Where will the nom be after Pennsylvania?

[หมูเด้ง]

In pledged delegates.

[J. J.]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

In terms of elected pledged delegates, including MI/FL, Clinton.

In terms of pledged delegates, excluding MI/FL, possibly Clinton.  That will be the closest.

[หมูเด้ง]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

In terms of elected pledged delegates, including MI/FL, Clinton.

In terms of pledged delegates, excluding MI/FL, possibly Clinton.  That will be the closest.

You are really hoping for a Hillary nomination. I will probably go Indy if she gets nommed and loses. If the democratic party can't see the writing on the wall and can't win an election when the GOP gave them the largest opening concievable, maybe they are irrelevant. Then again, Hillary might do great.

[Mr. Morden]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

Aren't superdelegates unpledged?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How the heck does Clinton catch up in pledged delegates sans MI/FL by the end of April?  She would need to win something like 60% of the pledged delegates to be determined between now and then.  What kind of delegate margins are you expecting in OH/TX/PA?

[หมูเด้ง]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

Aren't superdelegates unpledged?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How the heck does Clinton catch up in pledged delegates sans MI/FL by the end of April?  She would need to win something like 60% of the pledged delegates to be determined between now and then.  What kind of delegate margins are you expecting in OH/TX/PA?

Then again, he could be doin some wishful thinking, being a McCainiac.

[J. J.]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

In terms of elected pledged delegates, including MI/FL, Clinton.

In terms of pledged delegates, excluding MI/FL, possibly Clinton.  That will be the closest.

You are really hoping for a Hillary nomination. I will probably go Indy if she gets nommed and loses. If the democratic party can't see the writing on the wall and can't win an election when the GOP gave them the largest opening concievable, maybe they are irrelevant. Then again, Hillary might do great.

No, I am saying that it is very likely Clinton wins.  Now, maybe you don't like that, but whether or not you do doesn't really change anything.

You have, as we've discussed on other threads, a different standard for Obama, because of those elected delegates in FL/MI.  If Obama wants to make the argument that the preferences of elected delegates should be followed, then he has to those elected delegates in FL/MI, or we find out that "obama" is Swahili for "hypocrite."

And I believe the last time that I got such criticism on saying that Clinton would win was just before NH; does anyone remember what happened there. 

[J. J.]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

Aren't superdelegates unpledged?

It depends on the definition you use.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How the heck does Clinton catch up in pledged delegates sans MI/FL by the end of April?  She would need to win something like 60% of the pledged delegates to be determined between now and then.  What kind of delegate margins are you expecting in OH/TX/PA?

[/quote]

I'm expecting it to be close, but, bluntly, I'm expecting blowouts in PA and OH, plus a moderate victory in TX. 

[หมูเด้ง]

What's a blowout?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You have, as we've discussed on other threads, a different standard for Obama, because of those elected delegates in FL/MI.  If Obama wants to make the argument that the preferences of elected delegates should be followed, then he has to those elected delegates in FL/MI, or we find out that "obama" is Swahili for "hypocrite."

Hypocrite? No, someone who understands the DNC rules. There's absolutely no reason why FL and MI's delegates should be considered valid under the current circumstances.

And I believe the last time that I got such criticism on saying that Clinton would win was just before NH; does anyone remember what happened there. 

No, the last time was when I ragged on you big time for saying Clinton would come close in Virginia because the independents would vote for McCain. Hmmmm....

[J. J.]

You have, as we've discussed on other threads, a different standard for Obama, because of those elected delegates in FL/MI.  If Obama wants to make the argument that the preferences of elected delegates should be followed, then he has to those elected delegates in FL/MI, or we find out that "obama" is Swahili for "hypocrite."

Hypocrite? No, someone who understands the DNC rules. There's absolutely no reason why FL and MI's delegates should be considered valid under the current circumstances.

If Obama really wants to play by the rules, he won't bring up the "elected delegate" issue.  I'm actually on record here as saying that, assuming the DNC had the power to rule the delegates were selected too early, that they should not be seated.  It is next to impossibly, however, to claim that the will of the elected delegates should be honored and then exclude two elected state delegations, from to large states, at least without looking like a gigantic hypocrite.

If you really understood the DNC rules, there would be no question that the super delegates can provide enough votes to nominate someone that doesn't have a plurality of the elected delegates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the last time was when I ragged on you big time for saying Clinton would come close in Virginia because the independents would vote for McCain. Hmmmm....
[/quote]
[/quote]

I didn't say it was you, but you can see the answer in the Comedy Goldmine.  Structurally, after Tuesday and into May, the race favors Clinton.  It's not Clinton's doing, it's not Obama fault, you can't blame the Republicans, but it's just the circumstances of the race.

