There is no such thing as a virtual tie in any popular vote. Either both candidates have exactly the same number of votes (a literal tie), or they do not, and one is the literal winner. Virtuality is just more hand waving. Anyway you slice it, Obama is ahead.
It’s so funny how people confuse this - those of us who are perpetually plugged-in and those who get their news from the tube…there is no such thing as a virtual tie. Obama is ahead anyway you can slice it and with any luck it will stay that way.
No kidding: it’s like, how many delegates/votes/whatever does Obama have to be ahead by to be the winner? The argument that Hillary is not behind by much, therefore she should be the nominee, just baffles me.
Nice. The text preserved above is the full difference between posts #1027 and #1176. As I pointed out in post #1030, disregarding your disingenuous editing, Hertzberg reaches a faulty conclusion. By his own standard (the 125K vote difference, quoted above by RTFirefly), it is not “close” except when you include MI. In fact, if you follow his logic and allow the uncommitteds from MI to count for Obama, the only case that falls within his 125K vote parameter is when you also exclude the caucuses. In other words, he sets up 8 categories and in only 1 of them is there a so-called “virtual tie”. (I’m pretty sure; I’m not going to waste my time on the math again.)
Now, tomorrow we’ll have further results that can be tossed around and analyzed to death until the next primaries. Until then, I should hope you can control yourself and refrain from citing inane arguments or making them yourself.
As Shayna said yesterday, Obama got endorsements from two MD DNC officials, the chair and vice-chair of the MD state Democratic Party. Their names are Michael Cryor and Lauren Glover. So if you see those names, they’re the ones that Shayna has already mentioned.
In other superdelegate action yesterday, Clinton picked up 1/2 of a superdelegate (Theresa Morelli of the Democrats Abroad, whose delegates have only 1/2 vote apiece), while Obama picked up 3 Illinois superdelegates: Mayor Daley, Barbara Flynn Currie, and Todd Stroger.
DemConWatch has Hillary’s superdelegate lead down to 15.5, with other sources having margins ranging from 14 to 19.
Thanks RT and Shayna. I now have a much better grasp of the topic.
By the bye, why does the Democratic Party have such an excruciatingly intricate election procedure? I don’t see how it helps the process in any way – rather the opposite, as it only helps entangle the procedure and opens venues for undemocratic back-room deals.
I mean this whole Nuclear Option deal seems like something right out of the old Politburo as the electors could potentially be overruled by an intra-party partisan committee.
My best guess is that no one thought it would come to this. We’ve gone a generation since more than one candidate had a viable campaign after the first week in April.
So if FL and MI were going to be told in January to piss off, the assumption was that they could be welcomed back in with open arms, not too long after Super Tuesday settled the nomination, and everyone would be OK with things.
Instead, it’s May, and this thing’s still going on. Not too many people expected this.
Clinton campaign retools delegate math
Gee, talk out of both sides of your mouth much? You’re either moving the goalposts now, as per your website, or you’re waiting on the ruling by the Rules & Bylaws Committee at the end of May – pick one.
The unmitigated gall is astounding. WHY would anyone want this duplicitous, lying, rule-breaking woman leading our country? Isn’t this exactly the kind of behavior we’ve been so outraged by in Bush?
Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana Dopers who haven’t voted yet, I BEG YOU, please do not do this to us! Please do not give Hillary Clinton any reason to think she has a chance if she just plows on and stomps all over the Rules Committee in an effort to make us choose between Bush McSame and Bush Left in November. Please, I implore you.
Please.
The scary part of this is the disproportionate amount of Clinton supporters on that committee. They could very well decide that their ruling last year is invalid because of the need to not “disenfranchise” either state, which is naturally a smokescreen for “because Clinton must be the nominee or our plum patronage jobs won’t materialize”.
Hell, if she thinks she needs 2,208, she’s even farther away than I thought!
You know what drives me crazy, is that no body wants to put the blame where it truly belongs, the folks in Michigan and Florida who moved up their primarie like jackasses. Folks want to blame the DNC or Obama or Deal.
Yep. That’s what I find so amazingly flawed about this “system.”
What I’d like to know is if she pulls this move how many Democrats will stay loyal to the Party and vote for her anyway?
I posted this in another thread but Obama brokers ceasefire in the Niger delta in his spare time should trump Hil’s IRA peace talk tea service.
“Appeals for” /= “brokers”.
It should, Biggirl. But I doubt I’ll even hear a pundit mention it in a positive context over the next few days. I mean, it broke yesterday, right? I haven’t heard about it today. All I’ve heard about is how great Hillary is doing, and how great Bill has been in helping her.
FWIW, I’ve heard that Obama is having a fundraising dinner in New Mexico at the end of May. I’d go, but the cheapest tickets are $500.
Cite?
And, I wouldn’t bring it up myself, except that it’s the Obama-ites who kept bringing it up, as a reason why the SuperDelegates would not dare to vote against the “will of the people”. And dudes? Wasn’t it just a little while ago (when Hilary was winning with delegates but her lead was all Supers) that the SuperDelegates were not the "real delegates’ andy way, that the “pledged delegates” were the true “will of the people”, etc etc yadda, yadda. Odd (hmm could it be becuase Obama now is getting a air number of supers and needs more?, nah) how not the Obama-ites are not counting every Super as if they were gold nuggets.
I am glad to see an Obama supporter finally agree that there is only one "count that counts’ instead of blathering on about “pledged delegates” “most states won” and so forth. I have been saying that for months now.
However, Obama appears to have gained on the Hilster in both delegates and Popular vote tonite. Now, it appears he has a slight lead no matter how you count it.
I concede that Hillary is more shrill and annoying than Obama, but the Hillary-ites are not even a shade on Obama’s supporters.
I guess you see what you want to see.
That you want to imply that the Obama supporters here have been more guilty of hypocrisy and dancing around the issues…
I mean…
Do you really mean that?
I accuse them of being shrill and annoying. :dubious: Where do the words “hypocrisy and dancing around the issues” appear in my post? 