Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-27-2008, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Downtown Greensboro, NC
3,491 posts, read 8,601,373 times
Reputation: 631

Advertisements

according to an Obama aid, Obama will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination once Montana and South Dakota Primaries are over on June 3rd. Obama is favored to win in both those states with a big lead in Montana. Both are the last two states to vote.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ory-aide-says/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2008, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,856 posts, read 25,661,195 times
Reputation: 24780
This is worthy of a "duh"...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 12:10 PM
 
48,493 posts, read 97,146,990 times
Reputation: 18310
They have said that for months and yet he still fails to close the deal in primaries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Downtown Greensboro, NC
3,491 posts, read 8,601,373 times
Reputation: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
They have said that for months and yet he still fails to close the deal in primaries.

Its over
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Alexandria, VA
1,774 posts, read 2,816,610 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
They have said that for months and yet he still fails to close the deal in primaries.
Of course it has been said for months - the only person that seems to be deaf to that message is Hillary and perhaps some of her supporters. Hillary officially lost the primaries after the potomac primaries (somewhere in mid feb) - she could have easily dropped out or suspended her campaign but chose to drag this thing on. This brings us to the conclusion: What has Hillary achieved by dragging this race to June?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Home is where the heart is
15,402 posts, read 29,035,524 times
Reputation: 19090
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
They have said that for months and yet he still fails to close the deal in primaries.
Really? They've been saying that for months??? Well, maybe it feels likes months.

North Carolina was when the math tide turned. That was this month--May 6. Even the Pennsylvania primary--which seems long behind us--was just 4 weeks ago.

Last edited by normie; 05-27-2008 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 01:10 PM
 
580 posts, read 1,685,856 times
Reputation: 108
I support Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama is counting on the superdelegates to clinch the nomination. While Hillary Clinton has the popular vote.

Woot Hillary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,856 posts, read 25,661,195 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
They have said that for months and yet he still fails to close the deal in primaries.

He had to come from waaaaaaaay behind to win this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Home is where the heart is
15,402 posts, read 29,035,524 times
Reputation: 19090
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnestorr View Post
This brings us to the conclusion: What has Hillary achieved by dragging this race to June?
She has made a point that she's not a quitter. I think it was fine that she stayed in the race--what I hate is her tactics at the end. She could have made that point about not being a quitter without stooping to Tonya Harding behavior. But that's another issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,856 posts, read 25,661,195 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%Michigan View Post
I support Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama is counting on the superdelegates to clinch the nomination. While Hillary Clinton has the popular vote.

Woot Hillary
That lie has been thoroughly debunked.


Let me go through the numbers without making your head spin.
After Kentucky and Oregon, Obama has an official popular vote lead of 449,486.
This does not include Iowa (where Obama first broke from the pack), Nevada (where Hillary won the popular vote narrowly), Maine (where Obama won easily) or Washington state (another strong Obama state). Why? Because these caucus states don't officially report their popular votes. But if we're going to truly count all the votes, official and nonofficial, as Hillary advocates, you can't very well not include caucus states.
Adding in the unofficial tally from caucus states, as estimated by realclearpolitics.com based on official caucus turnout and the number of local delegates selected at the precinct level, that gives Obama a lead of 559,708.
Now we come to Florida and Michigan, whose popular votes Hillary says should be counted. The argument for counting them is no better than for counting the caucus states (and maybe worse, considering that these states violated party rules by moving their primaries up on the calendar, and no one campaigned there). But for the sake of argument let's count 'em. That gives Hillary a lead of 63,373.
HILLARY WINS POPULAR VOTE!
Not so fast. If the Democratic National Committee completes its expected settlement on May 31, Florida and Michigan will each get half of their votes counted. Translated to popular votes, that would subtract about 325,000 votes from Hillary, putting Obama back into the lead.

Beyond not being official numbers, there's another problem with counting Michigan in these totals. Obama wasn't on the ballot there. You can say this was his own choice, but that doesn't change the fact that had he been on the Michigan ballot he would have received a lot of popular votes. How many?
Try 238,168. That's the number of Michiganders who voted for "uncommitted." Were they possibly genuinely abstaining? Maybe a few hundred of them at most. The rest were clearly Obama supporters who launched a grass-roots campaign. Everyone in Michigan knew on January 15 that a vote for "uncommitted" was a vote for Obama.
That means that by a generous definition of popular votes (and remember, Clinton wants to enfranchise as many people as possible in her count), Obama leads by about 166,000 votes.


The Problem With Clinton’s Popular Vote Math | Newsweek Voices - Jonathan Alter | Newsweek.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top