Clinton Wins Lackawanna With Only 74 Percent

This is what I read from the 24th april Herald Tribune issue : Top hedge fund managers are betting on... Obama. Further the explanation is this one :" So why is Obama such a popular choice among the hedge fund crowd? In a word, access. Unlike Mc Cain and Clinton, Obama is relatively new to national politics and is therefore open to bringing new people-and new money-into the tent. For money types who want a table, or at least to look involved and get an invitation to the right parties,Obama is the candidate." This probably explains why so much money is poured into Obama campaign and why he struggles hard to have the support of the blue collar voter. It explains why his voters have been reported all along as upper and educated class, elite in a way. The voter has to see for self interest, and if some of the billionnaire see more to get from Obama, the worker and the median class want to see someone who can fight hard for them and Hillary Clinton's profile looks more like it. But even though she won most of the big states, some would insist that she steps down because they just want to see Obama as the nominee. It's up to the popular vote to speak up and tell again and again that their real interests are what counts. And never give up just like Hillary. Isn't everything a fight in this world even more in politics?

Another example of the paradox you illustrate is the case of Texas. The Clinton campaign got more of the popular vote. The Obama campaign netted more delegates.

Which won the state? Because of the superdelegates, both have a claim, one direct (Obama campaign -- clearly got more pledged delegates) and one indirect (Clinton campaign -- getting more of the popular vote may have helped to pull some superdelegates over to their side).

I agree with the posters that the system is ridiculous, in part because the complexity and the huge variety between states makes it difficult for the voters to understand how their vote gets translated into delegates.

However, given the game is what it is, and the goal is to accumulate delegates, the winner will likely be the campaign that has kept its focus on accumulating delegates rather than running up other metrics that are only tangentially related to the outcome.

Example: Turnovers are good and can contribute to a winning game. But games are won on points, not on a tally of turnovers.

If the delegates were awarded based on number of counties won, both campaigns would presumably have used a very different strategy in their campaigning.

it clearly indicates the absurdity of the system we dems have for allocating delegates - give delegates to the person who loses not only the state and almost all of the counties in the state, but also the person who lost all the constituencies needed to win a general election.

but evaluation of the results reveals who can and cannot win a general. hillary can. obama cannot. he loses pretty much all groups except african-americans, kids, and latte liberals. and in pennsylvania his proportions of kids and latte liberals went down.

bye bye obama, if not for the nomination, then certainly for the general. go back to the senate, finish your term, lose your bid for reelection, try making a living as a motivational speaker....

When I saw Bob Casey, I thought he was much like Senator Obama---a pretty speech and a big smile. People want substance, not showmanship. Casey probably made a big mistake with his endorsement.
Some voters listened, read and were educated about Senator Obama then voted for Hillary Clinton--simple as that.

If you count the states delegates as winner-takes-all, like in the in the general election, clinton is 1800+ and bho 1100+.
ugh, oh...

I think inspiration is great and there is no doubt that Obama has done a fantastic job energizing so many more people in this election cycle. I do not trivialize that in anyway. However, at the end of the day, for me it's about who can deliver solutions to a wide range of issues. Clinton has time and time again demonstrated a commanding knowledge on a range of issues and when she talk about solutions for these issues, she has a confidence that Obama seems to lack when he is off script.

Confidence is what inspires me to vote for Clinton and in a general election with Obama and McCain, it will be confidence again that will decide my vote and that vote would be for McCain.

I took a look at ABCNews's report that Hillary has taken the lead in popular vote.

There is a problem: They only get that result by including Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot.

How dishonest! But based on the Obama-bashing debate of last week, that appears to be the tact that ABC/Disney has decided to take.

DavidS: I actually have read every word on Obama's website about the issues. Many positions are similar to Clinton's -- some are not. I prefer her health care plan, as an example. The real problem is that I have never seen him discuss his positions with any level of authority. I don't think he really has the grasp of those issues like Hillary.

I really don't see how anyone watching debates (and I've watched all of them) would see someone ready to be president. And he certainly doesn't come across as "inspirational" in those forums.

You don't see that in Obama . . . but lots of people do. If you go to his website and take a look at his position on the issues, you will see that he has VERY details proposals on the serious matters of today. I suspect you have never bothered to actually examine the issues, you just like putting the man down.

The point I was making is that either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama would be better than John McCain. The reason why I support Obama is because he inspires me. You asked what I meant, and I told you.

On the issues themselves, there is little difference between Barack and Hillary. So how does one choose between the two? For me, it's Barack's inspirational character. Why do you mock that? Why do ALL Hillary supporters mock that concept? Don't they remember what Bill Clinton meant to Democrats back in the early 90s? We haven't had this much reason to be optimistic about the future of America until now!