[Franzl]

You have, as we've discussed on other threads, a different standard for Obama, because of those elected delegates in FL/MI.  If Obama wants to make the argument that the preferences of elected delegates should be followed, then he has to those elected delegates in FL/MI, or we find out that "obama" is Swahili for "hypocrite."

If Obama really wants to play by the rules, he won't bring up the "elected delegate" issue.  I'm actually on record here as saying that, assuming the DNC had the power to rule the delegates were selected too early, that they should not be seated.  It is next to impossibly, however, to claim that the will of the elected delegates should be honored and then exclude two elected state delegations, from to large states, at least without looking like a gigantic hypocrite.

If you really understood the DNC rules, there would be no question that the super delegates can provide enough votes to nominate someone that doesn't have a plurality of the elected delegates.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the last time was when I ragged on you big time for saying Clinton would come close in Virginia because the independents would vote for McCain. Hmmmm....

I didn't say it was you, but you can see the answer in the Comedy Goldmine.  Structurally, after Tuesday and into May, the race favors Clinton.  It's not Clinton's doing, it's not Obama fault, you can't blame the Republicans, but it's just the circumstances of the race.
[/quote]

nonsense, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, due to an agreement that democratic candidates would boycott the primary. Clinton, who had previously supported the punishment, is now trying to change the rules to her benefit.

[J. J.]

nonsense, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, due to an agreement that democratic candidates would boycott the primary. Clinton, who had previously supported the punishment, is now trying to change the rules to her benefit.

The problem is, Obama really can't make the argument, "I won the most pledged delegates, but only when you don't count one or two states."  He basically can only make that argument if gets a plurality of the elected delegates, once you count those delegates from MI/FL, even if unseated.

Basically, if MI/FL were seated, Hillary would pick up a net 110 delegates, with 55 unpledged still out.  Obama would have to walk into the convention with a lead over Clinton of at least 111, but probably 150, to make a strong argument that he really has a plurality of the pledged delegate.  If Obama comes in with a 25-30 delegate lead, that won't cut it, because it really is not a plurality.

If Obama comes in to the convention with a 150-250 elected delegate lead he can make that argument. 

[Franzl]

nonsense, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, due to an agreement that democratic candidates would boycott the primary. Clinton, who had previously supported the punishment, is now trying to change the rules to her benefit.

The problem is, Obama really can't make the argument, "I won the most pledged delegates, but only when you don't count one or two states."  He basically can only make that argument if gets a plurality of the elected delegates, once you count those delegates from MI/FL, even if unseated.

Basically, if MI/FL were seated, Hillary would pick up a net 110 delegates, with 55 unpledged still out.  Obama would have to walk into the convention with a lead over Clinton of at least 111, but probably 150, to make a strong argument that he really has a plurality of the pledged delegate.  If Obama comes in with a 25-30 delegate lead, that won't cut it, because it really is not a plurality.

If Obama comes in to the convention with a 150-250 elected delegate lead he can make that argument. 

I could agree to that argument concerning Florida at least. Although neither Clinton nor Obama was able to campaign there, they were at least both on the ballot. But that absolutely does not apply to Michigan. Yes, Clinton won Michigan, but only after Obama and Edwards took themselves off the ballot. How on earth can you claim victory if you didn't have any competition? So it's only fair to talk about a plurality of contested delegates.

It's like you and me playing a chess game in your absence (allowing me to make your moves). I'm sure I could beat you, but would you agree that I had won?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

In terms of elected pledged delegates, including MI/FL, Clinton.

In terms of pledged delegates, excluding MI/FL, possibly Clinton.  That will be the closest.

Still stand by that?

[bullmoose88]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

In terms of elected pledged delegates, including MI/FL, Clinton.

In terms of pledged delegates, excluding MI/FL, possibly Clinton.  That will be the closest.

Still stand by that?

Are you done heckling JJ?

Its doing nothing for your street cred.

[Keystone Phil]

In terms of pledged delegates (including super delegates), Clinton.

In terms of elected pledged delegates, including MI/FL, Clinton.

In terms of pledged delegates, excluding MI/FL, possibly Clinton.  That will be the closest.

Still stand by that?

Are you done heckling JJ?

Its doing nothing for your street cred.

He picks on everyone and it's really old. I kindly asked him to stop on AIM. Seems like he'll keep doing what he wants to.