maporsche wrote:I added a new avatar with a little picture of me...
Hmm...you seem to be cute--why'd ya have to make the picture so tiny I have to get out the magnifying glass to enjoy it?
Clinton email sent tonight.
Quote:Dear maporsche,
From Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Arkansas, to New Jersey, Massachusetts, and my home state of New York, the good news just keeps coming in. We're off to a great start tonight, and I know it would not have been possible without you.
It's not over yet. Votes are still being counted and we may not know the full results until tomorrow. But I wanted to make sure I thanked you for all you have done because, yet again, your support has given us the momentum tonight.
Thank you,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
And a BIG GIANT "CONTRIBUTE" BUTTON
Well, it looks like that the Hillary fans need to support us - the Obama crowd!
CalamityJane wrote:Well, it looks like that the Hillary fans need to support us - the Obama crowd!
Not quite sure how you figure that.....
He's going to have more overall delegates at the end of the night.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:He's going to have more overall delegates at the end of the night.
Cycloptichorn
Maybe....but too soon for a victory party.
Yes, maporsche - I think (like Cyclo) that Obama will have the most
delegates.
ebrown_p wrote:maporsche wrote:e_brown, I'm not sure that many Obama supporters would support Clinton (assuming that Obama wasn't the VP nod).
This is one of the problems that I have with most Obama supporters.
I promise you that should she win the primary Hillary will get the vast majority of Obama voters to follow her to the general election.
I can say this with confidence as an Obama supporter (who knows lots of other Obama supporters). We would be a little disappointed, but then we would get right behind Clinton as the Democratic nominee.
I hope (and believe) that Clinton supporters will do the same.
Do you really think that Obama supporters will just forget all the race baiting that the Clintons have engaged in and vote for her anyway?
Yes! They wouldn't be that stupid and vote for McCain instead.
real life wrote:ebrown_p wrote:maporsche wrote:e_brown, I'm not sure that many Obama supporters would support Clinton (assuming that Obama wasn't the VP nod).
This is one of the problems that I have with most Obama supporters.
I promise you that should she win the primary Hillary will get the vast majority of Obama voters to follow her to the general election.
I can say this with confidence as an Obama supporter (who knows lots of other Obama supporters). We would be a little disappointed, but then we would get right behind Clinton as the Democratic nominee.
I hope (and believe) that Clinton supporters will do the same.
Do you really think that Obama supporters will just forget all the race baiting that the Clintons have engaged in and vote for her anyway?
what race baiting is that?
Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment after South Carolina struck a particular raw nerve with many of us.
CalamityJane wrote:Yes, maporsche - I think (like Cyclo) that Obama will have the most
delegates.
Well, it looks like you were both incorrect.
maporsche wrote:CalamityJane wrote:Yes, maporsche - I think (like Cyclo) that Obama will have the most
delegates.
Well, it looks like you were both incorrect.
Super-delegates are unpledged, can change their vote at any time - and therefore really shouldn't be counted yet.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:maporsche wrote:CalamityJane wrote:Yes, maporsche - I think (like Cyclo) that Obama will have the most
delegates.
Well, it looks like you were both incorrect.
Super-delegates are unpledged, can change their vote at any time - and therefore really shouldn't be counted yet.
Cycloptichorn
Yeah, that's why I'm not counting them.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/
Clinton = 632 non-superdelegates
Obama = 626 non-superdelegates
If you count SDs, it looks like:
Clinton = 825
Obama = 732
maporsche wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:maporsche wrote:CalamityJane wrote:Yes, maporsche - I think (like Cyclo) that Obama will have the most
delegates.
Well, it looks like you were both incorrect.
Super-delegates are unpledged, can change their vote at any time - and therefore really shouldn't be counted yet.
Cycloptichorn
Yeah, that's why I'm not counting them.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/
Clinton = 632 non-superdelegates
Obama = 626 non-superdelegates
If you count SDs, it looks like:
Clinton = 825
Obama = 732
Still just projected. Obama's camp sez he won more delegates then that.
Cycloptichorn
so it must be 100% accurate.
NBC reported today Obama up by 10 delagates not counting the Supers.
From MSNBC site appox. 45 seconds ago
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
*** A split decision: The Clinton and Obama campaigns engaged in a furious game of spin before Super Tuesday, but Obama might have put it best when he said on TODAY and Morning Joe yesterday that it would end up being a split decision. In fact, after they traded state after state last night, it reminded us of "Rocky I" -- lots of drama, lots of punches landed and received, and ultimately a draw. And just like with that movie, we're now headed to a sequel to find a true winner. It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night's delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton; the Obama camp projects winning by nine delegates (845-836). He also won more states (13 to Clinton's eight; New Mexico is still outstanding), although she won the most populous ones (California and New York). And Obama's argument that he might be the most electable Democrat in a general election was bolstered by the fact that he won nine red states versus four for Clinton. Yet with Clinton's overall superdelegate lead (259-170, based on the lists they've released to us), and when you toss in the 63-48 lead Obama had among pledged delegates going into Super Tuesday, it appears Clinton has about 70 more overall delegates than Obama does (1140-1150 for Clinton versus 1070 to 1080 for Obama). It's that close, folksÂ…
