who would like to know what Obama actually intends to do, check out the website. He's not all talk no plans/action.

I don't find his platform any more developed than anyone else's - for instance, his economic plan is just a series of tax credits, with no explanation of where the Federal gov't will make up the lost income.

Then there's this:

Originally Posted by BarackObama.com/issues/economy

Improve Our Schools: From the moment our children step into a classroom, the single most important factor in determining their achievement is their teacher. Barack Obama values teachers and the central role that they play in education. He will work to ensure competent, effective teachers in schools that are organized for success. Obama's K-12 plan will expand service scholarships to recruit and prepare teachers who commit to working in underserved districts. To support teachers, Obama will foster ongoing improvements in teacher education, provide mentoring for beginning teachers, create incentives for shared planning and learning time for teachers. To retain teachers, Obama will support career pathways that provide ongoing professional development and reward accomplished teachers for their expertise. This Career Ladder initiative will help eliminate teacher shortages in hard-to-staff areas and subjects, improve teacher retention rates, strengthen teacher preparation programs, improve professional development, and better utilize and reward accomplished teachers.

This is the epitome of "all talk/no action" - most of it is quite hollow, with things like "working to ensure competent, effective teachers" resulting in eye-rolling. So you support "career pathways that provide ongoing professional development"? You mean like the reason why every school district in the nation has planned early-out days every month for teacher development? Oh, now it's a "career ladder" with a non-described "reward" for accomplished teachers, though - even under that name, it's just as empty.

Obama is a wonderful orator and a very smart man, but I don't find any more depth or specificity in his views than in any other candidate's, for either party.