[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Technosoul Not totally resolved as Clinton has one last chance to contest that ruling at the convention.

By doing so, she would be scuttling any hope the Democrats have of winning in November.

And the addition of seating the deligates in Mish and Fla has set a larger number of deligates that must be won to secure the nomination before the convention. Polls favor Hillary picking up a large share of the deligates in the next primary in P.R. (55 deligates up for grabs in that primary.

No, you're not getting it. The delegate count is OVER. Obama needs 66 to clinch the NEW number. Even if he only gets 1/3 of the vote in Puerto Rico, that's another 18 or 19. If he only gets 1/2 of the Montana pledged delegates, that's another 8. Add 12 if he gets half of South Dakota, this is keeping in mind he's leading by considerable amounts in both of those states.

18+8+12 = 38. That leaves 26 delegates needed to clinch. 5 superdelegates have committed to vote for the pledged delegate leader at the end of the primaries, so 5 more for Obama leaving 21 left. After those five, there are 200 uncommitted superdelegates.

Hillary basically needs to convince every single one to go her way in order to even come close to Obama's delegate count. Obama, on the other hand, only needs to convince about 1 out of every 10 to swing his way.

Hillary, like most women, just doesn't care for mathematical reasoning.

The fact that Obama selected to withdraw his name form the ballet in Mich. was his own fault and poor planning on his behalf (lack of experience).

LOL @ your skewing of the truth. Again, you use the same tactics that have lost Clinton this race. His lack of experience? Is that the same lack of experience that caused every other Democrat to withdraw their name as well? Edwards? Richardson? How many Michigan delegates would each of them be sitting on right now?

The ballet allowed for people to vote "uncomitted" if they preferred someone not listed on the ballet. Which many voters did who supported Obama. Obama would have been given all those votes if he had agreed to respecting the will of the people in that state.

The ballot had Clinton, Dodd (who had withdrawn), Kucinich (who had asked to have his name removed), and Uncommitted on the ballot. And Clinton STILL only managed 55% of the vote on pure name recognition.

The 11 carcus states could have been figured into the popular vote count (number of ballets cast for democrats) in favor of canidate with the most deligates awarded in those states, it was a well known fact that those states (which cantain mostly republican voters) had a low turn out at the democratic primary and so their numbers would have had only a tiny effect on the national count.

They were not figured into Clinton's "popular vote" argument. She has acknowledged this.

And your argument conveniently forgets Washington, a very populous "blue" state (7,000,000 people) which went heavily for Obama in their caucus.

Quote by: linda_mary_13 The primary election that took place in Fl and MI were legal elections.

And? So what? So was the last Parliamentary election in Canada, but for some strange reason the DNC is refusing to count their votes as well... It must be a conspiracy!

The DNC is basically refusing to acknowledge the outcome based on rules they made to serve the party rather than the electorate.

Which, considering they are the party, and not the electorate, is what they should be doing.

I don't think most Americans realize this.The DNC is only comitted to their cause, (to control who the democratic nominees are) and not to the individual voter. It's amazing to me that the party that claims to stand for the disenfranchised voter proudly can do that very thing if it is for the party.

It amazes me that people can still say with a straight face that they support a lying, rule-breaking, promise-breaking, manipulative, career politician like Hillary Clinton.

But hey, maybe some white supremacist will come and assassinate Obama. I mean, that sure helped Hubert Humphrey pick up delegates, didn't it?

They say one thing and do the very opposite.

LOL...

Hillary Clinton, January 2008: "The Florida and Michigan primaries will not matter."

Hillary Clinton, May 2008: "The Florida and Michigan primaries are ESSENTIAL."

Yeah, that whole self-serving hypocrisy thing really gets on my nerves, too.

I feel so upset by what i saw today.

I feel upset that this lame duck, politically bankrupt loser has to return to "representing" my state for at least the next 4 years...