Obama wins Delegate Count in Texas
Thank you very much! This is not over by a long, long long shot. Obama will fight to the bitter end to win the nomination. Like Hillary yesterday - It’s Obama’s turn now!
Looks more like a prediction than news. I’ll meet you back here when you have something substantial.
That is an estimate from the Obama camp. NBC estimates that Clinton will beat Obama by 3. Let’s all just wait for the actual data.
After all is said and done, Hillary is going to net a total of about 5 delegates out of yesterday. With Obama reportedly about to get 50 more supers plus Wyoming and Mississippi, Hillary will be worse off in a week than she was on monday and PA isn’t going to save her.
Unfortunately, I think Hillary is going to be able to strong arm the party into do-over votes in FLA and MI, offer Obama the Veep spot as part of the deal, then go out and lose to McCain, who will promptly die of old age and leave us in the care of whatever hideous, far right monstrosity of a running mate he will have to choose to pander to his knuckle-walking base.
Which ignores that she’ll have a clear month and half with Momentum and Winning on her side of the imagemaking, going into a big state where’s just just as strong as in New York or Ohio. Or, for that matter, Michigan or Florida, if the Obama forces succeed in “getting the rules changed” :rolleyes:
That’s leverage, with anybody she needs to use it on. That’s also plenty of time for passions to settle down enough for backroom deals to be made.
She’s going to lose WY amd MS and NC. She isn’t going to have any momentum going into PA and momentum can’t erase the math anyway. Her only hope is to change the rules regarding FL and MI. Essentially, she can’t win without cheating.
Explain this “cheating” charge, willya? We haven’t seen an adult explanation here yet.
You’re right; you can’t cheat when playing Calvinball.
Still waiting …
Call it Calvinball. Call it whatever you want. The point is that she can’t win by the rules she agreed to before this all started.
What I want to call it is what it is. Why don’t you?
Well then Obama can’t complain if the superdelegates take Hillary over the top 
Depending on how the remaining primaries and caucuses shake out, that may happen. If it’s all done aboveboard – a redo for Florida and Michigan; a tie or near-tie in pledged delegates; a clear difference in perceived electability based on the most recent nationwide polls – and the superdelegates cast their votes in a way that reflects all this, then yes, it’s legitimate and, however bitterly we Obama supporters may rue the choice of Hillary, we should accept it.
Mind you, I believe that Hillary rather than Obama as the candidate will lose thundering herds of Independents and dissatisfied Republicans, leading to a narrow McCain win; that Hillary’s negative coattails will produce a net loss of the Democrats in Congress; and that it would be a BAD outcome, still it would be legitimate based upon the rules as laid down at the start of it all.
Happy now, Dutch, Elvis? 
That’s a stupid equivalence that I’m really sick of. Obama has never said that the superdelegates are obligated by the rules to vote a certain way. He has argued for the criteria that he thinks is best, since there is no criteria in the rules. The failure to see the difference is either deliberate bias or ignorance.
No one’s saying that wouldn’t be within the rules, but they would lose half their party.
The supers aren’t going to be that stupid, though. The nominee will be the one who wins the popular vote. That’s guaranteed. What’s going to decide things will be whether the party revisits FL and MI. Even then, I think it would piss off so many people that it would doom Hillary’s candidacy.
I don’t have anything against Hillary but she can’t get this nom in any way that’s going to feel fair to the Obama supporters.
Agreeing to one set of campaign rules and then attempting to circumvent them when you realize you cannot win any other way is “cheating” to any reasonable person.
If you and I were to play Monopoly and agreed to use house rules that landing on Free Parking got you $500, that’s fine; we agree as adults to abide by a special set of rules for that contest. If you later land on Free Parking and I pull out the rules sheet and say “You can’t have $500” and pretend we didn’t agree on the house rule, I am cheating.
Clinton agreed to respect the DNC’s decision to disregard the votes in Florida and Michigan. Her opponents agreed as well. If she now tries to circumvent that agreement, she’s cheating - unless she arranges it in a way her opponents agree (such as holding a re-vote.)
Now, so far as I know Clinton has not come right out and tried to seat MI/FL delegates, so this is hypothetical at this point, I believe. But it stands as true all the same. If someone were to act like a fucking weasel they’re a fucking weasel, even if you personally support their politics.
Actually, there has. Ignoring arguments isn’t the same as refuting them.
Solipsistic much?
You’d rather call it “circumventing” then. Still needs substantiation from the world of fact.
Wrong. She agreed not to campaign there, as did the other candidates, and in fact did not.
If someone can’t be bothered with the basic facts, then what is the proper word for that?
I know it’s a ton of fun to toss cheap invective around, but this isn’t the best forum for that, folks.
Well there’s a sophist, Clintonian argument if ever there was one.