DavidS: sounds exciting. Now how exactly does "inspire the citizenry to greatness" relate to the real world and real challenges we face? Yes, Bill Clinton was also inspiring -- but he also had a firm grasp of the issues, realistic plans, experience and more. I don't see that in Obama.

Greg observes: "[Obama's] spiritual mentor for 20 years Pastor Wright said America is responsible for 9/11 and "god d@#$ America", wouldn’t most Americans stand up and walk out...."

And Obama denounced those comments. And said that if he were present when Wright said those things he would have walked out (he was in DC on the day of that speech, as has been documented . . . not that you care about such things).

The curious thing is that Reverends Robertson and Falwell ALSO blamed 9/11 on America! Remember that? But that didnt' stop the Republicans from continuing to go to their churches and even from inviting them both to the White House on numerous occasions. Funny how those Republicans have double standards. Funny how you seem to be buying into their playbook.

RS: You might be right about Hillary supporters not voting for, as you say, a "radical left wing" candidate. But as Hillary and Barack HAVE NEARLY IDENTICAL POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES, if you are right, then her supporters are simply cutting off their nose to spite their face!

The Rev. Wright matter is a non-issue. Obama has denounced Wright's comments, and that's good enough for me. Frankly, your post sounds like it comes from a Republican, not a Democrat. I suspect thats what you are. Republicans have been pushing HARD for a HIllary Clinton nomination - in my opinion, because they know they have a better chance of beating her.

No true Democrat would vote for John "100 years in Iraq is fine with me" McCain, against somebody like Obama who has virtually the same position on the issues as Hillary does.

DavidS, great post. That's exactly how I feel too.

What Obama and his campaign are mortally wounded, (just like in gladiator) , and they don't know it yet. The Rev. Wright story and Obama's membership in his racist, anti-semitic, Hamas promoting, hate-mongering church is the end of Obama's campaign. Obama's entire campaign is based on the idea of unity and bringing people together, but the reality of Obama's actions speaks to who Obama the man truly is. Obama's condescending, arrogant comments that he made in San Francisco only deepen the wound. The Radical Left Wing of this party is so out of touch with regular Americans, that they don't understand how Obama's "speech" could somehow make up for Obama's 20 years of sitting in a cess pool of hatred. The slow drip, drip is the end of Obama's campaign. If Obama were a true democrat and a true man, he would bow out gracefully now in order for the party to come together before he and Howard Dean and the DNC completely tear the democratic party apart. Hillary supporters WILL NEVER VOTE FOR RADICAL LIBERAL LEFT WING ELITE OBAMA!!!

Cappamore: Sure.

Inspiring means "to fill with an animating, quickening, or exalting influence"

It's what Bill Clinton had . . . in spades. When Bill Clinton gave a speech, he made one feel that America's best days were ahead of us, not behind. When Bill Clinton told a story, it resonnated, it caused me to compare it to the world in which I live. He made me proud to be a Democrat. He caused me to imagine the exciting possibilities of what government could do when run by people who cared. He made me believe in the future, and made me eager to see that future arrive!

That's what I mean when I say that Obama inspires me. He causes those same feelings that I felt when I heard a Bill Cliton speech. Rather than campaigning on fear ("vote for me or you'll die a horrible death"), like Republicans do, or campaining on past glories like Mrs. Clinton does.

It's not that complicated. The primary job of a PResident is to inspire the citizenry to greatness. I feel that with Mr. Obama, but not (as much) with Mrs. Clinton.

Thats what I mean. Understand now?

DavidS - Can you please describe for me what "Obama is inspiring" means? Seriously.

Excellent question, Hank. I don't know, but I have a suspicion:

Most of the Democratic nominees for President since 1980 have been chosen based on perceived "electability". Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. Only Bill Clinton broke the mold: He won not because he was considered to be electable (the argument at the time was that he was NOT), but because he inspired people.

That's what does it for me - Obama is inspiring. He reminds me more of Bill Clinton than any other person who has run for the Presidency since 1980. Thats why I think he will win against McCain in the fall.

The animated red state vs blue state map can be found if you Google.

Robert Vanderbei at Princeton University's website.

The link is 'Purple America'

The 2006 Election maps has the animated map showing the results of elections from 1960 to 2006.

Your analysis just goes to show how convaluted and just plain wierd is the democratic electoral process. I can now see how George Bush, jr. gets elected twice and no democrat except Bill Clinton gets elected twice since FDR.