Would you guys fis the winner in the Missouri primsry?…the online page anyway…Hillary DID NOT win! Obama did.

I think the email he got needs to be reconstructed. didn’t getr the majority of delegates and did not get the popular vote. Delegates are the only thing that counts. As for Missouri it will probably be a differnce of 1 or 2 delagates either way

Thanks Charlie,

I came back to ask about the delegate correction too.

Sorry for the typo’s in my first post. I was typing on the dark.

pls, vote us :
http://www.jurnale.ro/concurs/index.php?pag=61&poza_id=1973&action=vote

i wonder why there is this palpable fear of HRC. Every pen held by journalists drips with bias and obvious dislike for HRC. Whilst i’m an Edward supporter, i think the deliberately skewed reporting in favour of Obama makes the heart recoil. Lets be fair to all to get the best for America. HRC won more delegates. Simpliciter!

Mr. Axelrod is wrong about delegates. Hillary is currently up in the delegate count. California and New York still have over 100 delegates to be allotted.

And lest he forget, there’s still the matter of Florida and Michigan — both heavily Clinton and both still could count.

We won’t know for awhile what the final delegate count is, but it will be close. What may portend badly for HRC is that her marginal delegate count includes the biggies - CA, NY, NJ, MA. It may be difficult for her to repeat at that level in the remaining states, other than possibly PA and OH.

Jim K, her victories in CA, NY, NJ, and MA are all 10% and above. However, Obama only decisively won big states in Illinois and Georgia. Everything else was either a small margin or a small state.

It is actually a pretty good sign when you can carry all of many states, like Hillary did, but lose only because of districts with urban areas. Missouri went overwhelmingly for Clinton up until St. Louis was counted, which is a heavily black area.

Jay - It’s electoral votes. Any Democrat will win CA, NY, NJ, MA in 2008. Win by 1 vote or 1 million votes; it doesn’t matter. Obama has demonstarted he can win in the mountain, middle and southern states where the needed marginal electoral votes may be in play; HRC hasn’t.

By the way, if HRC tries to grab MI or FL votes as the only way to win there will be a royal uproar — changing the rules after the fact.

Jim, you don’t understand, so let me explain.

CA, NY, NJ, and MA are all bigger states to win. They have over 600 of tonight’s delegates. Conversely, Obama won in many SMALL states that have already been tallied and delegates given out.

Utah, Kansas, Alaska, Delaware, Minnesota, North Dakota have all been divided already. We know who got what in 6 of the 13 states Obama won handily.

Arkansas, California, New York, Tennessee, Massachusetts, New Jersey all went handily to Clinton — and we’re still dividing up delegates. 6 of the 9 states she won are still dividing up a large amount, and most will go to Clinton.

While Obama won more states to brag about, he carried states that have smaller amounts of delegates. That will give Clinton a slight delegate advantage — probably in the area of 100 by the time we’re done. Decisive? No. Not for either camp, but Clinton will have the delegate advantage thanks to 10% in California. Even in California, 6% means 20 delegates. In a race this close, those 20 will matter.

Jim, that would be the decision of the DNC if FL and MI are allowed to have their votes count. As someone who opposed Howard Dean’s oppressive move when he first MADE it, I hope he changes his mind and lets them have some amount of delegates.

Let us not forget that Obama won in Red States which he will not win in a general election (if he is the nominee). Hillary Clinton won in the big States which in a general election matter more (winner takes all) because of electoral votes.

[...] David Axelrod: Victory is “Crystal Clear” [...]

Rusty, it’s a mixed deal.

Most of Obama’s victories came from the caucuses. Caucuses, for those who don’t know, are a scheduled meeting where people basically stand on one side of the room or the other. It’s not something that is open all day and you can vote at your convenience. You have to be able to drop everything to participate — I hope you see the problem here.

If you remove these caucuses as unrepresentative, which they certainly can be argued as such, we look at primaries.

