The Democrats' elections are not winner-take-all though, so while it's nice to "win a state", the important thing is the net gain in delegates. And the formulas used to determine how delegates are won are often complex, allowing for a candidate to lose the popular vote in the state yet still get as many, or even more, delegates than his/her opponent. Obama won more delegates in Nevada, for instance, even though Clinton "won the state" slightly. So if Clinton "wins" Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but wins them by an average of 52%-48%, then her net gain in delegates over Obama would likely be very negligible. Agreed!
Republicans are probably really afraid of Obama, they will have to sling that mud to bring him down. With Clinton, its like picking apples off a tree. They want her to be the nominee, so they can bash her to a pulp. Repubs, I see the plan, its a good strategy and if she does win it. She will probably lose in the general election to dumb McCain, sorry but the guy isnt really that smart at all. But you dont have to be smart to be the president, look at what we have now, Corky from Life Goes On. Im praying and pulling for Obama. We need change in this country and not the kind McCain will bring which will be more of the same.
Here's a trivia question... Excluding super-delegates, how long (since which state's elections) has Obama been ahead in the delegate count? Since the very first caucus in Iowa - he has never trailed in the "earned" delegate count, ever.
This is absolutely correct. The polls show about 57-40 in favor of Clinton in Ohio. Look for that to dwindle to about a 54-45 margin by election time, maybe even slightly closer. Obama just wants to come close. He will dominate the rest of the smaller states by 65-35 margins on average, which will negate the bigger states won by Clinton. I suspect it will come down to Obama with about 1800, and Clinton with about 1700 with all the superdelgates in play. Obama will also have a decided advantage in the popular vote (51/48, possibly) and force the superdelegates to vote based on what the state's voters wanted, giving Obama the nomination with less than 2100 delegates (2025 required). The closest race ever in American History, I presume.
just in case y'all dont know, odds are great that neither candidate will win the nomination before the convention. and the closer the delegate count is going in to the convention, the less importance a lead in the delegate count has. really could be decided by the party bigwigs. im voting democrat unless bloomberg gets in, but id love nothing more than for this to blow up in the Dems face. I WANT A VIABLE THIRD PARTY!
gumbo, the dems have a legit shot to screw this whole process up and give the Republican candidate a big boost going into the race for the Presidency. Could be looking at the 2000 election all over again, but this time within the Democratic party. Superdelegates going against the grain to get Clinton the nomination. It could happen.
I was referring to his propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth. He needs to be more careful what he says.
I agree. So far Hillary is winning all the big delegate states. In addition, I suspect she will get the lion's share of the superdelegates. In the end, the superdelegates could be the ones who determines the nomination.
The Democrats have themselves and the Rev. Jessie Jackson to thank for their current system. In 1986 he pushed for, and got, the elimination of winner-takes-all Democratic primaries making it more difficult for a candidate to wrap up the nomination before the national convention, increasing the chances of a brokered convention. A brokered convention is very interesting from the delegate's point-of-view, but politically it is frought with hazards, such as the spector of "smoke-filled," back room deals.
