funny, clinton "won" Texas (just like some other states she "won" but actually lost) but it looks like she'll get less delegates from it. how is that a "win"? http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/TX.html Democrats 193 pledged delegates, 35 unpledged Candidate Vote % Delegates Hillary Rodham Clinton 1,455,959 50.9% 65 Barack Obama 1,356,330 47.4 61 Caucus Results Democrats Candidate Vote† % Delegates Barack Obama 23,009 55.9% To be determined Hillary Rodham Clinton 18,117 44.0
So, is she getting fewer delegates from Texas because she didn't win a SINGLE metropolitan area? Edited to add--I "think" she won El Paso? That figures, though, because she is getting the Texas Hispanic vote.
im not 100% sure, but tx has a screwy system that bases the # of delegates for a county/district on previous turnout. so if she's getting tons of votes from high latino turnout in areas where it has been low previously, she wont get much from those votes.
Obama is running as a "change" candidate. He can not resort to politics as usual without bringing into the minds of the voters, "just how big a change is he?"
i disagree. i think voters realize, to a degree, its part of the game. i think his image is a bit to sissy. he would gain some respect from some voters by showing some mettle.
Yea he really needs to go after her a bit, there is so much stuff, that he has to chose from. But keep it civil, dont seem to malicious.
