Meanwhile, PA governor Ed Rendell, a strong Clinton backer, is quoted on cnn.com this morning as saying it’s “very unlikely” that she’ll win.
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
And according to this morning’s Frostbite Falls Fulminator he should pick up at least 44 committed delegates in next Tuesday’s voting. So unless the DNC moves the goalposts again. . . .
[/QUOTE]
Is it really the DNC who’s moving the goalposts?
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Is it really the DNC who’s moving the goalposts?
[/QUOTE]
Theoretically, if the Rules & Bylaws Committee decides to seat any of the disputed delegates, it will be, since the required number of delegates will then be increased. As far as I’ve heard, though, Obama’s got enough supers hiding out in his pockets that he doesn’t really have to worry about it.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Where she is having supporters protest (!?) the decision made by the RBC…
[/QUOTE]
Snipped text.
Wait a minute, I haven’t heard of this. She’s having supporters protest the RBC decision, and they haven’t even met yet? :dubious: (I mean, not that I should be surprised, but… really?)
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
And according to this morning’s Frostbite Falls Fulminator he should pick up at least 44 committed delegates in next Tuesday’s voting. So unless the DNC moves the goalposts again. . . .
[/QUOTE]
Is that an online source? Do you have a link to it, if so?
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting]
Is it really the DNC who’s moving the goalposts?
[/QUOTE]
Technically. They moved them after Michigan and Florida broke their rules. (They’re their goalposts and the DNC may do whatever they want with them.)
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Theoretically, if the Rules & Bylaws Committee decides to seat any of the disputed delegates, it will be, since the required number of delegates will then be increased. As far as I’ve heard, though, Obama’s got enough supers hiding out in his pockets that he doesn’t really have to worry about it.
[/QUOTE]
People have wondered why the superdelegates’ sloughing toward Obama had slowed, but I always knew it was a strategic play on his part. Now it makes more sense.
I understand what you’re saying, but I thought the delegate requirement for nomination was 2025 (24?) at the start of the season and am confused that it would change if MIFL is brought into play. Am I now to understand that 2045 (24/) was set with the idea that sanctions were known and would hold in regards to MIFL?
(BJMoose has answered the question in my last paragraph.)
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Snipped text.
Wait a minute, I haven’t heard of this. She’s having supporters protest the RBC decision, and they haven’t even met yet? :dubious: (I mean, not that I should be surprised, but… really?)
Is that an online source? Do you have a link to it, if so?
[/QUOTE]
Ack! I shoulda known this would trip up someone someday. A while back I picked up the habit of refering to something in the local paper, when the precise source didn’t seem to matter, as something from the Frostbite Falls F____; it’s a little homage to my muse, Bullwinkle. :sigh:
The actual source is The Wichita Eagle in an item from McClatchy Newspapers (of which the Eagle is one): “Obama is expected to top that number [delegates needed to win] after Montana and South Dakota vote Tuesday, but the Clinton camp says that if Florida and Michigan are included” - well, you know the rest.
Sorry 'bout dat.
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Sorry 'bout dat.
[/QUOTE]
No worries. I was just hoping to see an analysis or methodology of how that number was obtained. I was under the impression that Obama was expected to lose Puerto Rico (which is hopefully why HRC stayed in, so he wouldn’t lose to somebody who wasn’t running), and basically split Sota and Dakota. It’s my conservative estimate that he’s going to end the final three primaries without a positive delegate net, of which +1 is needed to claim a majority of total delegates (as of now, I’m sure that’ll change by Sunday or Monday).
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
<snip>it’s a little homage to my muse, Bullwinkle. :sigh:
[/quote]
:smack: I should have realized that with the cursory Google I did.
Never mind; I’m repeating myself (and am now tempted to double post this :rolleyes: ).
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
No worries. I was just hoping to see an analysis or methodology of how that number was obtained. I was under the impression that Obama was expected to lose Puerto Rico (which is hopefully why HRC stayed in, so he wouldn’t lose to somebody who wasn’t running), and basically split Sota and Dakota. It’s my conservative estimate that he’s going to end the final three primaries without a positive delegate net, of which +1 is needed to claim a majority of total delegates (as of now, I’m sure that’ll change by Sunday or Monday).
[/QUOTE]
Obama is polling ahead by double digits in both Montana and South Dakota.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Obama is polling ahead by double digits in both Montana and South Dakota.
