You do know he fathered two black children, right?
I think the paragraph you didn’t quote makes that clear. Your post doesn’t justify why 4/5 of the total awarded delegates, the pledged ones, should be referred to as “pledged delegates”.
Yes, two beautiful daughters.
And McCain has one black child, while the Clintons come in with zero black children. Perhaps it should go to McCain as the moderate in this particular contest.
He gets me, he really gets me.
No, they are not. If Obama had more “pledged delegates” but HRC had 2026 total delegates, then HRC would win, no matter how many “pledged delegates” (or delegates named “Bob” ) Obama had. “Pledged Delegates” is exactly as meaningful as Popular Vote. Both served soley to convince Total Delegates.
And what’s going to happen when Obama get’s 2230 delegates total? Will she drop then? With half the MI and FL delegations being sat at the convention?
You didn;t read mine , the last line is:
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,596,239 47.6% 17,650,671 47.7% Clinton +54,432 +0.15%
I cherry picked nothing. I listed the *entire *cite from RealClearPolitic’s site- all the possible counts according to that relaible and unbiased site. If I had picked one of the six methods they count, then you’d have a point, but I quoted ALL six.
Teere are no other popular votes from TX, the Caucus counted folks who had already voted in the popular election. RCP includes counts from NE & ID, so *every *state that has voted in in one of RCP’s counts.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
HRC doesn’t, and won’t, have or had 2026. Ever. She won’t win. She didn’t win. Regardless. (I’m typing really slow. Half because I’m quite drunk and my fingers aren’t moving very fast [but I still can add], and half so you can understand it.)
Are you going to wait to concede until she does?
I mean, are you going to “wait” to “concede”?
Ifyou say this over and over and over to yourself do you find it reassuring? 
Yes.
Actually, we don’t know what the caucus counts were.
Here’s the new RCP popular vote totals:
Popular Vote Total 17,350,032 48.2% 17,277,187 48% Obama +72,845 +0.2%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,684,116 48.2% 17,501,049 47.7% Obama +183,067 +0.5%
Popular Vote (w/ MI)** 17,350,032 47.4% 17,605,496 48.1% Clinton +255,464 +0.7%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,684,116 47.5% 17,829,358 47.8% Clinton +145,242 +0.4%
When we now count all states, HRC has a tiny lead. Now that MI and Fla have been seated, there can be no argument to not count their votes- but exactly how is another matter (there’s a reasonable claim to give Obama most of the “uncommited” votes from MI). Both sides can now make reasonable claims to have a lead- albeit a tiny lead.
Now, 2118 delegates are needed. Obama has 2065, HRC has 1910.
Neither can win enough votes in the next/last two primaries. There’s only 31 delegates left to be won in a primary. There are about 178 Superdelegates left.
There is simply no reasonable scenario whereby Obama will not get enough of the remaining superdelegates to win. It’s time to accept it and move on.
Clinton’s only remaining play is a legal challenge, which even if it wereto work, which it would not, would utterly poison her candidacy for the White House in the eyes of the public.
When he does get ebough votes, or HRC concedes, it’s over. I hope she does not concede until then (barring being offered Veep, oc course). It’s all very nice saying it’s over, but it ain’t.
Soon enough. I think she concedes tomorrow night with Obama getting the magic number or not. Just a thought. Why wait a day for the inevitable? She can go out tomorrow night and begin the unity honorably.
Maybe I’m just not getting something. I think I mentioned it in passing in this thread or one of the plethora of other Clinton/Obama threads.
What is the point of superdelegates (SDs) if they cannot overrule the voters in a close race and nominate the most electable president (for the purpose of the question, assume HRC is more electable than Obama otherwise the question is moot)?
I mean seriously, if the nominee should be the candidate with the most delegates then why bother with SDs. If the arguement is that there may be a candidate with more of a popular vote but less delegates (a la Gore 2000) or that a candidate may have fewer delegates but won the major electoral college states (like HRC has), etc. then change the DNC bylaws to put in these “fairer” rules.
Historically, the SDs were put as a final check on the voters, so my attitude would be that if you walk in with less than the delegates needed for nomination, then all bets are off and it’s up to the SDs to decide with whom lies the best chance - the frontrunner, the follower, the dark horse, the compromise, etc. So if you don’t wan’t thiem to do their job and only want then to go the way the delegates fall, THEN WHY HAVE THEM AT ALL?