Remember when Hillary lost NC and nearly lost IN? The consensus was that, “It’s really over for real this time, guys.” Someone opened up a Fork IV thread and a mod moved it to IMHO or somewhere else because the mood at the time was there was little to discuss? Well, yeah…H-Dawg don’t play like that. I’ve been drawing lines in the sand for her every step of the way. It’s like that Bugs Bunny / Yosemite Sam cartoon where Bugs draws a line on the ground and Sam steps across. Every time you think, “surely not. surely she won’t do it!” she does. That’s why I think she’s going to the convention.
Did you guys notice that she’s going to have her supporters at the May 31 decision about FL and MI? Just like Rove shipped in that “mob” for the FL recount? It’s beyond irony. It’s like she took irony and bent it into a pretzel shape. She’s criticizing the democrats for obeying her wishes in September of 2007 by likening it to the FL recount of 2000 (and Mugabe?) by employing the tactics used against her party in said Florida recount in 2000, while also likening it to the civil rights movement despite the fact that she just finished playing “Vote for me because I’m white” in WV.
So let me win because otherwise Mugabe / Bush / Hillary September 2007 / Obama / Anti-Civil Rights people / Black People will win otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
Nevermind …stupid board timeouts
The slow down on the numbers of supers declaring for Obama is mildly worrying, but I suspect it’s probably just because we are now so close to the end of the Primary season that most of them are deciding they might as well wait it out. There are a bunch of them who are just so afarid of annoying a single constituent that I think they’re holding out hope that HRC will drop out before they have to step out into the sunlight and voice an opinion.
I wonder what happened to Pelosi’s allleged faction of supers who she said would all declare as soon as one or the other had clinched a majority of PD’s.
[/QUOTE]
I wish y’all would stop with the worrying. Today’s superdelegate tally: Obama 2, Clinton -1
Plus two more Edwards delegates, according to DCW, who will let us know who they are as soon as GP updates their pages. That brings us down to 67.
It’d be nice if Edward’s Florida delegates would announce their intentions soon, that could make the RBC meeting almost moot (do they have any other duties besides FL and MI this year?).
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Plus two more Edwards delegates, according to DCW, who will let us know who they are as soon as GP updates their pages. That brings us down to 67.
It’d be nice if Edward’s Florida delegates would announce their intentions soon, that could make the RBC meeting almost moot (do they have any other duties besides FL and MI this year?).
[/QUOTE]
57, not 67.
Anyway, it’s now 54, with a commitment from one other who won’t officially announce until June 3, which would make it 53.
So at this point, even if he splits all remaining pledged delegates evenly (I think there’s about 100 left, counting PR) he’ll go over 2024. Of course, Hillary is trying desperately to move that goal post, but I think Hasselhoff is going to cry on the 3rd.
[QUOTE=DSeid] DtC 86 pledged left. PR is a wild card to predict and half (43) may be optimisitc. He still needs supers. Not many but he needs some.
[/QUOTE]
Hm…electoral-vote.com lists 25 delegates for Montana and 23 for SD. According to this AP link, there are 55 delegates in Puerto Rico. That adds up to 103. He’s going to win MT and SD, so I figured netting 50 was a reasonable expectation.
Is one of my sources wrong on the number of delegates left?
I used realclearpolitics. They say PR is 55, South Dakota is 15 and Montana is 16. I think that your source includes both pledged and superdelegates. Yup. It does. Now mind you some of those undeclared supers there are also “wobbling” to Obama.
The path to the White House goes through Puerto Rico!
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Hm…electoral-vote.com lists 25 delegates for Montana and 23 for SD. According to this AP link, there are 55 delegates in Puerto Rico. That adds up to 103. He’s going to win MT and SD, so I figured netting 50 was a reasonable expectation.
Is one of my sources wrong on the number of delegates left?
[/QUOTE]
Those numbers for Montana and SD include superdelegates. The pledged delegate numbers available are 16 and 15, respectively. Plus the 55 for PR makes 86. Regardless, the supers will probably make 43 all that’s needed by then, anyway.
My WAG is Obama will get ~34 delegates from PR, MT, and SD. Of course, by the time those primaries happen, the RBC will have met, and probably moved the goalposts somewhat. Chances are Obama needs at least another 50-60 supers or Edwards delegates to clinch the deal, in addition to what he wins in those three primaries.
[QUOTE=ratatoskK]
From the NY Times
In other words, she’s implying that he’s going to be assassinated, so people should vote for her!!! :mad:
[/QUOTE]
Yes…
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
indeed…
You see what I’m talking about? It’s a new thing every day with her. She somehow manages to dig down deeper. Now we’ll have more hand-wringing, more outrage by anyone with any sense, and a solid percentage of pussy-ass superdelegates afraid to put an end to this.
This should stop now.
ETA: You don’t need to be “In the race” to get the nomination of Obama is assassinated
Not to mention that comparing the 1992 primary calendar to the front-loaded 2008 one is completely irrelevant. The important part of her remark (other than the assassination thing) is “California”, not “June”. There is NOTHING to compare to California remaining in this primary season. There has been nothing on a California-scale of delegates since…well, California, in February. She’s either a mathematical idiot, in deep denial, or lying.