Originally posted by lord xyz
According to Wikipedia, had the primaries taken place, the delagets would've gone:MI: 73 - 55 (though I don't trust it, since Obama wasn't on the ballot, and it's likely some of his supporters voted Hillary instead)
FL: 105 - 67 - 13
Total would be: 178 - 122 - 13
So Hillary needing 245 and Obama needing 44 would just mean Obama has the nominee and Hillary doesn't.
Also Hillary would probably get about 43 in MT, PR and SD (aswell as Obama). This would make it:
HC: 178 + 43 = 225
BO: 122 + 43 = 165245 - 225 = 20
44 - 165 = -121Hillary still wouldn't have the nominee, Obama would be 141 delegates ahead, the superdelates are leaning more and more towards Obama. She might aswell give up.
Leading in delegates is meaningless if one does not have the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Leading in delegates is meaningless if one does not have the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination.
Oh come on Burl. It's a mere matter of days before the lead becomes official and insurmountable. Hilldog can't win that many remaining superdelegates. 1/2 of your recent posts have illustrated your conviction. I get it. Obama is not capable of winning the general election, according to your perspective. Point: Hillary wins v McCain, because the American public can't get over Obama not being responsible for his childhood education. Would I have gone to catholic school if it were up to me?
Bottom line: McCain v Obama = a McCain win. Why? Because Obama won't speak down to his supporters? And that's not going to get anyone in this knee-jerk, ignorant country elected, except McCain? I find it a sad reality that Hillary plays by those rules, while assuming the listening public is only capable of thinking and realizing for themselves what they've been told. I guess Obama really is an elitist.
Maybe you're right. But, haven't I always relied on the intelligence of others to prove my point? And maybe I've always been disappointed.
And as I said to PVS: I'm wrong sometimes, but I wish I wasn't. And I would add that anyone here who is a democrat that refuses to vote for Clinton, is WRONG!. At this point, you don't have much to worry about. But don't discount a possible better choice in favor of placing canidate above party or country. That would only illustrate a clear subscription to the Bush policy.
Originally posted by Devil King
Oh come on Burl. It's a mere matter of days before the lead becomes official and insurmountable. Hilldog can't win that many remaining superdelegates. 1/2 of your recent posts have illustrated your conviction. I get it. Obama is not capable of winning the general election, according to your perspective. Point: Hillary wins v McCain, because the American public can't get over Obama not being responsible for his childhood education. Would I have gone to catholic school if it were up to me?Bottom line: McCain v Obama = a McCain win. Why? Because Obama won't speak down to his supporters? And that's not going to get anyone in this knee-jerk, ignorant country elected, except McCain? I find it a sad reality that Hillary plays by those rules, while assuming the listening public is only capable of thinking and realizing for themselves what they've been told. I guess Obama really is an elitist.
Maybe you're right. But, haven't I always relied on the intelligence of others to prove my point? And maybe I've always been disappointed.
And as I said to PVS: I'm wrong sometimes, but I wish I wasn't. And I would add that anyone here who is a democrat that refuses to vote for Clinton, is WRONG!. At this point, you don't have much to worry about. But don't discount a possible better choice in favor of placing canidate above party or country. That would only illustrate a clear subscription to the Bush policy.
Until a candidate has the requisite number of delegates required to secure the nomination, who is currently leading in delegates is meaningless, because the affiliations of the delegates may change leading to or at the convention.
Barak Obama may be leading in delegates at the moment, but if conservative efforts to affect his real or perceived electability succeed, he may not be leading in delegates at the convention.
At least, I am concerned that Barak Obama will not defeat John McCain in the general election; and at most, I am concerned that he will be an ineffectual president. One of the reasons that I support Hillary Clinton is that I have confidence in her abilities with regard to both of these issues.
However, I supported Barak Obama for both State and US Senate, and I would support him for President in the event that he secured the nomination of the Democratic party.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Until a candidate has the requisite number of delegates required to secure the nomination, who is currently leading in delegates is meaningless, because the affiliations of the delegates may change leading to or at the convention.Barak Obama may be leading in delegates at the moment, but if conservative efforts to affect his real or perceived electability succeed, he may not be leading in delegates at the convention.