Obama won Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri (split delegates) Primaries.

Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee Primaries

She will end up with 1 more primary than Obama, as he looks like he will narrowly win New Mexico — but they will split delegates there too.

The message here is that neither of these two are to be discounted. Obama was written off early, the past few days Clinton was said to be done. Neither of them are done by a long shot. Clinton won the primaries, Obama won the Caucuses, and they’ll split delegates with her getting a 50-80 pledged lead. On top of her super delegates, she is clearly the delegate winner today.

She also won more of the popular vote by 100,000 voters. She carried the huge states, and she performed very well in the heartland. Obama did well in states with large black demographics, and in urban areas.

On a side note, but related, Obama is supported largely by those that make $150,000 a year. Clinton has handily won those that make less than $50,000. It makes you wonder just who would do well in a general election as the main candidate when one is carrying a high income, but minority part of the party.

Denied A Chance To Vote For Obama:

Yesterday I couldn’t Vote until after work around 4:30 pm and myself and many other working African Americans got caught in the vicious storms that damaged our communities here in West Tennessee, Eastern Arkansas and Northern Mississippi were there is a high concentrated area of Black voters who work. This was my first time to vote as black working college student because I just turned 18. Thus a lot of black votes did not get assessed and may have lead to Clinton winning such states as Arkansas and Tennessee. I wanted to know what is being done to help people who are effected by Nature’s Fury to help them make their voices count.

The majority of Black and Hispanic voters live in this area and they work if let’s say 50-75 thousand people in Tennessee, possibly 100 thousand didn’t vote may be more what effect could it have on the percentage victory Clinton had in Tennessee. We are talking about the Largest city in Tennessee with a massive amount of people not able to vote. Obama may have won Tennessee if these votes were able to be placed and calculated

Jay

I agree that it’s a mixed bag. I also believe that caucuses are not a true representation of how a person would vote if not (in some cases) intimidated by other members of the caucuses. I believe a true primary is a better indication of how people will ultimatelyvote.

William, the storms did not leave Arkansas until well after Tennessee polls were scheduled to shut down. In fact, Central Arkansas was not hit until the polls here closed. I doubt the storm could jump ahead of us, hit Tennessee, then jump back and hit us.

Furthermore, Arkansas was always heavily Clinton, so the outcome would not change.

And, for the record, the storm stretched the whole state of Arkansas. Everyone in Kansas and Arkansas had to vote in it, but Tennessee was shut down well before it got to you.

Rusty, I cannot agree more. Caucuses are a joke, in my opinion. I wish we hadn’t used them. If Obama wins, I want it to be clear that he won and it was representative. As it stands now, over half his victories are caucuses — and it is hard to say that represents the entire state.

I can’t exactly drop everything I am doing at 6:30 PM to stand. Many of Clinton’s supporters are working class people with children, so it really does make you wonder about the representation.

However, he did still win, and he deserves to be congratulated. I’m most certainly proud of Hillary Clinton, and I think we have an embarrassment of riches this election. I actually WANT to vote, unlike 2004, when I felt like I was voting just because I didn’t want Bush.

William,

Boo hoo.

Maybe you should not go & vote for someone just because they have the same ethnic background as you & actually go & vote for someone who’s actually qualified, like Sen. Clinton.

Jay, absolutely Florida and Michigan deligates SHOULD count, this is america not a 3rd world country that a select few make the call. I am sure the PEOPLE of florida and Michigan will see to it. Howard Dean step up, you know what is right.

This guy is just spinning for the campaign, nice try, but not correct.

Yes that would be fair. Tell the candidates not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Let the vote fall where it may. Then at the end ‘decide’ if and how many delegates to give those states. In effect it would be the DNC choosing a national winner. Nobody’s vote would matter from ANY state.

If the DNC does this, nobody will ever trust the DNC again. The world will never believe in our election system. It may mark the begining of the end for the Democratic Party.

