Didn't happen when Bush won even though he had fewer votes from the people and wouldn't happen here.

*************

SER: There are some critical differences here. For one, Democrats were furious about Bush's win in 2000 and it heightened the red/blue divide. If this were to happen within an actual political party (the Democrats), the impact could be devastating. Even if just half of Obama's or Clinton's supporters are so infuriated by the results that they either defect or stay at home, the results from the top of the ticket down will be brutal.

Also, more importantly, Bush had won the presidency in 2000 after the Florida decision. It would be about 4 years before he could really be held accountable for it -- one could argue that people would "cool down." If voters believe their candidate was robbed, then you've got all of 2 months to convince them otherwise. Not good. I mean, even now, it's been Obama vs. Clinton for far longer than it will be Obama or Clinton vs. McCain.

I don't say this as an Obama fan. Practically, I think the superdelegates will make a call based on either the outcome of the races in their state (a very justifiable move) or based on the overall outcome -- one that has Obama slightly ahead. They don't want a top-down defection. Keep in mind that if Obama or Clinton's supporters stay home in November that will also impact Congressional and Gubenatorial races.This has he potential to blow up huge for the Democrats. And frankly no matter what they do, the Republicans will make hay of it for a long while.

Happened before in the 1924 Republican nomination process. The independant only one his home state. The Republicans (Coolidge) still won.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It happened in 1912. Teddy Roosevelt lost the nomination to the incumbent William Howard Taft and formed his own party. Roosevelt finished second and Taft third with 8 electoral votes

BILL MOYERS: Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago wanting to know about the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion. He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led him to the faith. You performed his wedding ceremony. You baptized his two children. You were, for 20 years, his spiritual counselor. He has said that. And, yet, he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about you. How, how did it go down with you when you heard Barack Obama say those things?

REVEREND WRIGHT: It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I'm a pastor.

Speaking as an Obama supporter, who cares what Wright says?  He's not running for President.

It's funny that people go out of their way to say that Wright is a nut, but when he says something about Obama, suddenly he's a wise man with insight.

Say what you want about McCain, but I love that he's trying to avoid this sort of Clintonian "Gotcha!" politics!   Can you imagine the type of race we'll have between McCain and Obama?  It's going to be a thing of beauty...

Oh, and just to stir up the converstaion - so... I've followed Obama's record pretty closely - his years in the Ill legislature and the US Senate, I've read both his book, listened to his speaches... I'm curious... I keep hearing about how he's a socialist... ("at best" one right wing radio host said today) - but I see nothing in his voting record, speaches or writing that reflect this - (nor the influence of Wright or Ayers) - now, obviously I'm a brainwashed pinko commie, so, I wonder if one of you with better research abilities can find some evidence of this for me - I don't mean anticdotal evidence, nor something heard on the radio, read on a blog or seen on a talk show - I mean actual voting records, or his own words.

Just curious, because my own research shows otherwise, and I want to be on the same page as the rest of you guys.

You make good points, Joe - but to clarify - Obama's not even that mad - Pastor Wright is, and Obama has expressed that he understands where these feelings come from, but... you know... it's this horrid guilt by association thing, which, as you note, is being played in a disturbingly racist way here, and as I noted earlier, I can't seem to find anything in Obama's record that shows that he evers acts on these sort of things...

All this blather about Clinton and/or Obama being socialist? What kind of idiots are the guys who make that claim?

As I've said, I'm a socialist (social democrat) and don't see anything wrong with that, but they don't fit the bill.

As far as I can tell they don't favor nationalising industry.
Or nationalising healthcare (basically cutting out the insurance companies as middle-men and nationalising hospitals)
They don't favor nationalising Universities and higher education so that all admissions are meritocratic, not hereditary or facilitated by economics.
Nor are they as strongly in favor of unions and labor-friendly legislation as you'd expect from a socialist.

They are at best social-liberals. A liberal in this context being someone who favors getting government out of people's personal lives and to some extent out of business. A social-liberal wants government out of people's personal lives, but also recognizes the value of government in securing the freedoms of people (partly by ensuring that business, corporate or otherwise organized interests don't take it upon themselves to wield similar powers to those of big government.)

I think accuracy is important in these political discussions. And for better or worse socialist has become a pejorative in the US.