who do you THINK will win the Democratic nomination?

[Jake]

Obama is obviously favored but I don't know if he'll win it. Imagine the spin (that people will actually buy, too) if Hillary wins the remaining big three regardless of the margin? She can find a way to do this with the delegates, people. Never forget who we are dealing with.

With all the Obama hype, what happens when Hillary wins Texas and Ohio? Wait, I thought Obama had it wrapped up?

[Nym90]

Something along the lines of what Jake and Alcon just said.

Glad to see you came around. I was expecting you to once again say "Hilldawg"

First time you've ever voted for anyone other than her in these polls, am I right?

[Nym90]

I predict Obama, although I still don't count Hillary out.

^^^^^^^^

[Хahar 🤔]

Yesterday, I was wondering: does modern Arabic distinguish between three vowel lengths? The Qur'an does, and that's one of the few things I have trouble with.

My understanding is that there are only two vowel lengths (long and short), with the long being the dual function letters U(OO)/W and I(EE)/Y, and the alef AA.  The short vowels are a, i, u, and are not written (except when using diacritic marks).  Informally/verbally, the vowels matter less than the consonants, and are sometimes disregarded a bit.

For example, "he wrote" is kataba.  "She wrote" is katabat; "I wrote" is katabtu; "you wrote" (fem) is katabti; "you wrote" (masc) is katabta.  The last four are all written the same (ktbt), and sometimes the final vowel drops off in speech.

The way I'm putting it together in my head is that short vowels don't matter, but it's generally a good idea to use the 'i' when speaking to a female.  :-)  (katabti rather than katabt)

That's convenient. Thanks.

[Nym90]

Obama is obviously favored but I don't know if he'll win it. Imagine the spin (that people will actually buy, too) if Hillary wins the remaining big three regardless of the margin? She can find a way to do this with the delegates, people. Never forget who we are dealing with.

Very true, and that does scare me. Hopefully if Obama wins more delegates in TX than Clinton despite losing the overall vote, the media will make mention of this fact at least....

Bottom line though is it all comes down to the superdelegates. It's pretty much impossible for either of them to win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. I can't see the supers breaking for Clinton over Obama so long as Obama is consistently doing better in polls against McCain, not to mention if Obama also wins more popular votes and more pledged delegates. Party leaders care about electability big time...I am having a hard time seeing the smoke filled room choose Hillary.

[Keystone Phil]

Obama is obviously favored but I don't know if he'll win it. Imagine the spin (that people will actually buy, too) if Hillary wins the remaining big three regardless of the margin? She can find a way to do this with the delegates, people. Never forget who we are dealing with.

With all the Obama hype, what happens when Hillary wins Texas and Ohio? Wait, I thought Obama had it wrapped up?

Wait...what?     I don't understand what you're getting at.

[Sam Spade]

Something along the lines of what Jake and Alcon just said.

Glad to see you came around. I was expecting you to once again say "Hilldawg"

First time you've ever voted for anyone other than her in these polls, am I right?

I didn't predict that her post-Feb.5 campaign would be such a disaster.  I do get things wrong, you know.  She can still win, however.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Something along the lines of what Jake and Alcon just said.

Glad to see you came around. I was expecting you to once again say "Hilldawg"

First time you've ever voted for anyone other than her in these polls, am I right?

I didn't predict that her post-Feb.5 campaign would be such a disaster.  I do get things wrong, you know.  She can still win, however.

Hillary's problems started ON Feb. 5, although they weren't quite as obvious then, and it's doubtful anyone would've predicted it outside of Obama's insiders. She thought she could just rack up big wins in the big states and it'd be over, hence the small caucus states didn't matter. She didn't anticipate that her win in New Jersey would be canceled out by Idaho of all places.

[Sam Spade]

Something along the lines of what Jake and Alcon just said.

Glad to see you came around. I was expecting you to once again say "Hilldawg"

First time you've ever voted for anyone other than her in these polls, am I right?

I didn't predict that her post-Feb.5 campaign would be such a disaster.  I do get things wrong, you know.  She can still win, however.

Hillary's problems started ON Feb. 5, although they weren't quite as obvious then, and it's doubtful anyone would've predicted it outside of Obama's insiders. She thought she could just rack up big wins in the big states and it'd be over, hence the small caucus states didn't matter. She didn't anticipate that her win in New Jersey would be canceled out by Idaho of all places.

I understand and agree with your point, but if she had won a couple of states post-Feb.5 and kept things decently close otherwise, she would still be in the driver's seat.  What we found out was that there was no post-Feb.5 plan.

[StateBoiler]

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that Hillary is going to pull a Ted Kennedy, 1980 vintage, and will show up at the convention as "lost, but not conceded". I think she's taken the viewpoint of failure is not an option.

[Mr. Morden]

In fairness to the Clinton people, I don't think it was unreasonable to think that Super Tuesday would be more decisive than it was.  I certainly expected it to have more of a decisive winner than it did (as in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004).  Really, there was no reason to think (until maybe a few days before the fact, if then) that the popular vote margin between the two candidates on Super Tuesday would end up as less than 1%, and that the net change in delegates would be less than 10.

