Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Saxiif]

[stillnotking]

[Milwaukiedave]

Notking,

Not only that, she'd pretty much have to get the Florida/Michigan debacle to go in her favor (meaning seating the delegates as allocated now), plus get 60%+ of the superdelegates.

Yep, the small delegate count boost from yesterday could possibly be nullifed by mid next week.

If she thinks the superdelegates will come in and rubberstamp her candidacy, she's dead wrong.

Still no word on the Texas Caucus.

[cbclark4]

As of 1 hour ago CNN reported:

"As of Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama leads with about 55 percent of state delegates in the caucuses, compared to about 44 percent for Sen. Hillary Clinton, with about 38 percent of the state reporting."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/texas.caucus.count/?iref=mpstoryview

[Milwaukiedave]

CB, that's about the same as it was 12 hours ago. I'm wondering what's going on.

There are rumors of lawsuits going around. Hopefully that isn't true.

[Milwaukiedave]

Here's a blog written by a guy I know in Oregon:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/03/clintons-big-te.html

Clinton's "big" Texas win? Not so much



T.A. Barnhart

Of course, the big political news since Tuesday night is Hillary Clinton�s big wins in Ohio and Texas. Ohio was pretty clear cut, but Texas � well, look at the numbers to the left (courtesy of the Houston Chronicle). The total: a tie. Not a win for Clinton (or, yes, for Obama); a tie.

Caucus numbers are still being crunched, so the total could change. In fact, just like on Super Tuesday, when all the crunching is done, it could be Obama who emerges the winner. (Superdelegate numbers are based on news reports.)

But Hillary wins because she didn�t lose, some are arguing. Obama outspent her, had the momentum � and all he could do was a tie? But don�t forget what his campaign actually did in Texas. Four months ago, Hillary had more than a 30-point lead. That lead was still 20 points when we got to Iowa. He made up 20 points in two months against the strongest national campaign machine the Dems have ever had. And wasn't this all supposed to be wrapped up on February 4th?

This has been one of the consistent themes of this primary: huge Clinton leads shredded and a coronation being turned into an actual democratic process. The national press is having a lot of fun with this; it�s like the Giants in the Super Bowl, right? Expected defeat turning into victory?

Except it�s nothing like that. Hillary is the Patriots, and what she�s facing right now is the Giants running out the clock. She has to force a fumble, so to speak ("He's not a Muslim ... as far as I know"), otherwise both the national numbers � Obama still has his big delegate lead after his awful �losses� � and the on-going defection of superdelegates to his campaign will simply be too much for her to overcome.

What irks me about yesterday's exercise is not that Obama lost two states, or that Hillary can now spend the next two months slinging the mud that worked so well in Texas and Ohio. It�s the on-going dishonesty of most reporting. Texas was a deadheat. In the popular vote, she got 95,000 more out of 2.8 million � 3.4% (aka the margin of error). In the caucuses, he appears to be making up that ground. And isn�t this campaign about delegates? Simply keeping even, as HIllary did on Tuesday, means the leader is still the leader: Barack Obama. And it's hard to see that as anything but an Obama victory. Unless maintaining your second-place deficit is the new definition of losing.

[igotthisguitar]