There's a primary today in Mississippi. Obama will win in a landslide. It turns out the Hillary got a net six delegates in her "big win" on Tuesday. Obama's win today will easily wipe out Hillary's gains. But, alas, Mississippi "doesn't count."
Update: Okay, they called for Obama with no precincts reporting. How do they do that? I guess it's based on exit polls, but I've felt that maybe they should count a vote or two before making that judgment. Admittedly, I've never seen such a prediction be wrong, so maybe I'm overreacting.
Also, there have been some adjustments to some of the delegates. Obama picked up two delegates on the final certification in California, and he's now expected to get another two Ohio. In Colorado, Hillary may gain a delegate or two because the delegate ratio seems to have shifted in the county conventions. Don't ask me more about that story, it's really below-the-radar right now and it's hard to get credible information. Some Obama supporters are claiming nefarious activities, but I remain skeptical. It could just be a simple twist of math.
But that brings up an important aspect of American elections. They make no sense at all, and take weeks or months to ultimately get resolved. Elections in India are easier to understand, and they're reported in some weird language like Hindi or Gujarat. Most countries in the world can count each vote, and give the election the the person who got the most votes. It's really not that hard. Why can't we do that? Yeah, I know, we'd have to change the Constitution. Damn!
Drepung Loseling Temple, Mundgod
Drepung Loseling Temple, Mundgod
Taj Mahal, Agra
Taj Mahal, Agra
Varanasi
Varanasi
Mahabodhi Temple, Bodh Gaya
Mahabodhi Temple, Bodh Gaya
Mt. Kangchenjunga, Darjeeling
Mt. Kangchenjunga, Darjeeling
San Thome Basilica, Chennai
San Thome Basilica, Chennai
Brigade Road, Bangalore
Brigade Road, Bangalore
Tom with Cobra
Tom with Cobra
6 comments:
Obama wins, and CNN is also reporting that he won the TX caucuses and is pulling more delegates out than Clinton.
What happens if Clinton wins PA? Obama will have an insurmountable lead in delegates, but not enough for the nomination. But if Clinton wins PA that's another big state "win" for her, furthering the perception that she can win the big states and Obama can not.
Mistaken perception or not, unless Obama can convincingly win PA, why should the Superdelegates switch allegiance? Will they piss off their constituencies by voting against their will? Maybe, but the American electorate is ridiculously forgiving.
Obama should be the candidate. But unless he can truly differentiate himself in the next few weeks, there's no way this will be decided before the convention.
And in the meantime, as you'd said before Tom, McCain get to run his campaign virtually unopposed. America will now see what a true conservative is, not these pathetic neocons like Bush molded in the laboratory of Karl Rove. McCain is better than Bush, but that's like saying Wendy's makes a better hamburger than McDonalds. McCain must be stopped.
On the superdelegates, I tend to think that they will vote with their constituencies. Most of them are elected officials that don't want to piss of their voters. Most of them probably wish they didn't have to cast a vote. That said, it favors Clinton a little because she's won more of the blue states, and the blue states have more Democratic elected officials. But about 20% of the superdelegates are party officials, ans I would assume they'll break towards Clinton as well. But it won't quite balance out Obama's pledged delegate lead. Which brings us to the "add-on" delegates, and I have no idea how they break because I don't really understand how they are allocated. But it will be close enough that those add-on delegates could swing it. What a mess. By the way, if Spitzer resigns, he loses his superdelegate status, and Clinton loses a delegate.
Very good point about Spitzer. That's one less Superdelegate for Clinton. He should resign as early as today. It will happen soon.
I love the latest brilliant Clinton campaign tactic, siccing Geraldine Ferraro on Obama. She's attacking him, saying things that are controversial while still being completely defensible. All the while, Hillary keeps stating, "we don't agree, and Geraldine doesn't speak for us". What a crock. I respect the Clintons too much to ever think there's any media portion of their campaign that isn't under their direct control.
Obama must start swinging harder at her. He looks like a wimp.
Saw this on CNN: Mitt Romney might have gotten off the best quote of campaign season:
"Listening to Clinton and Obama argue about who's stronger on foreign policy is like watching two chihuahuas argue over who's the bigger dog."
Republicans are just better and this stuff.
"Listening to Clinton and Obama argue about who's stronger on foreign policy is like watching two chihuahuas argue over who's the bigger dog."
That's a good line, but let's be honest here, very few presidents have had any real foreign policy experience before taking office. Nixon would be an obvious exception, but that didn't really turn out so well, did it? FDR's prior foreign policy experience amounted to having the name "Roosevelt," but he didn't do so bad. Lincoln had pretty much no experience at all, foreign policy or other. But he did alright. We don't really think much of foreign policy when we think of Lincoln, but he was brilliant in securing a new source of cotton in Egypt to make up for the blockade of the South (and make the blockade more palatable to the Europeans). He also wisely manipulated England to keep them out of the war. So I'm not convinced that experience really matters. But I am convinced that good judgment matters. McCain may have more experience, but as his backing of Ahmed Chalabi shows, his experience raises more questions than it answers.
Exactly, that's the point. No one is properly vetted for the foreign policy acumen necessary for the Presidency until they actually hold the office. However, the perception out there is that McCain is more experienced based on his long service in DC and his military background.
What exactly is Clinton's great advantage over Obama that her campaign keeps touting? An extra two years in the Senate? Give me a break.
The point is, why isn't the Democratic party making your point Tom? The Republicans again are up on the Dems in the court of public opinion, fostering effective propaganda. It's even better when it's funny.
Post a Comment