I just saw on Hardball that Obama is projected to pick up between 5-9 more delegates than Clinton in Texas. Just like in Nevada, the headlines aren't backed up by the facts.
Obama won the Texas "Prima-Caucus". You can't pick one or the other, it's the whole enchilada that counts.
NB, the facts are indeed correct, but a lot can happen. Michigan and Florida for example, Super Delegates, and who knows what else will happen. Obama leads, you are correct, but his predicted landslide in the Texas Primary did not happen and Clinton has momentum. Headlines help, and PA is going to be interesting. It is going to be a scrap. I caught a lot of **** for my Clinton support and even felt discouraged to show it on this board, but after Tuesday it sure feels a lot better. I personally enjoy what is happening, it is good for America. Did you see the turnout in TX alone? Pretty amazing. The math is not on her side, I accept that, but I have to continue to back who I originally supported. No disrespect to Obama or you, as I would expect you to be just as committed if your guy was in her position.
So heretofore Obama's campaign wanted "the will of the people" to expressed -- now they tout delegate wins due to stupid and arcane rules. Which is it? Do you want to use the rulebook or rely upon some moral platform?? Clinton won more votes in TX last night. Period. More democrats in this state want her to be the nominee than Obama. Period. Now Obama touts the delegate totals and the process and ignores the "will of the people." Why should the Texas superdelegates care about the delegate count more than the popular vote?
Actually, Clinton got 4 more in the primary, but Obama stands to surpass her with the caucus (56%-44% with 40% in). The difference is likely because the crossover voters for Hillary that all of the right wing radio nuts were campaigning for are not active enough to go to the caucus, because it is out of their way and they don't think it makes enough difference for an extra effort since they will run against a Democrat anyway.
When it's all said and done Clinton will have netted at most 10 delegates tuesday - probably less. That is about how many Obama netted in Nebraska or DC. Tuesday was a virtual tie in the delegates and the delegates are all that matter at this point. The only "victory" HRC can claim is slowing Obama's momentum which will be regained when he wins Wyoming and Mississippi a week from now. And why should the Texas Caucus not factor into the decision? It may have counted for less delegates but it still counted. One third is not that far from one half. If each of the contests counted one half would we ignore the caucus still? How many delegates does it need to count for to not be ignored by the media? A better way to look at the results would be to take a weighted average between the caucus and primary using the delegate percentage as a weight. (Percentage of Total Delegates from the Primary)(Candidate Primary Vote) + (Percentage of Total Delegates from Caucus)(Candidate Caucus Results) Obama - (.65)(47.4)+(.35)(56)=50.4 Clinton - (.65)(50.9)+(.35)(44)=48.4 Obama wins. The Primary-Caucus dual system is not a good way to choose delegates, but that does not allow for ignoring one third of the system.
"Empty suit" means phony, in this context meaning not having positions. That was the tack taken when Obamania first took off, and before many of his positions trickled out to right-leaning audiences as they perceived that he was their new threat. When those policy positions came out more fully, the new tack was "he's liberal" (no ****). You seem to be caught halfway. No, you cannot have it both ways. He's either a phony with no policy positions to discuss, or he's a liberal. Now inexperienced is still grist for the mill. Maybe that's what you thought you were saying. You're going to have a hard time selling people brains and without partisan blinders on that BHO is an empty suit given his proven considerable intellectual qualities and accomplishments. I suggest you try to sell the liberal line. Then again, the country seems to be primed for an idealogical sea change, so . . .
"Gore won the popular vote but lost the election b/c of the electoral college." Oh, so it's ok now...?
