(no subject)

[moominmolly]

Just captured from cnn.com:



Okay, so, stop me if I misunderstand, but does this show in the BIG BOLD NUMBERS that Obama is behind Clinton, but in the little teeny numbers that they're neck and neck in the popular vote, but CNN has awarded the "superdelegates" (i.e. the Smoky Back Room vote, delegate votes belonging to important party members not beholden to any popular vote contest) mostly to Clinton? How do media outlets decide how they think these votes are going to go?

Comments

[cassielsander.livejournal.com]

They are pretty shady. But it might be good to have somebody, once the primaries are over, who can get together and say "Okay, these two are never going to concede to each other, let's throw it to one of them for the sake of the party."

Especially if the alternative is for the nomination to go to some third "dark horse" person who Barrack & Hilary can agree on but no one actually voted for.

Otoh, regular delegates could do this too. Just probably not ahead of the convention.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Otoh, regular delegates could do this too

Technically yes. In practical terms, no. Delegates are long-time party loyalists who have a lot at state wrt their status and reputation in their party. They would lose everything if they voted for someone other than their pledged candidate: job, influence, reputation, livelihood, all standing in a matter very important to them. If their candidate is still running.

If the candidate is not, I believe the delegates are similarly constrained to vote for the person the candidate then backs, but I'm not sure. If the candidate doesn't back anyone, the delegate is free.

Final point: the delegate system is relatively new. It has not been put to the test under, say, 1960 Democratic Convention conditions. I can't say what would happen then.