I am a registered Democrat living in Florida. Already I despise the DNC for yelling so loud about “counting every vote” in the Bush Gore race but taking mine from me last week. The DNC stole my vote because my state chose to exercise it’s constitutional right to establish it’s voting day. But, it would be worse if they change policy AFTER the election.

I am ashamed of my party. I am switching to NPA.

Jay - I certainly do understand. I’m talking about electoral votes in the general election - not delegates. No need for you to “explain”!

So far as FL and MI are concerned, I agree that the DNC did a dumb thing, but it’s done. The candidates did not campaign there, so it’s not fair to change the rules afterward for the benefit of one candidate, whoever that may be.

Ya, talk about sneaky. Hillary left her name on and the others were listed as undecided etc.
she knew she would pull this off in FL and MI.
They should either do it over or divide them up 3 ways or skip it entirely. You can thank that crazy Dean for this mess.
There are a lot of states left. Obama took MN so far and WI will go for him. Its a winner take all state.

How can Obama claim a larger number of delegates, BEFORE they are finished allotting them? If he says it now, we won’t look later?

CA is 10% in Clinton’s favor, in the biggest delegate pot in the country, and he claims he has more? Shame on Obama. I haven’t heard Clinton say anything yet, because she KNOWS that the results are yet to be finalized, and there is no point in saying anything until the dust has settled.

And I agree…wins in Red states, that are nearly ALWAYS red is not a claim for victory. You need NY, NJ, PA, OH, FL, CA in the general election, and Obama doesn’t carry all those. The midwest carries minimal numbers of electoral votes. (Look at a map of 2000 and 2004 elections, and see the Red states that re-elected Bush for a 2nd term!! Some things don’t change)

All the networks (and Hillary) made such a big deal of her “California Victory.” Clinton only captured 51% of the vote, yet she went on-and-on about her “decisive win.” Perhaps Clinton should learn to count…51% is NOT decisive!

A Moderate Republican proudly supporting Obama!!!

To: not confused ~

Don’t be so sure Obama will take Wisconsin. I was born and raised there, it’s a heavy white union state with hard working families! There are also a lot of farmers there, that I’m sure are suffering because of the economy. I love Wisconsin, I would still be there but my son needed a warmer climate for his medical condition. And, yes, I am still a cheese head!! ha ha..

I think Wisconsin will be a toss up…

to Not Confused,
My ballot in Fl had every candidate’s name listed, not just Hillary Clinton’s. More Democrats than ever came out to vote, knowing that their candidate could get no delegates. With each candidate having the same chance and so many voters expressing their opinions, I believe the DNC must count these votes and distribute delegates.

I agree SaraSota ^^

I crossed over from the “Dark Side” (GOP) to support Obama. However, IF Clinton is the nominee, I will RUN BACK TO THE GOP AS FAST AS I CAN…as will many of my constituents (who registered as Democrats specifically to vote for Obama).

Clinton is too polarizing, she doesn’t have a solid Economic Plan and she WON’T give a straight answer as to WHY she voted against the Levin Amendment. Senator Levin released a statement that Clinton knew exactly what the amendment said…rather, Clinton CHOSE to “follow the leader.”

Further, I don’t appreciate her plan to FORCE every citizen to obtain health insurance. I don’t need the Fed Gov’t forcing me to do ANYTHING else.

BTW - the Republicans are DESPERATE for Clinton to get the nomination because they know that Moderate Obama supporters won’t support Clinton. Moderate Republicans LIKE McCain. So do I, but Obama is still my candidate.

Most of the states Obama won are red states which will vote for Republican in General election. It is sad to say but democratic votes in those states do not matter. Clinton won all important Blue states including MA. This proves huge portion of Democratic party is behind Clinton. If you count in MI and FL, Obama is History.

