Omigod! Here come the superdelegates! The Washington Post's Paul Kane has done the math and reached the conclusion that the Democratic presidential race will be decided by superdelegates--those 800 or so party officials and officeholders who are automatically awarded delegate status and who can vote any which way they please at the convention. Kane explains:
There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 52 percent of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at 832 and 821 delegates a piece, according to the AP.
That means there are now only about 1,600 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.
So, do the math. If they both have 820 plus pledged delegates so far, they'll need to win roughly 1,200 -- 75 percent -- of the remaining 1,600 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.
In other words: Ain't gonna happen...And then the super delegates decide this thing.
Does this mean the contest will be settled in some smoke-free backroom by machine hacks who don't give a fig about the Democratic vox populi?
Not necessarily. Kane's arithmetic is spot-on. But with superdelegates comprising about 20 percent of the entire voting bloc, they essentially have to play a part in any close race. The question is how will they break. At the end of the primary season, one candidate will have more non-superdelegates than the other. If that contender also ends up with a majority of superdelegates, all will be well. The people's choice wins. It won't matter that he or she needed superdelegates to reach the magic number.
But if the second-place finisher picks up enough of a majority of the superdelegates to leap over the leader, then there will be quite a fuss. In that case, non-elected delegates will be deciding the race against the will of the majority (however slight it might be) of Democratic voters.
At this stage, there's no telling what all those superdelegates will do. Fewer than half have committed--and, as of a few days ago, the campaigns were saying that Clinton had about a 70-delegate edge among this band. But these superdelegates can change their minds up until the vote is called at the convention.
As for the non-declared SDs, will they want to see the party elite anoint the second-place candidate and create a massive firestorm that will divide the party? And remember the Democratic establishment is not the same thing as the Clinton establishment. Not all of these influential Democrats are Clintonites. Not all believe that Clinton would be the best candidate for the party in November. She has the lead in superdelegates at the moment, but Obama can be competitive in this contest.
So place a hold on conspiracy theorizing or super-delegate hysteria for the time being. After all the primary votes are counted, the spotlight will shine brightly on these people. If they want to pull a backroom stunt, they will have to do so in public view.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
If Obama goes into the convention with more delegates (as appears likely) and Hillary walks out with the nomination, McCain will be our next president and the Democratic Party will be back on its way to permanent minority status.
God let them not be so stupid.
I think we're all going to be white-knuckling it right up past the recount wars.
Dems have been putting a lot of effort to nip chaos in the bud by having a 'choice' made by prior to 6/3. Pressue on some super delegates, heard something about them receiving cash from the candidates... I don't know if that's true, but I did see where the Clinton camp was ramping up the choke holds. That may backfire like Richardson.
In all honesty, I have a bad feeling about how the press is playing this thing, and I do worry that they are stirring a pot that may not only fire up people that think they were cheated, but bring down thunder on the whole country.
Nothing will be quite so funny about payback then.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
If Obama goes into the convention with more delegates and walks out without the nomination, the reaction will make the Rodney King riots look like a Sunday picnic, and the blame will be fully on the Democratic leadership for allowing it to happen. This scenario is as predictable as a levy failure, and its occurence would be inexcusable.
Yep, and I'm not convinced they don't want that to happen. I hope it doesn't.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
If Obama goes into the convention with more delegates and walks out without the nomination, the reaction will make the Rodney King riots look like a Sunday picnic, and the blame will be fully on the Democratic leadership for allowing it to happen. This scenario is as predictable as a levy failure, and its occurence would be inexcusable.
We can't have that now can we. If the people want their Obama, the people darn well better get their Obama or all hell will break lose. I can assure you most don't care that much to riot over something like this, those that do will only guarantee McNuts as the next President.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I was watching some clips on youtube a while back from the 1992 LA riots. crazy stuff. i remember that day and hope it never happens again. everyone i know was armed for at least a month at all times. i had to drive through compton to san pedro while that was going on. i didnt choose to, but a relative was coming from catalina island back to the mainland. i tried calling them to tell them NOT TO COME but the phones were down. As I left to go to san pedro, i told my family that no one is gonna stop my car, ; we had just watched reginald denny get his brains bashed in on tv. unbelievably grotesque!!! I seriously was ready to mow down any crowd of murderers who tried to murder me,. several people were killed in long beach merely because they were white. a few were pulled off their motorcycles and shot in the head, just for being white.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
I believe that would be levee, counselor. As in drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry. Since you can't see this, feel free to stick that up your politically correct ass :)
I will grant you that, let's say that there's 10% about Hillary Clinton that we don't know yet, I will grant you that, but I would say there's also about 50% about Barack Obama that we don't know yet," Ed Rendell said.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
with the current global orchestrated food crisis, which is still a looming (yet probable) food crisis in the US, I think you're right. with the culture of today I can just image what will happen when the grocery store shelves are emptied.
MY REPLY TO ZEITGEIST: 1John Chapter 2: "21 I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. 22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist." "I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him" George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
I never heard of "Super Delegates" before this election. In fact I never heard of "Super Delegates" until Obama started winning the popular vote and then the 'normal' delegates.
I have a feeling that if he starts winning the "Super Delegates" the Democratic Party (Bill Clinton)will create "Super Duper Delegates".
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
I never heard of "Super Delegates" before this election. In fact I never heard of "Super Delegates" until Obama started winning the popular vote and then the 'normal' delegates.
Me neither. Delegates, yes, but super delegates?? Ah, another layer to ensure the pre-selected can't get slammed.
I have a feeling that if he starts winning the "Super Delegates" the Democratic Party (Bill Clinton)will create "Super Duper Delegates".
Ha!!! You know they'd do it too.. super secret clause written in invisible ink in the back Howeird Dean sratch and sniff playbook, with pop up pictures.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
You know there's only two Super Duper Delegates don't you?
Bill and Chelse
Haaaaaa! I didn't see that coming! ROFL!
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination. To date, about 52 percent of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obama roughly splitting them at 832 and 821 delegates a piece, according to the AP. ...
So, do the math. If they both have 820 plus pledged delegates so far, they'll need to win roughly 1,200 -- 75 percent -- of the remaining 1,600 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.
832 TO 821??? This misinformed writer is confusing the results of Super Tuesday with the overall results.
Obama claims delegate lead By: Mike Allen February 6, 2008 11:09 AM EST
In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.
The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
Obama claims delegate lead By: Mike Allen February 6, 2008 11:09 AM EST
Hmm.. well the source for this piece in Mother jones was :
The Washington Post's Paul Kane has done the math
Link here: blog.washingtonpost.com/the- http://">blog.washingtonpost.com/the- trail/2008/02/07/no_knockouts_from_here_to_the.html
HIs piece was written on 2/7/07.
The piece you cite was written 2/6/08
Think we can get them to fight?
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Hmm.. well the source for this piece in Mother jones was :
I went back and I see the Mother Jones piece shows the current date at the top of the page, but that is not the date of publication. At the bottom, the MJ piece notes it is:
Posted by David Corn on 02/08/08 at 9:25 AM
So, the whole thing is over two months old, but Mother Jones has a confusing way of displaying the material.
Dozens of Jewish Super-Delegates May Hold Key to Democratic Race Campaign Marks a Communal Coming of Age in Party Politics By Jennifer Siegel Thu. Mar 20, 2008
According to a new survey conducted by the Forward, a disproportionately large share of the Democratic party’s super-delegates are Jewish. Many of them have declared their support for Hillary Clinton, accounting for more than 15% of her current backers.
I saw that.. however the date of both pieces are only 1 day apart. That's where my confusion comes it... You think it's funny business, or just a simple mistake?
How could they get the numbers so wrong? Someone is wrong and someone is right, (or less wrong)..
We should find a source that resolves this delegate count issue. Whichever one is wrong, needs to be corrected and who ever is right, might be well served offereing 3 sources for his data.
Fire off a couple emails and then see if they can resoncile and issue a correction.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
According to a new survey conducted by the Forward, a disproportionately large share of the Democratic party’s super-delegates are Jewish.
I'm shocked !!!
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the bankswill deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)
Rob, I'm finishing up some paperwork here at home, I'm a little distracted. I 've been thinking about the hillary post earlier today.. The Aipac power v. the Israel party leaders power. I'm not familiar enough with this division and who claims control or the highest respect or who has the power to bring a US Presidential Candidate to victory. I'm stuck. I'm stuck on the embassy issue. I have to go back and reread some things I've posted and study again.. what are they talking about. It almost seems like the candidate that is desired to win must agree to build an embassy in Jerusalem, thereby ~~eliminating~~ a shared status, and worse.............But, I've got to read.. There are more people here that understand than I do... particularly in terms of history... but I'm just tryng to peel back the cammpaign rhetoric, and what it is that means to us, and what it might mean to different factions on issues around Israel.
I may need a glass of wine... all of this hurts my brain..... :)
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Dozens of Jewish Super-Delegates May Hold Key to Democratic Race Campaign Marks a Communal Coming of Age in Party Politics By Jennifer Siegel Thu. Mar 20, 2008
According to a new survey conducted by the Forward, a disproportionately large share of the Democratic party’s super-delegates are Jewish. Many of them have declared their support for Hillary Clinton, accounting for more than 15% of her current backers.
www.forward.com/articles/12998/
Hmmm... now see, this seems at odds with the 'voting' stats mentioned in the first article... so we have something else, a new layer going on here.... and so how were her delegates chosen?
Hmm. GTG... will be back later. .. just trying to understand how the thing works.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Whoaaaaaaaaa.........isaywhoamule........... did you see the graph???
In recent weeks, as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has won more new super- delegates and snatched away some super-delegates who had previously committed to Clinton, Clinton’s backers have worked to shore up her existing support and counter the growing perception by many in the party that if Obama maintains his current lead in the popular vote, as well as in total states and delegates won, the super-delegates should fall in line behind him.
The super-delegates “were not selected by the national party to be either potted plants or rubber stamps,” wrote Grossman, a top fundraiser for Clinton, in an open letter he sent out earlier this month to DNC members. The letter urged those who are still uncommitted to suspend making a judgment in the race until all state contests are concluded in early June.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
The Mother Jones article is two months old. It reflects thinking on 2/8/2008 that Obama held a slim lead of 832 - 821. Not all the final results of the then most recent primaries/caucuses were accurately known then and the breakdown up to that point (Feb 8th) now indicates 919-881, a lead of 38 in pledged delegates to Obama.
However, Obama then went on to win the next 12 primaries in a row and increased his pledged-delegate lead by an additional 126 delegates, to 164.
The two subsequent Clinton wins in OH and RI gained a net of 14 delegates, but Obama wins in TX, WY, and MS gained a net of 14 delegates, resulting in no change, and a return to an Obama lead of 164 pledged delegates.
Since the Mother Jones article was published, Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates in states 15-2.
Up to 2/8, the states went 16-10 Obama, with two states where delegates were evenly split. The subsequent 15-2 demolition (31-12 overall) cannot easily be ignored by the superdelegates. Subsequent events have seriously undermined the point of the article from February. When the contests are over, Clinton will definitely trail in the number of contests won, and most probably trail in pledged delegates and popular vote.
From the 2/8 subject article of this thread:
At this stage, there's no telling what all those superdelegates will do. Fewer than half have committed--and, as of a few days ago, the campaigns were saying that Clinton had about a 70-delegate edge among this band.
With the increased Obama lead, and the dwindling number of contests remaining, the mathematical considerations from February no longer hold true.
What was then a lead of 70 among superdelegates has now shrunk to 26 as Obama has picked up superdelegates and some have defected from Clinton.
Of the 795 superdelegates, 478 are now announced, leaving only 317 up for grabs (barring defections). Clinton must do some catching up in the primary/caucus contests or she would need to win 71+% of the remaining superdelegates 227-90.
Upcoming contests, with delegates available (566 total), and current polling data from Political Dashboard at Yahoo.
While unlikely, giving Clinton 60% of these delegates (roughly a 20% win in every state) would only net a gain of 113. Then she would need to win among the remaining 317 superdelegates by 172-145.
Clinton is not mathematically eliminated, but the practical challenges are very formidable.
04/22 - PA (158) - Clinton +7% 05/03 - GUAM (4) - 05/06 - NC (115) - Obama +15% 05/06 - IN (72) 05/13 - WV (28) 05/20 - OR (52) 05/20 - KY (51) 06/01 - PR (55) 06/03 - MT (16) 06/03 - SD (15)
Up to 2/8, the states went 16-10 Obama, with two states where delegates were evenly split. The subsequent 15-2 demolition (31-12 overall) cannot easily be ignored by the superdelegates. Subsequent events have seriously undermined the point of the article from February. When the contests are over, Clinton will definitely trail in the number of contests won, and most probably trail in pledged delegates and popular vote.
From the 2/8 subject article of this thread:
At this stage, there's no telling what all those superdelegates will do. Fewer than half have committed--and, as of a few days ago, the campaigns were saying that Clinton had about a 70-delegate edge among this band. With the increased Obama lead, and the dwindling number of contests remaining, the mathematical considerations from February no longer hold true.
OUTSTANDING.. And that is true...
So how could it be that both sources having written the peices one day apart are so differrent??? That's the mystery for me. Stranger still, MJ posted their op-ed, sourcing a piece two months old, why?
That said, I agree, the reality of those number shifted greatly after the following contests... No arguement.
But how could one source be sooooooo different than the other one day apart?
Why purposefully mislead? Why weren't other sources used to confirm accuracy?
Maybe I'm being too suspicious, but there are a minimum of 3 things in play with this.
GREAT JOB, I love analysis, and thank you very much for posting that.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Take a looksee at the graph at the link... pretty interesting.. fyi.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
The piece on Mother Jones is not sourced from a piece two months old. The piece you found on Mother Jones is, itself, two months old. The date at the top is NOT the date of publication, but the current date (it is an embedded variable in the page format.) If you return to it now, it will be different from the April 9 you apparently saw there thinking it was new and originally published on that date. It is the MJ piece that you posted and linked to that was posted by David Corn on 02/08/2008 at 9:25am.
Posted by David Corn on 02/08/08 at 9:25 AM | Comments (12)
Go to the comments to the MJ piece and you will find the twelve of them are from 02/08 thru 02/11.
With the rapidly changed political landscape, David Corn posted the following on 2/19/2008, stating "the math has become rather difficult for Clinton."
An Embarrassing Loss for Clinton: Where Have All the Blue-Collar Dems Gone?
Hillary Clinton's historic presidential campaign--once the political handicappers' favorite in the Democratic contest--now appears to depend on two things: Ohio and Texas.
On Tuesday, Barack Obama racked up his ninth win in a row, defeating Clinton by an embarrassing 17 points in Wisconsin. And once again, the nature of his win made the night worse for the Clinton crowd. As Obama had done in Virginia and Maryland a week earlier, he outdrew Clinton in voters in most demographic slices. In a state full of working-class voters, Obama demonstrated once more that he can appeal to lunch-bucket Democrats, outpacing Clinton among voters making $50,000 or less a year. Among voters below 30 years of age, Obama walloped Clinton 73 to 20 percent. He had a 2-to-1 edge with independents and Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary. Clinton did have an edge among those 65 and older: 60 to 39 percent. But among voters who said the economy was the top issue, Obama pulled 55 percent--a big gain from the 44 percent he collected among these voters on Super Tuesday. In Wisconsin, he won 54 percent of the vote of Democrats who have not attended college--presumably blue-collar Dems. On Super Tuesday, he collected only 42 percent within this group.
At this point, Clinton's base seems to be composed of one group of loyalists: older, middle-income women. (Among all Democratic women, Obama beat Clinton 50 to 49 percent in the exit polls.) Though women voters propelled Clinton to victories in New Hampshire and Nevada, they have not carried her to success since those two states. At the same time, Obama has expanded his core.
In Wisconsin, Obama's win occurred after another nasty stretch of campaigning. The Clinton campaign, after easing up on the attacks following the South Carolina contest, went into kitchen sink mode: throwing whatever they could at Obama. The Clinton crew accused him of plagiarism (for having used a few sentences of political rhetoric close to that of Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, an Obama supporter), claimed his health care plan was a disaster, slammed him for considering whether to break his promise to stay within the public campaign financing system (which Clinton, too, has pondered rejecting), maintained that his mortgage crisis plan was inadequate and (in the words of one Clinton spokesperson) "to the right of George Bush," and pounded him for turning down her request for a debate a week. None of this worked.
According to the exit polls, Democratic voters who reached a decision on how to vote within the past month broke for Obama 62 to 37 percent. Those who decided over a month ago split 50 to 49 percent for Clinton. The obvious conclusion: Obama has, yes, momentum. Winning eight contests in a row prior to Wisconsin influenced Badger State voters. Two-thirds of Wisconsin Democrats told exit polltakers they believed Obama has the better shot at winning in November.
