Obama 18 Edwards 17 Clinton 16
Superdelegates can change their mind anytime they want, so Clinton's early (completely illusion and projected) superdelegate lead, should her implosion continue, would evaporate completely and probably go to Obama.
(b) Clinton got something like 29.4% and someone must've rounded that up to 29.5%. And so you can't then round that up, again, to 30%. Edwards got something like 29.8%, so his got rounded up to 30%.
(c) Obama beat Hillary by 8.5 points and Edwards by 8 points, and you don't think he ran away with it? Ok. Even if you feel like the "combine everyone else and this Frankenstein anti-Obama (D) would win!" argument is valid (it's not), the numbers polled in rinky-dink Iowa aren't the most important consequence of Iowa by a long shot. The momentum is. And try telling us he didn't run away with it there...
Your numbers are different than the New York Times which were updated tonight. You may be right, but those are the ones I went by. If her number was 29.48, then you are right, she's at 29% and you wouldn't bump her twice. I guess I'll go search for a link to results showing in the hundredths -- but if we're down to that, my point still seems valid that there's almost no difference between Edwards and HIllary.
Momentum can change in a heartbeat. One gaffe or false move by any candidate, if played 24/7 by the media and broadcast on you tube, could do him or her in. Hillary's less likely in my opinion to make that gaffe because she's the more experienced public speaker. [ Parent ]
Make a new account