Helen

You are of course entitled to your opinion. However, I hear many people say that if Obama is chosen as the nominee they will cross party lines and vote for McCain. They just don’t have faith in Obama. Obama has used the same “I will be a uniter” as GW Bush did when he ran in 2000. We all know what a great uniter he is. You claim that HRC is too polarizing yet many people say she is the best choice because she is relativly moderate and in a sense had already been “vetted”.

I have heard much more detail about her economic plans and her health care plans than I have heard from Obama.

So it, as always, comes down to a matter of choice and perspective.

For William and other whiners,

Not voting because of work is lame - an employer cannot prevent you from voting. Sounds like you have poor time management skills.

This may or not be true just reporting it. Please read and somebody tell me how this can be.

http://www.americablog.com/

Could someone please explain to me where Hillary’s 35 years of service have come from? Do the years as First Lady count? Thank you.

Helen,

I agree with you. Everyone who I have talked to said that they want Obama and if Hillary gets the nom they will crossover. These are life long dems I am talking about with exception for one who is a republican who will vote for Obama over McCain.

day dreamer,

If you’re asking about the undersea telecom cables being cut - yes, that is true. Outages from Egypt to India have been reported over the last couple weeks.

I am amazed by the amount of people who claim to have so much knowledge with regards to which candidate is better suited to lead this country. Yet everyone forgets one large piece of the equation and that is the fact unless either person is able to work with Congress and get them to put aside their bickering differences to get something done we could vote Mickey Mouse into office and it still wouldn’t matter.
Just ask yourself this simple question: Is it not congress that has the powers to draft legislation and determine the budgets and polices for which the President must decide to accept or reject. So if they are not able to work together and the last time I looked they had a lower rating then Bush has now, so who is best equipped to lead this country and to bring unity to our Government?

I have talked and listened to numerous people and have read a number of media articles regarding their decision to support Hillary and have come up with some of those reasons why. These are in no particular order;
1) Because she is a woman and this may be the only time in my life to see a woman President.
2) Because of the Clinton Administration during the nineties.
3) Because Bill Clinton will be there to help her.
4) Because the Clinton name recognition.
5) Because of her experience as First Lady.

So now answer the following using this scenario;
1) Bill Clinton was never President or that she was ever First Lady.
2) She was not named Clinton simply Hillary Rodham.
3) Disregard any allegations of scandals.

1) Would she have even run for the Senate?
2) Would you even know who she was?
3) Would she still have the experience or ability to be President?
4) If the only thing she had done was be a Senator on her own namesake would she still be the best choice?
5) If there was not the war going on and we didn’t have the financial crisis, with only her personal experience would she still be your choice?
After answering these questions and looking at her opponent based on his credentials, would your decision be the same?

Because I have found that other then voting solely on the fact that she is a woman, there is not that much of a difference and some have even changed their minds. So I would like to hear your thoughts.

Funny Skies11!!! The story that I am talking about is this.

“You all voted for Obama, but the Superdelegates put Hillary in the lead” at http://www.americablog.com/

That;s odd Stephanie. Everyone I have spoken to and it’s in the hundreds will vote for either Hillary or Obama.
How can you say you a true democrat a vote McCain. blaspheme!!!!

Well said, Jim (MD).

I maintain that the best criteria by which to judge a candidate are:

1) their integrity

2) their adherence/alignment with the US Constitution

3) their executive level skills

Keep on running your mouth Obama. Perhaps, he cannot count. It is too bad that he is having to pretend that he is black to keep up with HRC. He is, in actuality, half black (Kenya) and half white. He was raised in Hawaii by his not so poor parents. After graduating from his Ivy league school (just like HRC) he moved to Chicago to practice his prestigious law career. So what am I saying??? He never suffered the plight of the average black person. He never experienced prejudice and scorn the way poor blacks in Chicago have. He knows nothing of this plight. And where is Obama’s mamma now? Why is he so interested in keeping his real hertiage a secret? Why doesn’t he embrace his dual culture? Why doesn’t he admit his Muslim background? He should be ashamed of himself and I think he is. He hates having to pretend to be all “black” to get the black vote.

