Poll on obama or clinton

[bobblehead]

I vote obama, he has more delegates, that is the system we play by as a representative republic.

[texaspackerbacker]

You left out:

Obama because he would be the easierst to beat

or maybe

Hillary because she would be the easiest to beat.

[bobblehead]

thought about "I'm a republican, hope they fight til november 30th" but i figured you would get your opinion in anyway :)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama already locked-up the nomination, and there is no credible argument to give Clinton the nomination. This poll is several weeks too late.

The spectacle that happened Saturday involving MI & FL was an attempt to put a little lipstick on a pig. The Dem party rallied behind Obama and excluded the voters of MI & FL back in March. Now it is safe to allow those states some partial representation without threatening the OBama juggernaut.

It was not OK back in March to authorize a new vote, even though it was the only way to respect the voters in those two states. No, rules are rules. Except today we see rules aren't rules: they just threw-out the rules and invented a new rule to count half the delegates! And why is OK to change the rules now? For the critical purpose of hiding the dirty politics that went down.

[bobblehead]

hmm...interesting, I agree with HH except for one point. Obama has NOT locked it up, he is still shy of the delegates required for a "lock up". Can't recall the exact number, its around 50ish. Now that being said, no more delegates are out there except superdelegates, the problem being that MI and FL don't count, so it left the total shy of what used to be the total, which is only a big deal in a race this close where neither one could get the total needed.

By counting "half" the delegates thus changing the rule I THINK they got obama over that hump, but they did so by changing the rules, but indeed by the rules stated in january, neither candidate got enough delegates to secure the nomination, but obama did get a plurality, which is good enough imo.

edit: they didn't get him over the hump yet....and furthermore they awarded him delegates from a state he didn't even recieve ONE vote in. Granted its cuz he removed his name, but fact remains if they are gonna change the rules and count the delegates he should not get any since he wasn't on the ballot. Could you imagine if in the general election california decided to give half its delegates to mccain "in compromise" if he lost the state? Or if in this example he removed his name from the ballot in california before the election.

[texaspackerbacker]

They are indeed putting out the 50 or so figure that he is short. However, in addition to super delegates, there is still Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday.

Even if he loses--which he probably won't in SD, he will cut well into that 50+.

So it ain't to the point of being mathematically sure, but it's damn close to it. I think enough more super delegates will commit after Tuesday that it becomes mathematical.

Hillary's only hope will be that the supers are allowed to change at the last minute, but it would take something pretty blatant by Obama for that to happen.

[bobblehead]

then she will sue, that is what democrats do when they lose elections, it just happens to be funny when they do it to each other.

How come when they lose by .5% they sue/contest, but when republicans lose by .5% they make plans for next time?

[MJZiggy]

When's the last time a Republican lost by .5% and won the popular vote?

[bobblehead]

When's the last time a Republican lost by .5% and won the popular vote?

I'm referring to legislature elections where popular vote is all that counts, and it happened (I think) 8 times in the last election with it being 5 democrats winning and 3 republicans, and in 3 cases the losing democrat pursued the case and in 5 cases the losing republican accepted defeat. Now my numbers may be off by one or two, but the gist is accurate.

[texaspackerbacker]

When's the last time a Republican lost by .5% and won the popular vote?

There was a State of Washington Congressional election--the last one to be decided in '06 that fits that description to a T. And somehow, the good guy LOST the lawsuit.

[bobblehead]

another washington election:
=========================================

SEATTLE, Dec. 23 -- Seven weeks after voters went to the polls, Democrat Christine Gregoire won Washington state's astonishingly close governor's contest by 130 votes, according to results of the third and final count of nearly 3 million votes.

Gregoire, who narrowly trailed Republican Dino Rossi after the first two counts and had inched to an infinitesimal 10-vote lead this week, added 120 votes Thursday in King County, the state's largest and most reliably Democratic county. They came from a pile of 735 disputed ballots that the state Supreme Court had ruled on Wednesday must be counted.

===========================================

democrat strategy, keep recounting until we win, then stop. that was 2004, what can we find in 2006
========================================

Democrat Christine Jennings announced Thursday that she will seek a rematch against Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan in Florida’s 13th Congressional District — even as she continues to contest an outcome in last November’s election that she charges was skewed by electronic voting machine errors.

=========================================

didn't win...still fighting.

[bobblehead]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._congressional_actions_regardi ng_contested_elections

this link is for 5 contested elections in '06, 4 in florida alone. All the losers contesting the election results are democrats.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking of--the Washington governor race, not a Congressional race.