If YOU were a superdelegate...

[MercutioATC]

Honestly (although I don't expect some here to be capable of honesty right now)

Would you choose:

1) The candidate who raises $40M/month and has almost $50M in the bank or the candidate that's in debt?

2) The candidate who has won more pledged delegates or the candidate who has won less?

3) The candidate who has won more of the popular vote or the candidate who has won less?

4) The candidate who has won more states (by a large margin) or the candidate who has won less?

5) The candidate that polls higher than McCain nationally or the candidate that polls lower?

6) The candidate that brings more new registered Democrats to the pols or the candidate that brings fewer?

7) The candidate that has the skeletons that Obama has or the skeletons that Clinton has?


Regardless of your feelings for your candidate, which one would you choose, assuming your goal was to put a Dem in the White House in January?

Both candidates are going to need SDs to win this thing. Do you realistically think the SDs are going to pick the weaker candidate?

[QC]

1. I would move to throw open the convention to nominations from the floor.

Maybe we could come up with a decent candidate then.

[babylonsister]

5. Your gal isn't decent, or can't win? Tell the truth if possible. nt

[QC]

6. My gal? Last time I checked, John Edwards was a guy.

But I know how hard it is for the fanatics here to imagine that there might be more than two types of people in the world.

[babylonsister]

7. Gotcha. So have you been slamming Clinton supporters as well?

I don't think so. Your balance is noted.

[QC]

8. No need to do that--the Lord of the Flies gang has the situation under control. n/t

[babylonsister]

10. Cute, but FOS. So are you BTW. Must suck to win and lose at the

same time. :eyes:

[QC]

11. There's a lot that has sucked about this primary,

not least of which the way that two corporate functionaries have managed to convince otherwise intelligent people that they are somehow progressive. But that is the world we live in.

[babylonsister]

12. Let me guess; Kucinich or Edwards? Or Gravel? nt

[MercutioATC]

16. I started this thread, so I'll weigh in on this one. I originally supported Gravel.

My focus isn't "most electable" or "best Dem" or any of that pap. My focus is change.

The entire system is screwed up and that's what needs to change. I thought Gravel could do that.

Unfortunately, Gravel (while I still respect and believe a lot of the things he said) turned out to be the slightly wonky oldtimer that many originally perceived him to be. So much for change through purity...

I supported Dean in 2004, so I'm used to my candidate not winning...though Dean did a much better job of trying than Gravel.

So, here I am...a new election and the same old choices. I look at both candidates and most of their positions are similar. The difference is in the approach. Obama is far from perfect to me, but, of the two choices, he does represent more fundamental change than Clinton. Clinton's policies aren't terrible...and they're one hell of a lot better than McCain's, but I see both her policies and her campaign strategies as part of a different, older era. It's an "establishment" campaign.

Laugh at me for being a 40-year old, white, suburban, upper-middle-class "anti-establishment" guy, but I believe it makes sense. The establishment is hurting all of us...and will continue to do so if we don't try to change it.

Yes, the logical part of me is very pleased that Obama has the numbers to guarantee him a primary win....but the idealistic side of me also believes that he will effect more change.

He's not my first choice. He's far from perfect. He is, however, the best choice in this primary to bring about some kind of change.

[cottonseed]

2. I'd get a hat that says, #1 Super Delegate!

and I'd throw my support to Obama tomorrow morning... figuring what the hell, he's going to win NC and IN anyways, so let's just get it over with.

[Cant trust em]

3. So strange. We have two candidates that in some respects are awesome

and in others, have a lot of baggage.

[rocktivity]

4. Fortunately, the Rethugs have a candidate who is in NO respects awesome

and has nothing BUT baggage!

:headbang:
rocknation

[AtomicKitten]

9. This really should be a no-brainer for the superdelegates.

[krkaufman]

13. What, no mention of the 54% unfavorable polling for Hillary? n/t

[cooolandrew]

14. Pure class post.

[crankychatter]

15. I think her only argument is "he can't win because of racism"

and all the huff n puff spin around it is just that

euphemisms

high sounding, politically correct, nuanced to incoherency...

MUMBO JUMBO

coded language

demographic voodoo with numbers and spin... charts/graphs and talking points

that's her only argument to the SD's and they know this

HER NEGATIVES ARE HIGHER AND SHE IS PUTTING THE PARTY AT RISK