Please point to the references he made. If they are there as you calim, it will be easy for you to produce the references. By the way CA has been called for Hillary now. So she will win CA. The question is by how much.
with 15% reporting in Kalifornia, looks like Hellafat is up big. 55%/32% I don't recall the polls projecting a 20+ point lead to Theighmaster Hilla
FOX JUST CALLED CALIFORNIA FOR HILLARY!!!! This is a crippling blow to Barack Hussein Obama. YES SHE CAN
so it really isn't important who wins the general vote in a lot of the democractic primaries? wow Clinton took like 115 counties to Obama's 5 counties!! (prelimnary count by me)
you cant call california right now. dont listen to fox also, with mizzou being this close, whoever wins i dont see how that person will get more delages by any meaningful ammount. missouri is an essential tie
MSNBC has also called CA for Hillary. I think it's safe to say Hillary has won CA. We just have to see by what margin.
I don't know about that. Hillary has always been popular with Hispanics. A large portion of the Hispanic vote is probably genuinely for her, as opposed to being against Obama.
they probably don't even know who Obama is. Most of them probably live in shacks and dont have the internets or any TV. they probably think he's some Arab. You know how these uneducated people think.
To an extent, no. Some delegates are distributed by statewide breakdown; others by congressional district. It makes this whole thing very complicated. For example, in the first four states (Iowa, NH, Nevada, and SC), Obama won 2 and Hillary won 2. But Obama actually won the delegates in 3 of the 4 and tied in the 4th. It didn't really matter because there are so few delegates. But the winner of states is mostly for media coverage - the real battle will be how the delegates work. For example, they say that Obama may have kept the NY delegate count very, very close which helps him a ton. But who knows how California then plays out. I can't tell if there's a consistent pattern of if it's better to win rural or urban or what. I know that in districts with 4 delegates, if you win 59-41, both candidates get 2 delegates, for example. If you win 61-39, the winner gets 3, the loser gets 1. Huge difference.
I heard that Obama may actually get 90 - 94 delegates from NY. That's pretty huge. What they are saying is that the early voting hurt Obama in CA, MASS, and NJ. Those votes were cast before Obama had the full momentum pushing him, so it will be interesting to say what happens now that Obama has at least held his own on Super Tuesday if not gained some additional momentum.
I think the simplest is to break it up based on statewide vote. The problem with winner-take-all is seen on the Republican side. You could win California 51-49 and win all the delegates. Someone else could win a bunch of smaller states 80-20, have a bigger total popular vote, but get their ass kicked in delegates. It seems like an irrational way of doing things to me.
Karl Rove just made a verrrrry important point on Fox News: Ba'raq is scoring victories in red states that the democrats have absolutely no prayer in during the general election. Georgia, Alabama, North Dakota, Kansas... the democratic party has to look to the candidate that can do well in the states that matter come November...
now, everyone's called california for hillary however, it is still important to see what % she wins by. every % in california is HUGE in terms of delagates i would imagine she would rather win by an extra % point than win a state like delaware or north dakota 65-35
This is race is so bizarre... the trends change so much from state to state. For example, in Missouri, Clinton dominated the rural counties, but Obama essentially tied her by winning KC, Columbia and STL. That's it. So, if you look at it that way, it seems like Clinton is the rural candidate and Obama the urban candidate... But then you look at Obama's huge leads in rural states like North Dakota and Kansas, and contrast that with Hillary's huge lead in California, and the reverse seems true. Crazy.
i dunno, Obama did have like 40% of the vote. theres 232 delegats for grabs in the primary, isn't 40% of that 92?
I wasn't saying that the way of breaking up the delegates is insane, but that in Hillary's home state he would take that many delegates. Depending on what the margin is in CA it might be off set.
why not just a general election and dish it out by popular vote? If you get 35% of the popular vote, you get 35% of the delegates, etc.