[/QUOTE]
That’ll probably net him four. I think that’ll be wiped out by PR.
Not that it matters, as the number will probably swing by 10 by then due to the supers.
Gawd, I just want it to be Wednesday already so we can finally stop Monday Morninging (how’s that for a made up word?) something that was already basically forgone months ago.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
After reading Al Giordano at The Field, I’m a lot calmer now.
As we all know, the only thing Hillary wants is for her to get Michigan and Florida at full strength with the 55 uncommitted delegates being just that. Any other result means that she will lose. That probably won’t happen, but we’ll get back to that scenario in a bit as to why it won’t matter. It is most likely going to be decided that There will be some kind of half-strength compromise, only HRC won’t compromise. That’s her fault though. The new number will be set, and Obama will probably have enough super-delegates in the bank to reach it immediately after the last primary. It won’t go to the convention at all, because there will be nobody left to vote. Superdelegates will choose a side. If by some miracle, Hillary would win if she had the rules bent in her favor, then she might make a stink at the convention, but I doubt it will be possible. Reading Al Giordano makes a lot of sense, because really, Clinton is going to run out of oxygen after this coming tuesday. Her last chance to exit with a modicum of grace will be after the last primary yet before Obama gets to the magic number with the remaining superdelegates. Because he will get them whether she stays in the race or not.
Oh and for the Hillary supporter(s?). Stop making arguments about who’s more electable. There is a set of rules to a game, and Obama won. If Hillary were such a great player then why didn’t she win? It’s like being a child again dealing with these people. The best way to deal with a sore loser is to ignore them, but unfortunately we can’t completely ignore her until this weekend. Where she is having supporters protest (!?) the decision made by the RBC. Yeah that’s really going to help.
It’s sad really that she doesn’t see how Obama’s playing it cool and her sending supporters to protest is really just further damaging her cause.
[/QUOTE]
Obama already has something like 31 of the 55 uncommitted delgates, BTW.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Obama is polling ahead by double digits in both Montana and South Dakota.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah well, those are big city, “urban” states with only lazy, non-white, male voters. Surely those don’t mean anything! :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=BJMoose]
Ack! I shoulda known this would trip up someone someday.
[/QUOTE]
Time to get another hat!
Yikes! Hillary got a vote today, and has pulled to within 200. :eek:
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Yikes! Hillary got a vote today, and has pulled to within 200. :eek:
[/QUOTE]
What’s the rationale behind folks still voting for her? At some point don’t even those with the thickest of skulls have to realize there’s no chance for Hillary to win?
[QUOTE=Onomatopoeia]
What’s the rationale behind folks still voting for her? At some point don’t even those with the thickest of skulls have to realize there’s no chance for Hillary to win?
[/QUOTE]
Some are simply voting in line with however their district voted.
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus]
Some are simply voting in line with however their district voted.
[/QUOTE]
Which I think is a pretty fair rationale. I have no quibble with that.
Wasn’t there a super a week or two ago who said he was going to vote for Hillary because he’d promised he follow the voting of his district, but that he actually endorsed Obama?
[QUOTE=DigitalC]
Because the rules only have to do with the sitting of delegates? popular vote is simply a count of how many people voted for each candidate. Michigan is obviously too screwed up to count but i don’t see why Floridas votes shouldn’t count when all we are saying is “this many people voted for this candidate”, which has nothing to do with the rules.
[/QUOTE]
Andrew Sullivan has been fielding quite of e-mail from readers who are complaining that they are disenfranchised Florida citizens. How are they disenfranchised?
Because they consciously decided not to vote because they were explicitly told their votes wouldn’t count. Plus, I read a report (don’t have the link right now) that shows the proportion of eligible voters who participated in the FL & MI primaries was significantly lower that of the primaries from other states–suggesting that a certain “vote” is underrepresented in the numbers because everyone was told nothing they did would count one way or the other anyway and many voters made a “choice” accordingly that’s not currently being factored.
And in the meantime, you might get a kick out of this: Young Hillary Clinton. 
This just in: Clinton tries to pull a fast one.
[Florida and Michigan may see delegates halved](Florida and Michigan may see delegates halved).
Quote from the article:
“The [Clinton] campaign put out a fact sheet citing a quotation from Obama that suggested there might be some injustice if the nomination were not given to the candidate with the most popular votes.”
What Obama actually said:
“On February 8th, Senator Obama said that if someone had the most pledged delegates and the most votes in the country, that ‘it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.’”