I discussed that issue in way less depth on my blog yesterday and the one comment out of several visits that I got was along the lines of "uh huh?"

Keen Observer of the Human Condition

Thanks a lot for that explanation, great great vlog. I've learned a bit more about the American voting system thanks to you because I could not exactly figure out what exactly is the role of super-delegates. Your system is so different than the French one, complex but so interesting.

Moreover, you made a great point by underlining their growing power in case it goes to the convention... it would indeed be very unfortunate.

This election is amazing to follow. We talk about it a lot in France and in Europe, and i'm sure all over the world too. So thanks again for that vlog.

Explaining superdelegates was a great choice of topic and your explanation was informative. Thank you.

Why don't you guys post this Vlog on Afterelton as well? I'm a big fan of both Afterellen and afterelton and hate to see the guys missing out on the political discussion.

I appreciate that both of you guys have declared your preference for Hillary, and generally try to be fair and balanced about it but I think it would be helpful to invite a pro-Obama LGBT person to give their side of it.

It was reported that record numbers voted on Super Tuesday.  Does anybody know how many people voted in the Republican primaries as opposed to how many people voted in the Democratic primaries per State and overall?

It's alway reported, for example, that a candidate received - say - 60% of the votes.....but, 60% of what total?  What kind of numbers are we talking about?  Alaska, for instance, only had a few hundred people that voted (I think).  

Wouldn't the turnout for the Democratic primaries vs the Republican primaries sort of give us an idea of which way the American people are leaning - party wise - for November?

It's hard for me to believe that anyone would want a Republican in office after the last - very dismal - 8 years.  But, then......I'm still in shock that Bush was re-elected 4 yrs ago after his first 4 yrs. 

Thank You.........both TheWeyrd1 and pecola for your responses.  Yes, that helps. 

I did understand about the delegate counts - how you can lose a state but still gain delegates, and that the Republican "stuff" was separate from the Dems.  I didn't understand about the "SuperDelegates" until this vlog.

But, I was watching some of the voting totals per State (not delegates) that were being put up by CNN on Super Tuesday.  It appeared that a lot more people were voting in the Democratic P's & C's than in the Republican.........and, I was curious to know the difference.

But, you're right pecola.........I shouldn't read too much into it........Wishful Thinking!   

Sigh.

The Hillary bias, I can deal with (though, I must say, this week it was particularly nauseating. I mean, Daniel Inouye? A big name? Really?). The fact that you don't mention the Republican race at all--I can get over that (easily, in fact). And I can ignore the fact that you got some of terminology used about the history of Democrats and superdelegates slightly off ("fringe candidate" is not how I'd describe Jimmy Carter). But, the fact that you omit from your discussion the single biggest difference between a state delegate and a superdelegate is highly troubling. C'mon.

A superdelegate can change his/her mind at any point. They, unlike state delegates, aren't committed to any candidate. Sen. Inouye, for example, might be with Clinton now, but he is certainly within his powers to change his mind at any time, especially if Obama wins the Hawaii primary by large margins. That's why campaigns, or Party officials, don't release their tallies of superdelegates--they know their superdelegates aren't guaranteed to stay.

For people interested in learning more about superdelegates, I'd recommend this vlog from Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo. Ari Berman from The Nation has a great vlog that offers the historical context regarding the role of superdelegates.

At any rate, a brokered convention, particularly one decided by superdelegates, will destroy the Democratic Party. If the establishment selects a candidate contrary to the popular will of people, Democratic chances of winning in November are reduced considerably. There's no way that either Democrat--Obama or Clinton--could unite the Party after such a divisive win and reach out to the general electorate in the two months between the end of the convention and the November election.

-----

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I haven't posted on this vlog before, but I've been watching from episode #1.  I really enjoy listen to both of your perspectives on the election.  I've been following the primaries very closely for the last year and find it fascinating.  I am a Hillary supporter, but if Obama ended up winning the nomination I would have no problem rallying behind him.  I'm from Pennsylania and we don't have our primary until the end of April, so I figured that it wouldn't matter, but now I'm not so sure.  We have a lot of delegates in our state, and I'm now so excited to cast my vote.  Thanks again for the awsome vlog!!!

...the links you provided really helped - I've been wondering about the whole delegate story. I know that's what really counts in the end! I think it was clear this vlog wasn't trying to be unbiased! Hey, I don't blame you - if you've been given a platform and you have a candidate that you want to win, why not use it? But I think it should be more blatantly labeled - not the "gay agenda" but the "Dems for Hillary gay agenda". That way, we'll all know what we're walking into.

Can someone (pecola?) tell me what happens to the state delegates for people who are no longer in the race? Richardsons, Edwards or even Kucunich's delegates (not super-delegates, because I understand they can now switch to whomever they want)