Hi Jim (MD).
Let me answer your question differently.

Imagine Obama is white; will he be where he is now? I do not think so. He is getting a Free Ride of his life time because of his race.

It is good to know white do not see color when they vote, Obama get a lot of white vote.
But it is sad to see black people vote is one sided. 80% black vote for Obama. It is clear they are voting race over qualification. Some even say they vote for him because he is black and they like to see black president. After long history of race/color discrimination, you would think they would be color blind. I guess nobody is innocent.

Obama would even be behind Edward if he is a white male. Now who say this race is not about race? Atleast clinton has years of experience. It may not be hand on experience but she know how things work and how to get things done after years of politcal career.

By the way, what’s up with (MD). Why not just Jim. Would I tak time to answer your question if You are just Jim instead of Jim (MD)?

Shwe (MD Ph.D.)

In response to the “Obama winning more electorate” — wrong. If you count all of Clinton’s victories to date, she has around 200 of the electoral college all in states Democrats can carry. Don’t believe me?

55 (CA) + 31 (NY) + 27 (FL) + 17 (MI) + 15(NJ) + 12 (MA) + 11 (TE) + 10 (AZ) + 7 (OK) + 6 (AR) + 5(NV) + 4 (NH) = 200. That means with these states, most of which supported her in large numbers, she only needs 70 more electors. She can gain that easily.

Obama, however has the following:

22 (IL) + 13 (GA) + 11 (MO) + 10 (MN) + 9 (AL) + 8 (SC) + 8 (CT) + 7 (CO) + 7 (IA) + 6 (KS) + 5 (UT) + 4 (ID) + 3 (DE) + 3 (AK) + 3 (ND) = 119.

Now look at that difference. Obama has won more states, but he’s a full 81 electorate votes away from Clinton — a spread that would require him to win huge states like Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia to even make up the spread. For every state he could lose to McCain, he may have to win TWO to make up for it. Keep in mind that some of these went by small margins, and even more went in potentially unrepresentative caucuses.

So no, as of right now, Obama doesn’t have the electorate edge. He would have to hail mary many very difficult states AND not lose in any of the ones he has if he was to beat McCain. Many of Clinton’s states, however, would stay in her corner.

Obama’s people cannot rightfully use the electorate argument, especially if they go up against McCain without a Clinton VP. He simply doesn’t have the larger states by a convincing enough margin to say he would defeat McCain, especially outside of the states with a large black electorate. McCain’s bread and butter are the independent white males, two groups Obama is absolutely depending on right now.

For Shwe (MD Ph.D.)

I think Jim’s (MD) means he is from Maryland - that’s a state in the Mid-Atlantic US region.

HRC’s “political career” spans the period of time she’s been in the US Senate (2001 - present).

The rest of the time, she’s simply been tethered to her husband for the purpose of getting to this juncture - it’s all contrived, and it’s embarrassing to know so many people can’t figure that out.

skies11, we’ve covered this, multiple times. Look up the concept of observational learning. It’s a scientific fact, no matter how much you hate facts, they don’t change.

For example, Jay?

shwe khaw;
Why is so much emphasis put on the color of ones skin? Are you saying that one cannot cast their vote soley on their own views of a candidate?
I read and hear so many remarks from people who say they only voted for that person because I can’t vote for a african-american. Are you implying that they don’t have the intellect to make their own sound choice based soley on race? What about all of the woman who vote just because Hillary’s a woman, are they deemed to be racist against men?
Any candidate who gets the nomination is going to need the support of the African-American as well as the Independents and the enormous amount of young voters.
And to just let you know (MD) refers to my being from Maryland.

Hillary won the popular vote and won the delegate count, enough is enough already, Obama should stop dividing the party before it’s too late. Obama should position himself to be Hillarys’ VP and in eight years he will be president.

Obama will not do well against the republicans, first they will say he is un-American because he did not vote to defend our country. Then they will use their famous catch phrase that he is a “flip flopper” because he voted against the war but then vote to fund the war. They will say that he cannot be strong on issues because he bends on issues to go with what’s popular. They will say he’s unable to stand firmly for something, again defining him as a “flip flopper”.

The republicans do not want to work with democrats they want to defeat the democrats so you can forget about his theory about being a uniter (remember bush said the same thing). The only way a democrat will get any thing done is by being strong and firm and fighting to elect a bigger majority of democrats in congress to ensure policies are passed.

Hope is nice but hoping is not going to get things done, hard work is.

Half the people keep spouting off about Hillary’s experience. GET real. SHE has almost no experience. Name a few pieces of legislation that she authored. Name one program that she made law while in the white house. Oh wait, she couldn’t because she wasn’t elected.

Stop the insane experience talk. It is completely up surd. Like the person said, if she wasn’t married to Bill, you wouldn’t even know her name.

Obama, Clinton separated by 0.4 percent on Super Tuesday
Posted: 12:00 PM ET
By midday Wednesday, 14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton had won 7,295,400 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent).

skies11, for example you learned to walk by watching others. You learned to eat properly by watching others. You learned to talk by listening to others. You learn how to do complex things like change tires by watching others.

Every day, you watch others and you learn. It is an undeniable fact of life. Clinton would have watched her husband every day working, and every night when he would ask her for council as any husband does to any wife.

She had experience as First Lady. Is it the same as being a Senator? No. However, anyone who throws out her experience as First Lady because of their preconceived notions is absolutely incorrect. That is, indeed, experience.

Todd, writing and passing legislation isn’t the only way to get experience in life. After all, none of us would pass the position of stock boy if you were right, because we wouldn’t all be given the chance to write and enact company policy. Also, it’s absurd — not up surd.

And if she wasn’t married to Bill, we wouldn’t know her name? Do you have access to parallel worlds and dimensions, or are you once again putting your biases against Hillary and making them fact?

I think we all get that some of you absolutely hate Hillary, but can we just stop abusing hyperbole?

Jim, those two numbers are identical.

I get it now, Jay.

By observing professional football, I’ll become a professional football player myself.

By observing my favorite musician, I too will become a professional musician.

By observing the evening news anchor regularly, I too will become a news anchor.

By observing brain surgery, I too will become a brain surgeon just like you.

skies11, this is what I meant by abusing hyperbole. However, you have inadvertently proved me correct.

By watching professional football, you can learn how to PLAY football properly. The professional part comes by being hired.

You can learn how to play instruments or SING by observing and listening, but the professional part comes by being signed by a label. Nothing says observational learning will result in being hired.

You can learn how to anchor effectively by watching, but you must be HIRED to be a news anchor professionally.

You can learn about the brain and learn operation, but you must be HIRED and LICENSED to do the job.

As a matter of fact, many of these same things you listed watch various tapes and go to various events in which they observe, listen, watch, and learn about their field and how to better improve their performances.

Football players watch old tapes to learn new plays and how to capitalize on a team’s weakness. Musicians listen to records and watch tapes, thus learn new formations of music. News Anchors often learn their craft by leaning other news anchors at work, and brain surgeons absolutely watch surgery before they perform it to better understand what to do.

I appreciate your failed attempt at hyperbole, but the reality is that learning happens from observation every day. You may not be a professional at it, but you certainly will learn.

If you don’t see what is actually happening in this election, then you really are out of touch. Obama is taking down the “Clinton Machine” piece by piece, state by state and the wave is on. She wasnt going to lose NY, NJ, CA. If fact, if you let her tell it, Feb 5 was suppose to show her as she calls a “National Candidate”. Obama has won 13-9 including stealing Mizzouri. Looking ahead, it gets worst. She is really on the ropes and I don’t see a way where she can recover.
She was really ahead in all of these states and nationally during SC. But something happened. Obama may not have won the big states, he definitely closed the gaps. At the end, he will have won more states which says alot about his messege and how it resignated with me as well as the country. Clinton is in trouble.