At least, I am concerned that Barak Obama will not defeat John McCain in the general election; and at most, I am concerned that he will be an ineffectual president. One of the reasons that I support Hillary Clinton is that I have confidence in her abilities with regard to both of these issues.
However, I supported Barak Obama for both State and US Senate, and I would support him for President in the event that he secured the nomination of the Democratic party.
As I would do for Hillary. I have also approached your concerns. There is a very real possibility that Obama will loose. But consider my point: that he has not chosen to pander to the lowest common denominator. I am most proud of Obama for not bending knee to the Clinton perspective of saying what must be said to appeal to the ****ing idiots. I'm sorry, but I am attracted to the idea that not speaking down to the people is the best way to speak to people who are being approached like they're idiots! And what makes me most sad is that those people are ****ing idiots.
An intelligent democrat would absolutely vote for Clinton. But an intelligent democrat that is tired of being spoken down to would vote for Obama. Only a fool could possiby assume Clinton is not worth voting for, in the general election. But, she has lost and it's time for her to support Obama.
Originally posted by ragesRemorseThey took the delegates away before Clinton won them, because they weren't aloud to have their primary before Super Tuesday.
why do they want to take delegates away from the States that Clinton won ?
Originally posted by Adam_PoEIt shows who the people want, since it'll be the last time they vote.
Leading in delegates is meaningless if one does not have the requisite number of delegates to secure the nomination.
Originally posted by StrangeloveInvolved as in, was the one behind the asking of the questions.
then please explain it.
Not good because staging questions isn't answering the public's questions, it's feeding into your own ego.
Originally posted by Devil King
As I would do for Hillary. I have also approached your concerns. There is a very real possibility that Obama will loose. But consider my point: that he has not chosen to pander to the lowest common denominator. I am most proud of Obama for not bending knee to the Clinton perspective of saying what must be said to appeal to the ****ing idiots. I'm sorry, but I am attracted to the idea that not speaking down to the people is the best way to speak to people who are being approached like they're idiots! And what makes me most sad is that those people are ****ing idiots.An intelligent democrat would absolutely vote for Clinton. But an intelligent democrat that is tired of being spoken down to would vote for Obama. Only a fool could possiby assume Clinton is not worth voting for, in the general election. But, she has lost and it's time for her to support Obama.
He does not appeal to the lowest common denominator, but he no less approaches voters as if they are idiots than does any other politician. One need look no further than his most ardent and over-zealous supporters who cannot address how he will solve their problems, yet are being lead around by the nose by waning rhetoric.
Originally posted by lord xyz
It shows who the people want, since it'll be the last time they vote.
If elections were determined by popular vote, this would be relevant.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He does not appeal to the lowest common denominator, but he no less approaches voters as if they are idiots than does any other politician. One need look no further than his most ardent and over-zealous supporters who cannot address how he will solve their problems, yet are being lead around by the nose by waning rhetoric.
and this makes him exclusive from mccain and clinton because....
ok fair enough. i agree. all candidates...well..anyone famous has their own fanatical following who will never be swayed into turning away...even charles manson. however it seems the implication of many is that obama's supporters are all fanatical idiots who just like to hear pretty muses of hope and prosperity. while you likely did not intend to imply this, it does fit the common rhetoric.
:edit: also just food for thought, i have noticed more of a fanatical anti-obama trend in the media and among our less intelligent peers than any other candidate in my lifetime.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If elections were determined by popular vote, this would be relevant.
I'd be careful with that, since the popular vote is going to end up being Clinton's only substantial source for her argument to super delegates as to why she should win. An acknowledgment (a correct one, mind you) that the popular vote is meaningless means she will literally have no real path to the nomination outside of empty rhetoric and baseless spinning about how she's the stronger candidate, despite having lost to the 'weaker' candidate. That said, her argument as to how she's even won the popular vote is sketchy and fallacious, at best.