Obama Clinton
Pledged 1489 1333
Superdelgates 241 262
1730 1595
This is the state of play according to realclearpolitics.com
There is 135 delegate pledged and super currently.
There are 492 pledged delegates up for grabs and the general consensus is that these will be split fairly evenly. Say 252 Clinton 240 Obama.
So this leaves it down to the superdelegates which number 292 uncommitted.
So Obama would need 53 of these to take the nomination.
We all know that the nomination is Obama's to lose.
Potentially a case of winning the battle and losing the war.
Can Superdelegates change their minds?
After all the Convention isn't till August.
Europa Conventus Delenda Est
Course they can especially if something breaks that could force Obama out.Originally Posted by Catalpa
Like if a story breaks that he's not black at all... he's been wearing fake tan all this time, just to get the African-American vote.
He's not black. He's half black. Rest of him's Offaly: bog Irish like Biffo.Like if a story breaks that he's not black at all... he's been wearing fake tan all this time, just to get the African-American vote.
Course they can especially if something breaks that could force Obama out.
I think if there was anything so terrible that would force obama out of the race. it would have come out by now
In principle, neither politicans nor officals should accept personal gifts of value from outside their family" - Bertie Ahern, 1996
Hope its an all over tan. It would be money well spent.Like if a story breaks that he's not black at all... he's been wearing fake tan all this time, just to get the African-American vote.
The problem in politics is unexpected events, like Pastor Wright on a publicity drive, or perhaps being roped into the Rezko trial. As often as not it is something unexpected, a mistake, a slip of the tongue that dams you. Or it could be an old friend who sells your intimate teenage secrets to the press or a former acquaintance who feels wronged. Because you are in the glare of publicity everything about you is potentially of interest and information has value and can be used for or against you.
Both Clinton and Obama are similar. They are both lawyers, their roots are not with the elite. They are ambitious and both are willing to bend rules, mislead, evade and lie if necessary to achieve their objectives. They both have a ruthless streak. We might not like them, or think that one is better than the other, but whatever way you look at it neither of them are dangerous or evil people. They are not going to land us in WW3 and future disasters like Mississippi will be better handled. By comparison Bush is dangerous, not because he is evil but because he is incompetent, thought some around him certainly belong on the dark side.
I wonder how many of us would stand up to the type of scrutiny these two are now getting? It mystifies me why anyone would put themselves through it.
yes but my point was if people like this existed they would have cashed in by now.if either candidate slips up it will be down to themselves ie.slip of the tongue, or someone associated with themit could be an old friend who sells your intimate teenage secrets to the press or a former acquaintance who feels wronged
In principle, neither politicans nor officals should accept personal gifts of value from outside their family" - Bertie Ahern, 1996
There were reports I heard on the radio that Obama's lead in North Carolina has plummeted by over 2/3 from 20 to 6 in one week according to a brand new poll. I didn't catch the details - I was at work on the phone at the time and it was on in the background. If it is true then he is in trouble. That sort of drop should not happen in that state that quickly. It would coincide with the Wright affair. Wright's comments could well be the moment that Obama became unelectable in the presidential election.
One point BTW - pledged delegates are NOT in the bag. They break ranks all the time. Many states have laws to punish pledged delegates who break ranks with whomever they were elected to support. They also can be replaced if they announce in advance they are going to break ranks. So what normally happens is that those who decide to break ranks and change sides stay quiet until the convention starts. At that point they cannot be replaced. While in theory they could face prosecution for breaking ranks in reality they never are. If I remember correctly of the hundreds of pledged delegates who have broken ranks of the decades, only 1 ever faced an attempt at prosecution and that collapsed. So saying that such and such a candidate has X delegates, and another candidate Y, is complete bunkum. 100 of Clinton's delegates could vote for Obama on the day, or 100 of his vote for her. It usually happens where early in a campaign one candidate looks to be the ideal candidate for November, but by the convention enough doubts have formed to lead people to have senior worries about their electability. In practice in recent decades the changes in sides has not changed the overall results, simply because there hasn't been a race like this one.
As it stands if 80 out of 2000 of his delegates changed to her, she'd win the nomination. If 80 of her almost 2000 went to him he'd win. If Edwards backed her, she'd only need around 55 of Obama's pledged delegates to change sides. In other words all it would take is for 3% of pledged delegates to break ranks (and remember breaking ranks is quite common in US elections with delegates. On occasions 2-3% have broken ranks in the Electoral College electing the president, let alone in a mere party convention. Already there have been delegates breaking ranks internally in both parties in some states where people don't elect delegates directly but where they elect delegates to go to a state convention who then in turn elect delegates to the national convention. (The GOP recently postponed a state convention over the amount of breaking ranks taking place, to prevent a state convention ditching the guy who 'won' the state and trying to nominate more delegates for a losing candidate.)
Finally, re the 'odds on' stuff - the odds someone has are not based, and are never based, solely on likelihood to win. It is based on the money being placed, and the fact that the bookie is lowering his odds to ensure that those who place money will not win much. It is an old game. I remember a decade ago in an Irish by-election, some rich supporters of a candidate made him the favourite by placing bets. As things stood he wasn't going to win, so they piled on the money, the bookies took fright in case if he won they'd lose a fortune, so the odds tumbled so much he became the favourite. The media carried the story about how the race was moving towards that candidate because of the amount of money piling on and his dropping odds. His backers hoped that coverage would then create a bandwagon effect with people then voting for him because they wanted to be on the side of the person they expected to win. In reality the guy didn't win, was not likely to win, and the stunt was merely that, a stunt to create an impression that might win him votes. So saying someone is 'odds on' doesn't mean someone is likely to win. it means bookies are getting so many bets they are covering their arses by bringing the odds down in case he wins. If tomorrow 10,000 Clinton supporters in North Carolina began placing a lot of bets that she would win, you'd find her odds tumbling and if enough money was put on, she'd be the favourite, even though in reality her support might not have changed one iota. Odds don't represent reality. They represent perception of reality. If the perception is changed through money flow, the odds changed. (That's why you find a 20-1 horse in a race suddenly dropping to 5-1. It doesn't mean the horse has changed one iota, just that bookies are covering their backsides because people are putting money on, and they may be putting money on for any number of reasons, from a sting - which is the bookies' big fear - to a rumour to an inside tip to trainer playing a 'mindfu*k' with the heads of bookies and their fears.)
[color=#FF0000](Guys, when I type in capitals it isn't shouting. I have technical problems which makes using italics difficult. Please don't take offence if you see capitals used!) [/color]
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote