I'm listening to Obama on NPR, and he sounds pretty good. Don't know how he looks though. Still not sure how he's going to deliver on his anti-globalization rhetoric.
its quite fun and quite boring that this goes on and on and on and on. obama is the next president of the country you live in. you may or may not like it. but he has already won. keep on talking typing and b****ing. but its done
I think you guys should be nice to the Clinton supporters. Otherwise, they might just vote for McCain.
I said the same thing about Hillary a while back. It is NOT a done deal. Obama is likely to be the Dem nominee but November is open for either result.
I wonder what the delegate counts would be if the Dems used a winner take all system. EDIT: Never mind. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all
Sounds like spin from the Obama camp to me. A double digit win is a double digit win. She's got the momentum right now (heard she's already raked in $2.5M just tonight) Obama outspent her 2-1 in PA and she still beat him by double digits.
That's exactly what I was referring to. There's a reason Obama's delegate percentage is far above what his result would be in a winner take all system and above even his popular vote percentage, and it's because he's consistently won where the delegate breakdown isn't proportional to the percentage of the vote. What does that mean? In almost every state where both have competed, he's excelled in the spots John Kerry won in 2004 (thus getting more delegates), while Clinton has excelled in areas controlled by Republicans in 2004. There's nothing wrong with that. He can easily win in November that way, and I strongly believe he will. But given the overall evidence when both sides competed, I think it's extremely misleading to claim Obama is the candidate best equipped to bring in traditionally Republican areas to the Dem side. That is not what the evidence suggests.
It sucks that he couldn't get 9. Her recent strategy, such as ratcheting up the fear premium or blasting Iran to smithereens, makes her take positions a Republican will be dominant in a h2h matchup. I guess she's betting on people loathing Bush for them not to notice, but she's walking a very thin line on these issues.
Hillary only won 6 more delegates than Obama did. That must be extremely disappointing for her team. She narrowed the gap by 6 and she’s still behind by almost 140. It must be practically impossible for her to win at this point. Is it time for the super delegates to line up behind Obama and put an end this?
It's not impossible that she can win. Quit listening to the Obama supporters trying to change the rules of the game and end this early. If you were ahead, then suddenly saw yourself lose by double digits in a huge state, I'd be lobbying to stop the contest, too...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA Pennsylvania Updated 22 minutes ago [12:19 AM CDT] 99% reporting Clinton 1,249,577 Obama 1,034,686 Total. . 2,284,623 1,249,577 / 2,284,623 = 54.7% 1,034,686 / 2,284,623 = 45.3% Difference. . . . . . . . . . . 9.4% You were saying?
Not impossible, but highly unlikely. To catch Obama in pledged delegates, she'd have to win 80% or more of those remaining outside of NC and Oregon (Obama wins) and Indiana (Clinton narrow win). That means 80% of Guam, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota. That Obama will be favored in at least 4 of those makes it highly unlikely Clinton overtakes Obama in pledged delegates. Likewise for popular vote. She picked up 200,000+ tonight, but that still leaves her 600,000 short and even if you count FL where there was no campaigning, but HIllary did a little more than that, it's still a huge 300,000+ lead for Obama. Hillary has to win either the pledged delegates or the popular vote to make a case for enough Supers to clinch. I don't think she can make up even 300,000 with the remaining states. Her only spin on this is if you include her Michigan votes, where Obama was not on the ballot and received 0 votes. That's enough of a difference to give her a 120,000 vote lead. But Uncommitted received 238,000 votes... if Obama had his name on the ballot and campaigned there, he would have easily received that much giving him a 100,000+ lead. Numbers here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Highly dubious to award Texas to Clinton when the actual primary+caucus combined ended up in favor of Obama. In a "winner take all" hypothetical awarding Texas to Obama, he'd be ahead by 219 pledged delegates. Award Texas to noone and he'd be ahead 26.
388 pledged delegates left after tonight. Clinton needs to win by more than double... roughly 264-124... to catch Obama. I'll go out on a limb and say that's not going to happen. Obama only needs to split NC and OR 50/50 to put it away... Clinton can win every delegate in every remaining primary, including IN and she still would not catch him if he splits those two states.
