Super Delegate and Delegate Controversy; Why are Delegates Voting for who they Think will Win Rather than who they Want to Win?

Super Delegate and Delegate Controversy; Why are Delegates Voting for who they Think will Win Rather than who they Want to Win? I have never heard of such a thing. It is spineless to vote for who you think will win rather than who you want to win and I won't support a party that actually celebrates this type of mindset.

Barack Obama Fanatics.

Get Educated BEFORE you get Dedicated.

Hillary PLEASE don't quit, don't let the Media Aggressives Win.

Hillary PLEASE don't quit, don't let the Media Aggressives Win.

There are few progressives in this country. Most Progressives are actually "Aggressives" in saliva stained clothing. While these Progressive/Aggressives try and drive Hillary Clinton from the race as soon as possible, Hillary Clinton is right for staying in the race.

I believe the strongest case for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race is the misapportioned caucus state delegate votes. The caucus state delegate votes that should have gone to Hillary Clinton that went to Barack Obama instead resulted in a loss of TWO delegate votes per every delegate misvote. So if we verify that Obama got 80-100 extra delegates from the caucus state votes that should have gone to Hillary Clinton, (which is very EASY to do), that actually is a 160-200 gain for Hillary Clinton in the actual delegate race.

As I examine the delegate voting tallies for the following caucus states and a couple of primary states, please note that in each and every scenario Barack Obama RETAINS HIS LEAD in the delegate count and that his lead remains SIGNIFICANT. In most instances the delegate reduction still leaves Barack with around 60% of the delegates. This is very important to understand as I am trying to show that the bloated delegate numbers that Barack Obama currently is receiving from most caucus states and some primary states doesn't accurately represent the true popularity of each candidate in the states mentioned below.

Should Barack Obama really get 8 delegates from the Virgin Islands to Hillary's 0? Wouldn't a 5-3 vote be more reasonable? A 6 delegate shift.

Should Barack Obama really get 53 delegates from Washington to 25 for Hillary when the non binding primary vote held 10 days later showed the two were a LOT closer than the caucus vote? Instead of 53-25, how about 42-36? A 22 delegate shift.

Do the democratic citizens of Nebraska really support Barack Obama 22 - 8 in delegates? Is that really representational of the democrats in the state of Nebraska? How about 17-13? A 10 delegate shift.

Should Illinois really give Barack 132 delegates to Hillary's 49 when the most logical mid point is 121 to 60? Maybe even less since Barack got a huge concentration in a few areas of the state. A 22 delegate shift none the less.

Should South Carolina really give 28 delegates to Barack and only 12 to Hillary when the South Carolina popular vote only went to Barack by a 55%-45% margin? How about 23-17? A 10 delegate shift. Lol, Pennslyvania went to Hillary with that same 10 percent margin of victory yet Hillary picked up less of a delegate margin gain than South Carolina, even though South Carolina is a LOT smaller than Pennsylvania in total delegates.

Why should Texas and Nevada give more delegates to Barack when Hillary won the popular vote in both? A minimum 24 delegate shift.

Does Idaho really favor Barack by a 18-3 delegate count? Is that really representative of the democrats in that state? How about a more reasonable 13-8 victory for Barack? A 10 delegate shift.

Is Kansas really in favor of Barack by a 26 to 10 delegate count? Really? How about 21-15 instead? Another shift of 10 delegates.

Is Minnesota really in favor of Barack by a 58 to 27 delegate count? Really? Is Obama as well loved in Minnesota as he is in Illinois? How about 49-36 instead, a shift of 18 delegates.

North Carolina with its staunch plus 90% black vote for Barrack Obama, still only managed a 14% margin of victory. How can larger victories of delegates come from the caucus states than what was given out in North Carolina?

I just found 142 delegates, 71 less for Barack, 71 more for Hillary, by merely making the delegate allocations reasonable and fair. I'm not sure I hit all the states that have out of whack delegate voting totals either. North Carolina received 28 bonus delegates for NOT moving the date of their election. Is that fair? Were Michigan and Florida offered bonus delegates to not move their vote date into January of 2008?

Would the media aggressives and the television pundits really be crowing that the race was over if Barack had 71 less delegates and Hillary had 71 more delegates right now? Add in Florida and you see that Hillary would actually be winning right now. Florida is to Hillary what Illinois is to Barack Obama. How the Barack camp can look anyone in the eye and deny Florida to Hillary just proves that they cannot be fully trusted. As for the media progressive/aggressives, they need to be popped like the pimple that they are.

The above calculations do not count either Florida or Michigan. Florida and Michigan is not the central issue at the moment. It is the miscount in the caucus states and Obama's abuse of the miscount to then discredit Hillary Clinton back in late February that concerns me. The Obama camp used the miscounts in the caucus races to sway delegates and super delegates, that is the second issue that should be on the table right now.

The reason the Progressive/Aggressives want Hillary to resign is so her delegates jump ship and obfuscate the overall delegate count. If Hillary Clinton delegates jump ship they bury the statistical truth that the Obama camp stole the election in the caucus states with inaccurate and inflated caucus delegate vote counts.