home
But the point is, (5.00 / 4) (#76)
by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:01:12 PM EST
the race isn't decided by the popular vote. If it was, presumably all the candidates would have campaigned very differently and it's impossible to know what the result would have been (leave alone the conundrums with the caucus sates and Michigan and Florida). It's as though we were playing a game of chess, and I was winning, and you said, you know. . .if we we're playing checkers, I'd be ahead. And I looked at the board, and yes you would be, but if we were playing checkers I don't think I would have played it this way.

I suppose the bottom line is, can arguments like this convince a large number of super-delegates to ignore delegate totals and switch over to Clinton giving her the race. If they were secretly looking for a way to give the nomination Clinton, i suppose it might, but otherwise I just don't see it.

Parent

Sure, it is -- it's decided by super-delegates (none / 0) (#97)
by Cream City on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:36:46 PM EST
whose task is to determine who would win, and they will look at the popular vote to determine that.

There 'tis.  The popular vote will matter.

Parent

It may indeed.... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by Alec82 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST
...but this twisted, self-serving version of the popular vote will not be what they base their decision on. If they do, they'll be receiving some choice words from Democratic constituents.

Parent
That's a bit harsh (5.00 / 0) (#140)
by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:29:22 PM EST
"twisted, self-serving"? This is one way of interpreting the vote totals. If you want to, you can come up with your own. We won't have better knowledge until the next bout of primaries, so yours will be as just as invalid as this one. It's a numbers game right now. Have fun with it. Don't take it so seriously.

Parent
It's still a longshot (none / 0) (#137)
by dianem on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:27:07 PM EST
We haven't had a situation in a long time where two candidate were this close at this point in the race. The point is that, by some measures, Clinton is very close to Obama in the race. If this is a chess game, then one player has a significant advantage, but the other player is still very much in the game and the game will be decided by the superdelegates. Obama has been playing the game by pretending that the superdelegates have to vote in his favor if he get more delegates. But that isn't in the rulebook, and there is no reason that either Clinton or the superdelegates have to play by his rules. If they can be convinced that Obama can't win, then they will vote for Clinton. Either way, the right wing has to hold off on attacking Obama until after the convention, so he benefits from the doubt.

I still don't think it's likely that Clinton will win, but this data shows conclusively that she should not drop out of the race. It would be like sacrificing a chess match when she still has a chance at winning.

Parent

The nomination (none / 0) (#147)
by ChrisO on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:40:10 PM EST
isn't decided by who gets the most pledged delegates, either. It's the candidate who gets a combination of 2,025 pledged and superdelegates. At this point, since neither candidate will reach the required number through pledged delegates, the supers will have the deciding vote, using whatever criteria makes sense to them. All of the pledged delegates will be in Denver as a result of voters making their own decisions. But according to the Obama camp, only the supers should be restricted to using one set of criteria in their decision, a criteria that just happens to favor Obama.

Parent

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft