Official March 4th Results Discussion Topic

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Please note that my projection here has Hillary up in PA only 9 delegates based on a 10 point victory.

When are you taking the cartoon out of your signature?

I've largely forgotten about it, but I'm not going to take it now and give you satisfaction for causing it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It might be a situation where, in July, Obama is told, "You have a majority of the elected delegates, but to keep that you'll have to disenfranchise FL and MI, if full view of the television cameras, in August."  Even if he wins, he loses.

Obama needs to get a 110 to 165 lead of elected delegates.  He can still do it, but it will be a long fight.

1-The DNC doesn't agree with you.
2-Arguing that Hillary's lead in Michigan is legitimate is hackery of the worst type. For Florida there might be a point, but not Michigan.

Are you going to keep Granholm, Stabenow, Levin, Dingell, Bonior, Conyers, Kilpatrick, Hoffa, and a bunch of UAW members out?  That ought to make good theater.

I think that is a lot of it.

Obama, to be solid with elected delegates, just to claim a legitimate lead there over Clinton, needs a 110 margin of elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI.  Depending on the count used, he has between 130 (CNN) and 53 (Greenpapers).  By May 1, I predict all legitimate counts will put him below 110.

Obama's last chance might to win elected delegates exclusive of FL/MI by that 110 margin, very well be NC, IN, and KY.  He doesn't, the whole elected delegates argument collapses.  Either candidate basically becomes the nominee because of the super delegates.

It is not a good situation for either candidate.

So why should MI's numbers count in elected delegates when anyone with an ounce of intelligence can blatantly see that MI's delegate numbers don't even remotely reflect the opinion of the voters of the state?