If there had been a big winner on Super Tuesday, then the loser would have had a tough time recovering, because of how hard it is catch up once you fall behind under the PR rules.  In which case, a post-Feb. 5th plan wouldn't have been as important.

But of course, even if Clinton's people thought that it would probably be over one way or the other on Super Tuesday, that's no excuse for not having contingency plans, just in case.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I think the "backup plan" might've been the Giuliani-ish strategy we're seeing now. "OK, if we fail to take out Obama on Super Tuesday, we'll still hopefully have a big enough margin to weather the next few defeats, then we can comeback on March 4."

Didn't work for him, doesn't appear to be working now.

[Reaganfan]

It's hard for her. She will win Ohio, I think...Texas is closer. If she wins both, it's major momentum and she's still in it. Then she goes into Pennsylvania with a decent shot.

I really hate proportional voting and if the Democrats had Winner-Take-All like Republicans do, they wouldn't have this mess now. The longer they go on fighting...the better the chance the Republicans win.

[Mr. Morden]

I really hate proportional voting and if the Democrats had Winner-Take-All like Republicans do, they wouldn't have this mess now.

Yes they would.  (To the extent that a protracted primary fight is a "mess".)  We've been through this before.  Under WTA, you can build up a bigger lead, but it's also that much easier for the underdog to catch up.  They can make up ground really fast just by getting a few narrow victories.  (Especially if the underdog has less $.  Then they can more easily write off states they're not going to win, rather than play for a narrower margin of defeat.)

[Eraserhead]

It's hard for her. She will win Ohio, I think...Texas is closer. If she wins both, it's major momentum and she's still in it. Then she goes into Pennsylvania with a decent shot.

I really hate proportional voting and if the Democrats had Winner-Take-All like Republicans do, they wouldn't have this mess now. The longer they go on fighting...the better the chance the Republicans win.

Proportional voting is more democratic.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Naso loves a system that gives his hero McCain all delegates with 32% of the vote.

[Reaganfan]

Naso loves a system that gives his hero McCain all delegates with 32% of the vote.

You have a crush on me, I understand. These feelings are normal for 13 year olds like you.

[Keystone Phil]

Naso loves a system that gives his hero McCain all delegates with 32% of the vote.

I support that system for anyone because it's called winning.

[Nym90]

Something along the lines of what Jake and Alcon just said.

Glad to see you came around. I was expecting you to once again say "Hilldawg"

First time you've ever voted for anyone other than her in these polls, am I right?

I didn't predict that her post-Feb.5 campaign would be such a disaster.  I do get things wrong, you know.  She can still win, however.

I completely agree she can still win, and yeah, her post Super Tuesday campaign has been about as bad as could be conceived.

[StateBoiler]

Naso loves a system that gives his hero McCain all delegates with 32% of the vote.

I support that system for anyone because it's called winning.

Hysterical.

Newsflash: this ain't football.

I support winner-take-all only if a candidate gets 50% plus one.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Obama

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Naso loves a system that gives his hero McCain all delegates with 32% of the vote.

I support that system for anyone because it's called winning.

OK, how about we just give all the seats in the House to whichever party wins the most seats? It's winning after all.

The Democratic system results in no true wasted votes. If we used your stupid system what would you say to Obama supporters in New York or Hillary supporters in Illinois (though Illinois doesn't complete winner take all, but if you're a Hillary supporter in Chicago your vote would truly be wasted.)

[Keystone Phil]

Naso loves a system that gives his hero McCain all delegates with 32% of the vote.

I support that system for anyone because it's called winning.

Hysterical.

Newsflash: this ain't football.

I support winner-take-all only if a candidate gets 50% plus one.

I don't see what is so hysterical about it.

Naso loves a system that gives his hero McCain all delegates with 32% of the vote.

I support that system for anyone because it's called winning.

OK, how about we just give all the seats in the House to whichever party wins the most seats? It's winning after all.

Uh, totally different. If you want to use your logic, let's split the President's term - If Obama wins 52%, he serves 52% of the term while McCain serves 48%. It's fair after all. Yep, BRTD logic at its finest.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, what would I say? Exactly what I'm saying to you.

[Mr. Morden]

The Democratic system results in no true wasted votes.

How do you define "wasted votes"?

[StateBoiler]

I support that system for anyone because it's called winning.

Hysterical.

Newsflash: this ain't football.

I support winner-take-all only if a candidate gets 50% plus one.

I don't see what is so hysterical about it.

Ok. I'll explain.

First off, we are not determining who wins a seat. We are determining delegates to a convention, and that convention decide who wins.

So if John McCain gets 35% of the vote and gets 100% of the delegates, the will of the state is not being represented. Cause the will of the state was resoundingly that John McCain not receive the state's delegates from the state according to the votes of the Republican electorate when 65% voted against John McCain, and 65 is larger than 35 according to my first-grade math.

It is why in most states, the parties hold runoffs for seats if someone does not get 50% of the vote. In this case, the parties themselves could hold IRV to ensure someone gets a majority. If the Republicans had done that this election for example, John McCain would not be the nominee probably.

I'm not going to convince you different I understand, it's just a fundamental difference in what is considered democracy. I've just always had the opinion no one can rightfully claim they are winner unless they have more people voting for them than against them.