The facts are that she’s ahead in the popular vote, has 100+ delegates on Obama by the end of this primary, and she has shown she can get support from a large number of the electoral college.

Oops, forgot, we don’t do facts when talking Obama. We do baseless rhetoric and messianic rambling.

Observation is part of the equation, Jay. Aptitude is also a pre-requisite.

skies11, no, aptitude has nothing to do with observational learning. Are you done being wrong?

Hi Jim.
I am just stating the truth. African Amreicans are voting based on their skin color. I am not saying all but most of them are. Last night I just saw on CNN, an african american male saying he is voting for Obama. He said he likes Clinton as well. But he likes Obama little more. And he said he likes to see Black man as president. If Obama is not Black, I am sure he would vote for Clinton. He did not say one thing about issues. Everyone knows they are about the same between Clinton and Obama.

You cannot deny the fact that most African American are voting for Obama because he is black. Bill Clinton was right when he says it is “understandable”. It is indeed. But it may not me right way to choose our leader. I do not understand why people do not want to come out and say what it is true. And they would say whoever does is playing race card.

You have to check the facts before you claim White Women are voting based on sex. If they do Obama will not win those red states. Here is “Black Persons %” data from census.gov
ID (0.7%), CO (4.1%), KS (6.0%), UT(1.0%), etc.
Tell me who is voting for Obama in those states. Unless you can point out one state where majority of Black vote goes to Clinton, I rest my case.
Blacks vote for black regardless of whatever.

People say Clinton does not have experience, should answer if Obama does. Compare them side by side.

shwe, white women are actually back and forth between the two. White males vote slightly for Obama. Latino vote is all over the place, but they helped her win in many latino states. I don’t know their statistics.

Obama, however, has won 8:10 among black voters. He usually captures black men, black women, and every black demographic except for the black elderly vote — Clinton usually gets ~15-20% of that vote.

The facts are, most of those 100+ delagates are not committed. They can switch. As far as committed delagates which are won, he is ahead. Furthermore, it wasnt suppose to be like this. She was suppose to automatically get the nomination. And so far, Obama has won more states, and more committed delagates. And looking down the road, she is down in most of the remaining states coming up. This weekend and next Tuesday will prove my point. Did I mention she’s running out of money?

skies11, the point is that it is a PLUS for Clinton to have spent years in white house and as a first lady as well as a senator. There is no down side fot this. If you have been to a town you are unlike to get lost next time you go there. If you are saying those experience are not important, I guess you would not mind voting anyone since everyone can learn when they get to white house. The only thing is we do not have time.

Its true that African-Americans are voting thier skin color. Why wouldn’t they? It’s the first time in American history that an African American is a viable candidate for the presendency. Its not racist though. If that was the case, Al Sharpton would have done as well as Obama doing right now. Gore and Kerry won the black vote. So, dont go there!

Jay;
Those were the numbers being reported by the news media a while ago.

GA, now you’re just trying to rationalize. She has 191 uncommitted which are able to vote as they choose — they’ve stuck with her as they were able to change at any time. Likewise, Obama can lose his 100 or so if they decide to leave him.

However, her 100+ lead right now will come from California and New York — both of which she won over half a large amount of delegates. She will probably end up with 200-300 from those two states by the end of this.

I have also detailed, above, electorate votes. Obama’s “more states” do not translate to “a win”. Likewise, he has won “more states”, but he has lost delegates for Super Tuesday and a bulk of those smaller delegate states have already decided their counts. He will not win more committed delegates from Super Tuesday, and he will not end up with more overall — Clinton will because she won New York and California.

As for being “down” in upcoming states, I would encourage you to remember that this is a delegate race. Vote count and state count matters, but delegates are the real end goal. Obama needs over half of the remaining delegates. From here, all Clinton has to really do is keep Obama from winning large margins.

