The RPMs on Terry McAuliffe's spin are off the charts.
Of course he's denying that Obama's delegate lead is all but insurmountable; that's to be expected. Of course he's downplaying the fact that Pennsylvania was never expected to be anywhere near close; he has to (and we still don't know what the actual margin will be).
But he just said that the Obama campaign has "thrown kitchen sink after kitchen sink" at Clinton. Wha...?! It's not the pot calling the kettle black-it's the pot calling the kettle a pot!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
What does the delegate count tell is at this point that the popular vote does not more accurately reflect? (I.e. the "will of the voters".)
Counting Florida (where BHO and HRC were both on the ballot), last night's stunning HRC victory against $11,000,000 spent by Obama on TV alone, with another $6,000,000 spent on the ground, HRC is only down by 200,000 votes--the exact amount she made up in one night in PA.
PS: Seen the North Carolina Republican Party's Reverend wright TV ad yet?
See
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccain-begs-nc-republicans-to-kill-rev.html
It is a HORSE RACE again.
What does the delegate count tell is at this point that the popular vote does not more accurately reflect? (I.e. the "will of the voters".)
It tells us that Obama has thus far proved himself better able to win under the accepted rules. But to whatever extent it matters, I believe Obama still has Clinton beat on the popular vote. More importantly, I believe he will have her beat at the end of all of the primaries-but we'll see about that.
You believe Florida should be included and I believe it shouldn't. Yes their names were on the ballot, but they also were both under the impression that the primary wouldn't count for any delegates and therefore didn't run a normal campaign. But I'm obviously not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me.
What matters on that score is the credentials committee-we'll see how that turns out. Not well for your side, I suspect, but we'll see...
Yes. I've seen the NC Republican party ad. The one even McCain said was beyond the pale. It's ridiculous and I believe it will be of little effect ultimately.
But congratulations again on pushing the most odious of right wing talking points. You really do come off like an Arkansas Project-funded reporter at the American Spectator circa 1995.
Time will indeed lead us to strange places, won't it?
However, under the DNC rules there is no "winner" unless one candidate or the other gets at least 2,025 pledged delegates.
Since that is not going to happen, then there will be no "winner" under “the established rules".
The super-delegates' role is to break the impasse that is likely to exist at the end of the primary process.
Many super-delegates said publicly 30 days ago that if Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count by June 7 there is no way they can "overturn the will of the people".
Note that the AP published an article on April 17 that asserted, after interviewing 100 supers, that many of the supers no longer consider themselves bound by the delegate count, and will instead look primarily to the question of electability.
My point was only that if the "will of the people" is the criteria, the best and most direct indicator of that is the popular vote, since the delegates are allocated under complex formulas in each state by congressional district.
The April 17, 2008 AP story, “Undecided superdelegates don't feel bound by primaries” can be found here:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5huRF3cWlHcz5si9CnwBUQ6S-Ff5QD905NNH81
Post a Comment