Hillay bites the dust
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch

A "brokered" convention could prove quite damaging to the Democrats.
I've been hearing quite a bit about Super Delegates lately. However, I
don't hear much about the Republican tool of anointing their "chosen
one", winner take all primaries.

Hillay bites the dust
 

Hillay bites the dust
 

Hillay bites the dust
 

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:41:04 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:10:29 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch

A "brokered" convention could prove quite damaging to the Democrats.
I've been hearing quite a bit about Super Delegates lately. However, I
don't hear much about the Republican tool of anointing their "chosen
one", winner take all primaries.

There won't be a brokered Dem convention.
Majority pledged delegates will determine the winner.
I gar-an-tee it.

--Vic

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:43:46 -0500, HK wrote:


My concept of a brokered convention is one in which the delegates vote a
couple of times over several times to agree on a nominee.

I have no problem with your definition of a "brokered" convention, but
both parties have a history of smoke-filled backroom deal making.
Frankly, that's just out of place in modern day politics. Hopefully, the
Democrats have learned by now. Republicans never seem to learn
anything. ;-)

Hillay bites the dust
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "HK"
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Hillay bites the dust



Yet another reason why I prefer *closed* primaries and secret ballot
voting, as opposed to open primaries, which encourage crossovers, and
caucuses, which encourage group vote, not secret ballot vote.


Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch



I like the rough and tumble of tight primary races and conventions in
which delegates make a difference, and have to vote many times in order to
select a delegate. A good convention is like a microcosm of the House of
Representatives, with the delegates elected by the people back home
working for consensus. It's not the same animal as a caucus.

Today's conventions are just too antiseptic for my taste.


That's all fine, good and healthy if it weren't for the "Super Delegates"
who don't necessarily have the backing of the people back home. That's
where the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deals are made.

Eisboch

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:13:58 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

That loud sucking sound heard in Potomic area was Hillary losing 3 more
primaries.

It looks like the only way Hillary will win the primary is if Billary
can steal this away with super delegates and some rule changes.

My game plan worked. However, yesterday while in the car (taking another
lens back) I heard Rush comment that no matter who gets the most votes,
Hillary will win.

I hope not. I'd like to see Obama in a face to face with McCain. Any
debates should be interesting, if only to see how soft the balls can be
thrown by NBC. I doubt if either Obama or Clinton would face McCain on a
Fox debate.
--
John H

Hillay bites the dust
 

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "HK"
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Hillay bites the dust



Yet another reason why I prefer *closed* primaries and secret ballot
voting, as opposed to open primaries, which encourage crossovers, and
caucuses, which encourage group vote, not secret ballot vote.

Yet, you are a fan of "brokered" conventions?

Eisboch


I like the rough and tumble of tight primary races and conventions in
which delegates make a difference, and have to vote many times in order to
select a delegate. A good convention is like a microcosm of the House of
Representatives, with the delegates elected by the people back home
working for consensus. It's not the same animal as a caucus.

Today's conventions are just too antiseptic for my taste.


That's all fine, good and healthy if it weren't for the "Super Delegates"
who don't necessarily have the backing of the people back home. That's
where the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" deals are made.

Eisboch




The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

Hillay bites the dust
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:04:51 -0500, HK wrote:


The super delegates as a group will support the will of the voters and
their delegates. If Hillary doesn't do very well in Texas, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, it is all over for her.

If that's the case, why does Hillary lead in Super Delegates (242-196),
but trail in pledged delegates?