Post-Texas/Ohio Annoyance (not the theatre)

[southbymidwest]

"YES, WE WILL!"

Can Hill and her supporters please get their own slogan that isn't a revised version of someone else's?

They probably could if they'd spend less time thinking of ways to make Obama look bad to beef up her imaginary high level of experience (or the imaginary value of "experience" in itself) and the idea that she has a remote chance of winning the general election.

I'd have about 1000% more respect for her if she could give me a reason to vote for her that isn't disparaging someone else.

Any interesting thoughts/links to help me feel better about Tuesday other than the continued delegate lead would be appreciated.

[robbersean]

These were supposed to be states that Hillary did well in. Ohio and Texas both have high populations of blue collar democratic voters, and Texas has a high pop. of Hispanic voters who have trended towards Clinton.

It sucks that Obama lost, but he still picked up a bunch of delegates, and still leads Clinton by a little under 100 delegates overall. Unless something crazy happens, Hillary will not be able to beat Obama's pledged delegate count, and if he wins the pledged delegate count, it will be very hard for the superdelegates not to go for Obama without doing permanent damage to the image of the Party.

I think the thing that really sucks is it's going to be six weeks until the next big contest, Pennsylvania. I mean, this campaign has been exciting, and exhausting, and I can't believe that it's not over yet. Plus, now that McCain has secured the nomination, he has more time to prepare for the Presidential race itself. That sucks too.

[kremidas]

I'm sick of hearing about Hillary's "experience".

A lot of good Hillary's experience did her when she voted for the war....


Hillary = President McCain

[southbymidwest]

Thanks, both of those helped.

Yeah, our current Prez had a ton of executive "experience" and we see how much that helped him.

[Morehead]

If you check the delegate spread from before Tuesday and then after Tuesday, Hillary has closed the gap by 4 delegates. So, as Obama mentioned in his speech, he is still the front-runner by nearly the same spread.

All that happened is that Clinton broken his streak. Who cares? Huckabee stole Kansas from the McCain, the CLEAR front-runner in the GOP race, and what did that do? Nada.

[kremidas]

It's so annoying that Hillary is willing to drag out this race as long as she can to the detriment of her entire party, and possibly country.

[schaefe]

All that happened is that Clinton broken his streak. Who cares? Huckabee stole Kansas from the McCain, the CLEAR front-runner in the GOP race, and what did that do? Nada.

That's true, but politics is perception. She "won" the states. Therefore, its a clear turnaround for her campaign.

[speedymarie]

Yeah, it's always annoyed me that the pundits treat the primaries the same as the general election. You don't "win" an entire state in the primaries. A win of 55%-45% in a primary is way different than a win of 55%-45% in the general election. I'm always yelling at Wolf Blitzer about this. In this case, it IS the media that is creating a perception.

Speaking of... did anyone see the actually funny column in the RedEye today about CNN's primary coverage? The only thing he didn't talk about is their annoying habit of breaking voters down into tiny blocks, and then assuming that all people of a certain group will vote a certain way. It's prejudice and stereotypical and annoys me to no end. Just because someone got 54% of the vote of "black women" doesn't mean anything - it's almost half! It's a statistically irrelevant amount! Most of the time, the spread is less than 10%, and they're acting like it's a referendum on the minds of everyone in the group.

[schaefe]

Well, that's only really true for the Democrats. The Republicans have several "Winner-Takes-All" states.

Although a lot of my GOP friends really wish that they didn't have the "Winner-Takes-All" system in place, they believe that it would encourage more competition for the nomination if the canidates could keep their percentages.

I won't comment on the statistics part of things, as I am in that class this semester, and just learned the formula that they use to figure those percentages out. The key is to remember that stats are really a measurement of what is most likey probable to occur...but that just makes it more frustrating, I know....

[pbsebastian]

The good news is that it looks like Obama actually won more delegates from Texas. Here is the break down as I understand it:

Clinton won the primary. She took 65 delegates to Obama's 61.

However, that is only 126 of Texas' 193 delegates. The other 67 is determined by the caucus. Obama won 38 delegates and Clinton won 29.

Obama - 61+38 = 99
Clinton - 65+29 = 94

That give Obama a 5 delegate lead out of Texas.

Texas doesn't have to call their caucus until March 29. However, CNN called it today.

Regardless, Clinton will continue to claim that she won Texas and the press will let such a claim go unchallenged. If you have any doubt look at Nevada. Obama won 13 delegates to Clinton's 12 yet it is continued to be claimed as a win for Clinton.

If anyone can explain how Clinton can claim a win in a state that she actually looses please enlighten me.

[jimfath]

If anyone can explain how Clinton can claim a win in a state that she actually looses please enlighten me.

How about in Michigan where Clinton got 328,151 votes (55%), oundly defeating Uncommitted which got a measily 237,762 (40%).

You have to think that if that many people would rather vote for no one than her, her chances against McCain can't be that good.

The democrats have only themselves to blame for this mess.

[southbymidwest]

I could start running tomorrow and have a better chance of beating John McCain than Hil.