Finally, have we not learned that cherry picking polls doesn’t work? Obama was up 10% from Rasmussen, but he has lost California by 10%. Clinton’s money woes, however, will not last for long with California, New York, and the delegate count win as well as the popular vote win.

If Bill Clinton didnt make statements that could be interpreted as racist, maybe Hillary would get her share of the black vote. I voted for Bill. But he has made it where as I would vote for any Republican be4 I would vote for Hillary in the general and thats all on Bill.

Jim, they are from the exit polls from last night.

I fully understand that. However, If Obama ends up with more commited delagates than Hillary Most of the Super Delagates could change their vote and go with the voters. I know full well that she won the big states. In Cali and Fla, a lot of voters participated in early voting. On election day, exit polls showed he won on that day. Hillary benifited from people who voted be4 the election.

Hi GA 4 Obama.
You are right it is ‘understandable’ as Bill Clinton said. But it is not right. if Black vote black and white vote white, it will not be good for anyone. And definitely not a right way to choose a leader. Thsi is not American Idol. And white are not voting just for white. I am proud of them. Being an asian myself, this election says there is no Glass ceiling or Bamboo ceiling for minorities in America.

GA, why is anyone who questions Obama a racist? I really am disturbed by the fact that if anyone brings up the numbers concerning the black vote’s overwhelming support of Obama, they are racist, or Bill Clinton is racist, or anyone else that doesn’t support Obama is a racist.

It’s a horrible, sharp, deep divide that is being constructed by Obama’s supporters. I don’t appreciate it one bit.

Jay;
No there are being reported on CNN’s political ticker right now.

By midday Wednesday, 14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent).

GA, they can change their votes, but that does not mean they will and it certainly doesn’t mean that Super Tuesday will cause a mass exodus. Quite the opposite, as I detailed above, since Clinton is ahead in the popular vote, ahead by earned delegates, ahead by possible electoral college votes, and still ahead of Obama in terms of what is to come.

Clinton merely needs to keep Obama’s wins from here on at a margin that isn’t huge. She could pass 1,000 delegates from Super Tuesday, which would put her needing 1,000 more. Keep in mind, we still have Florida and Michigan possibly in play — despite what people’s feelings may be about the race in those states. They could be easily reintroduced.

I didnt say that you were racist. What I said was: That the African Americans that are overwhelmingly voting for Obama wasnt a racist vote. Because for the first time, they have a viable candidate. And I backed that up by referencing the last two election where Sharpton lost the black vote to Gore and Kerry. I made no comment about you.

No, Jim, you don’t understand:

Clinton had won 7,295,400
Obama captured 7,295,400

You literally had down the same number of votes. Clinton is slated to win the Super Tuesday popular vote, and that should not be taken from her just like Obama’s state number win shouldn’t be taken from him.

Until we reconvene here on the morning of 5 Nov 08, after the Democrat nominee concession speech, please make an intelligent selection rather than an emotional selection.

Obama, brother, do not be DECIEVED; your own very revolutionary tide will eventually sweep you away in general election.The latinos are at least honest in their apparent vote of no confidence in your “blackness”. But the white folks are not that honest, but are characteristically pushing you to nomination at the expence of their nemesis-Hilary, only to dump you in general election. Not even a white Democrat in washington DC will vote for you in general election. Watch that momentum, it is transient, deceitful and hollow. My name is Sam and I approve this messge.

Some how we are forgetting one thing with regards to the actual vote count and that is just as it is here in Maryland. Independent voters are not permitted to vote in the primary elections, so how we to assume that she are will carry all of those states when it comes to the General Election when there were states last night that didn’t allow those to vote either.
Do you think that she will get those votes versus say McCain with all of the support he is receiving from Independents? Not everyone who is a registered Democrat are willing to vote for her so it will come down to who is more elect able, because she won’t have experience platform to taught against him.