With her support cratering, what can Clinton do? None of the trendlines are positive for her, as she heads toward the March 4 showdowns in Ohio and Texas. In the Lone Star State, Clinton has a lead in the polls, but it has been narrowing in recent days. In Ohio, she seems to be maintaining a comfortable advantage. But are Democratic voters in these states--including those working-class Democrats Clinton is counting on in Ohio--a different breed than those in Wisconsin and Virginia and immune to Obama's appeal? The next two weeks, he will be working these states hard. And so far this year, every time Obama has had a chance to spend much time and resources in a state, he has won or placed a close second.
A week ago, Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, sent out a memo to reporters, noting that after Ohio and Texas, Clinton and Obama "will be virtually tied" in delegates. He wrote,
The reason Hillary is so strong in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is that her message of delivering solutions resonates strongly with voters in those states. Hillary is the only candidate who can deliver the economic change voters want--the only candidate with a real plan and a record of fighting for health care, housing, job creation and protecting Social Security.
In recent primaries, Democratic voters have not validated Penn's claim. Still, he argued that Clinton could triumph in Ohio and Texas (and Pennsylvania on April 22, too) with the votes of white women and Latinos and end up with a lead in delegates. That may be possible--though the math has become rather difficult for Clinton. With the loss in Wisconsin (and the expected loss in Hawaii on the same night), Clinton more than before needs to score not only wins but blowouts in Ohio and Texas to close the increasing gap between her and Obama in pledged delegates. And there's no obvious course of action for her. She bashed Obama in Wisconsin to little effect. She also adopted a more populist, give-'em-hell tone when discussing economic issues, and there was no payoff.
In Youngstown, Ohio, on Election Night, Clinton--in a marathon-length speech drenched with policy details--repeated her chief criticism of Obama: I'm experienced; he's not. The Democratic race, she declared was about selecting a presidential candidate who "relies not just on words but on hard work." She added, "We can't just have speeches, we have to have solutions....While words matter, the best words in the world are not enough unless you match them with action."
That experience-over-inspiration argument has been Clinton's pitch since Iowa and New Hampshire, and it has not yet stopped Obama. Can Clinton play the same game of hold 'em in Texas and Ohio--her last best chances--and expect different results? There's no knowing at this point. But the betting is no longer in her favor.
Take a looksee at the graph at the link... pretty interesting.. fyi.
I reviewed that earlier when you discussed it with robnoel. The graph shows Clinton 36, Obama 12, and Undeclared 26.
Even if Clinton received all 26 undeclared, and claimed the 12 declared for Obama, she would still be trailing by about 100 delegates. I think this Jewish publication is exaggerating the effect of its constituent superdelegates. There are simply not enough of them not already declared for Clinton to justify the headline, "Dozens of Jewish Super-Delegates May Hold Key to Democratic Race." Two or three dozen do not hold the key to anything when when another eight dozen are needed and it is very hard to see where they are going to come from.
24 of the 74 total, more than a third, come from just two states, NY and CA.
Perhaps they can swing influence behind the scenes, but just their own votes ain't gonna git 'er done.
Ah! Cool. That explains it all around. You peeled that back. I usually do look at the comments as well... to get a feel for how their own readers react, and other POV. Well this was fun. LOL! Thanks nolu..
I see Bill was out on the stump again yesterday and keep sticking his foot in her mouth. What a blessing he's been for her.. LOLOL!
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Take a looksee at the graph at the link... pretty interesting.. fyi. I reviewed that earlier when you discussed it with robnoel. The graph shows Clinton 36, Obama 12, and Undeclared 26.
Even if Clinton received all 26 undeclared, and claimed the 12 declared for Obama, she would still be trailing by about 100 delegates. I think this Jewish publication is exaggerating the effect of its constituent superdelegates. There are simply not enough of them not already declared for Clinton to justify the headline, "Dozens of Jewish Super-Delegates May Hold Key to Democratic Race." Two or three dozen do not hold the key to anything when when another eight dozen are needed and it is very hard to see where they are going to come from.
24 of the 74 total, more than a third, come from just two states, NY and CA.
Perhaps they can swing influence behind the scenes, but just their own votes ain't gonna git 'er done.
I just found it interesting in that someone was looking at her delegates that way. I'm going to dig around and read about the delegates to see if that's common. I still just *feel* that none are bound, period... I think it was Howard Dean or someone that said, or warned them, that they could be in legal trouble if they committed and then changed their vote.. don't know if that's true. This SuperD business is all new to me.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942