home
The Delegate Math; Clinton Nixing MI Proposal? | 235 comments (235 topical)
I think Obama will get his delegates (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by DCDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:42:23 PM EST
There has been no magic this year.  Every state has proven predictable.  Based on this, we know that Hillary will crush Obama in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico, and Obama will easily defeat Hillary in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.  I think Obama will get his 41 percent.  

Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:18 PM EST
Maybe not.

But this would at least have the semblance of fairness to the VOTERS in MI and FLA.  Which is critical if either candidate is to beat McCain in the fall.

[ Parent ]

I think so (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:45:54 PM EST
But it certainly does argue for allowing folks to vote it seems to me.

I thought it was over mathematically but this points to it not be quite decided just yet.

I was surprised to be honest with you.

[ Parent ]

See my comment below (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST
The Supers will not only decide this nomination, Edward's delegates even potentially could.

[ Parent ]
You know what? (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:50:42 PM EST
If the delegates are already given out and it ends up that way then, yes, at least Obama won fair and square. I can accept that. What I can't accept is the way Obama's trying to do it right now, by claiming victory without MI and FL.

BTD, at least this explains why Obama doesn't want the delegates from MI and FL released. It's conceivable that Hillary could win the nomination. Perhaps it also explains why Obama consistently wants her to drop out.

[ Parent ]

I think it's important (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by DCDemocrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:08:16 PM EST
that the comment I wrote be read in light of the fact that I am convinced Obama will lose in the fall and that I think Hillary's defeat is a national disaster.

[ Parent ]
Well, I'm happy about one thing (5.00 / 1) (#214)
by Eleanor A on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST
I think Hill's not about to drop out, if she's fighting this hard for ten or so more delegates.  And not to let Obama have Edwards' delegates.

GO HILLARY!

[ Parent ]

Obama has decided not (5.00 / 3) (#135)
by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:23:07 PM EST
to campaign in West Virginia, according to latest news on MSNBC. This shows his "commitment to represent and be the president of ALL Americans"? Also, he believes he has the nomination sewn up, that may be, so he's not putting out any effort to contact West Virginians, those gun-totting, religious clinging white poor. In his mind HE DOESN"T NEED THEM, SO HE WON'T BOTHER! HOW ARROGANT CAN YOU GET!

[ Parent ]
Gosh (5.00 / 3) (#178)
by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST
He should just take his name off the ballot.  That way it will become a Soviet-style election that would be a travesty to count.

[ Parent ]
Coward (5.00 / 5) (#186)
by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
he's shown it time and time again.

[ Parent ]
This is why (5.00 / 7) (#194)
by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST
he won't get HRC's supporters. Insulting and dismissing them is political suicide, yet he and his surrogates do it constantly.

No amount of Obamans coming on TalkLeft and berating people about Unity will change the fact that Obama's own behavior has guaranteed he won't win the GE.

Should Obama be the nominee, they will be the bitter ones in November.

[ Parent ]

As Clinton pointed out this morning (4.57 / 7) (#157)
by litigatormom on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:30:31 PM EST
No Democrat has been elected president since the early part of the last century without winning West Virginia.

So naturally, WVA gets dissed.  Why?

Ego protection, of course. Obama knows that even though he has already "won," he is going to lose in WVA.  He needs to be able to say it's not a fair victory because he didn't campaign there.

The same way he took his name off the MI ballot and then said that vote wasn't fair.

What leadership, Barack.  When you're not winning, you pick up your marbles and go home.

[ Parent ]

A wee story. (5.00 / 3) (#193)
by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:49:27 PM EST
I may have told this elsewhere, but in Wayne County two weeks ago, Nick Joe Rahall, popular local Congresscritter who gets reelected with umptynine percent of the local vote and has an "Intermodal Transportation Center" (a.k.a. a parking garage) bearing his very own name in a popular downtown development in my fair city (which has, to be fair, been very good for the city), had to eat dinner by himself as a party affair because no one there would sit with him over his endorsement.  

If Senator Obama really has chosen to completely write off WVa and not to campaign here just when he has this nearly all sewn up, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party in the state.  

I know he won't win here.  I know it would be difficult for him to campaign here.  I don't expect him to make a Kennedy-style appeal to the state, staking his nomination on it, because that would be foolish.  Still, if he had real political courage, he would show up and press the flesh.  He would make his case to Democrats, even those supporting Senator Clinton, not just for now, but for the fall and going forward into the future. If he's not willing to work to make that case, he's not the man his supporters think he is.

[ Parent ]

His arguments are twisting back on themselves ... (5.00 / 2) (#200)
by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:53:56 PM EST
As a strategy he took his voluntarily took his name off the MI ballot (and parleyed that into wins elsewhere, plus used to smear HRC as illegitimate and "doing anything she needed to win".) He can't rationally claim that those votes shouldn't count if he also doesn't campaign in other states that he loses. Is he going to step forward after the fact and try to get THOSE votes too?

His other campaign lapses and poor choices that worked out in HRC's favor -- such as her focusing and reaching out to voters -- were spun as her votership being "wrong" somehow, or that she was "wrong" in wooing them.

Spin 1: The voters she got were too racist / poorly informed / old / dumb / irrelevant blah blah blah for the taste of the pro-O media or Oboiz. (SAP: We hate her, they must be hateful too.)

Spin 2: She mysteriously caused them not to support Obama, or he didn't really try to win them; BO supporters always begin on the premise that 100% of the votes naturally belong to him and are being taken unfairly from him -- except the ones he doesn't want or didn't try to get.

This is purely ex rectum but in my defense, there's only so much of the media and Oboiz coverage that I can stand. A handy "Media Matters" style compilation of Obama Worship Fallacies would be great and if I weren't under a hard deadline, I'd start one.

[ Parent ]

does he get a book deal if he loses big? (none / 0) (#183)
by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:41:38 PM EST
it's all messed up

[ Parent ]

The Delegate Math; Clinton Nixing MI Proposal? | 235 comments (235 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft