Will Hillary Clinton be able to win both the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries on March 4, 2008?

In my view, as per the new Hubdub rules, this question, as written, will be determined by the DELEGATES, NOT by the popular vote.

[Hubdub Rules v1.0 -- Last updated: February 14th, 2008]
"2.3 Category Specific Rules

2.3.1 Politics Category

* Unless otherwise stated a state primary/caucus/convention is decided based on delegates (not super delegates). A question will only be settled by the popular vote if that is explicitly stated in the question."

<http://www.hubdub.com/public/goodquestion>


This is even more important as, for example, in Texas, Clinton could WIN the popular vote, but LOSE the delegate vote:

From <http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=90434>

"Sometimes life isn't fair.

Now that Obama has taken over the delegate lead in the Democratic presidential race, Clinton is counting on her potential support among Hispanics in the March 4 Texas primary to help her catch up.

But for reasons that actually make sense if you dig deep enough, in Texas the Hispanic votes don't count as much as the black votes Obama can count on receiving in overwhelming numbers.

So, it's possible Hillary could whip Barack by eight to 10 points and yet split about even on Texas delegates.

Texas Democrats could even give Clinton more votes but give Obama more delegates.

Of the 228 delegates Texas will send to the national convention in Denver next August, the March 4 primary will determine 126.

This is not a winner-take-all election. The delegates will be divided as close as possible to the portions of the votes each candidate receives.

But here's the important part: The division will not be statewide. It will be done in each of the 31 state senatorial districts.

And not all districts are created equal.

In what can only be considered a historical irony, the state's two heavily African-American districts get at least 50 percent more delegates than the average senatorial district.

These are people who were counted as three-fifths of a person in the nation's original representational scheme.

The Houston senatorial district represented by state Sen. Rodney Ellis will send seven delegates to Denver.

By contrast, the district represented by Houston Sen. Mario Gallegos will send three. The same is true for Brownsville Sen. Eddie Lucio.

Why the disparity?"

-- more at <http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=90434>

exceptional comment truthwrangler

exceptional comment about his exceptional comment shadowfax

Good job on commenting for all involved. Keep up the good commenting!

Your all exceptional.... :-)

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

And the content editors are equally versed in commenting...kudos! all around!

From the recent flag, I want to make it clear that this is decided via delegate counts. If for example Texas becomes like New Mexico then we will need to suspend and wait until official confirmation.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

talk about the "Mutual Admiration Society" (of commentors, that is). :)

Smart money is on Clinton losing both. At least, that's where 90% of my bankroll is... ;)

I think that the answers don't properly answer the question.

The question is a yes/no question.

Just something to point out...

I see how it can be interpreted as a purely yes or no market. But the author included more options which make the market more flexible and liquid.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

Next week when Hillary loses both races, I am going to be a rich, rich man.

I'm telling ya, if you're money's on Hillary, you might as well burn it.

The only way Obama wins Ohio is if a large number of Republicans declare as Democrats and vote for him in the primary. There are some talk radio folks encouraging that. If not than Clinton wins by 8-10pts

You haven't seen the latest polls after the debate...support for Clinton is tanking in Ohio just like it has in every other state. Her previous comments praising the successes of NAFTA have finally caught up to her and it is becoming clear that the jobless state of Ohio does not appreciate that.

Oh, and now Obama's listed as 4 point UP in the Texas race...goodbye Hillary (and good riddens!).

Barack is a very vocal candidate. (One of the best orators this country has produced, imho).
Barack's supporters are also, like him, very vocal.
However, Hillary's largest segment of support comes from folks who do not necessarily attend political rallys.
It seems that Barack has an advantage in the March 4th primaries, but do not count on it actually happening this way. When the couch potatoes unite, get out, and vote, they will overwhelm Barack's supporters. These are the people who are not moved by oratory as much, and they definitely tend to vote experience over exciting oratory.

I like Obama's message. I just do not think it is realistic to believe he can raise both arms skyward and pronounce that the changes he embodies in his oratory are getting done. As president, he could start bridging the divide in congress, but, alas, it will not happen during his term. And if what he pronounces does not 'get done' in his first four years, he'll be out. When a pol promises and doesn't deliver, his constituents will get pissed off.

so ... my money is on Hillary winning Ohio and Texas.

I might agree with you...if the last 11 races didn't debunk your entire theory.

Obama has had over 1,000,000 individual contributions from ordinary American citizens. He has run an exemplary campaign of anyone fit to be in public office.

Hillary has the big corporate interests, the wealthy big-wig buddies of Bill, and the loyal Clinton elite to fund her campaign. Hillary's campaign has been dominated by drama, scandal, tears, false accusations, campaign personnel changes and her NAFTA flip-flop (hot point for jobless Ohio voters, who have nothing to do except show up and vote!). Her long-time supporters are jumping ship daily, running to the Obama camp (most recent: John Lewis).

Hillary has struggled to differentiate her platform from her opponent. She has lead America's women "by example", showing spineless tolerance for her womanizing husband, clearly staying with him for his political influence. She cries on TV when things get tough. If Iran ever says any "mean words" about the USA, the last thing that I want the world seeing is our President crying on world-wide television.

The tragedy of the sinking of the Titanic is an excellent metaphor for Hillary's campaign. Her arrogance never let her consider that she could fail. She doesn't have enough life boats either, as she failed to file a slate of delegates on time for the Pennsylvania primary because she thought Super Tuesday would seal the nomination.

She's rearranging the deck furniture as we speak...

You know, all this talk about Obama's last 11 wins (if you include the expats), makes sense to some people, and they think it will now be a landslide. Youth are going to vote for him in droves. Blacks switching sides, etc.

On March 4th, history will be made.

For the very first time, a woman will be the Democratic Candidate for President. And she will win the election.

There are many democrats (me amongst them), that will not allow an inexperienced candidate to take the reins of the country, no matter how well he orates in public. Look what happened with Bush. His cronies took over and he looks like the Fool of the Greatest Nation on Earth. I would cross party lines and vote for McCain before I'd vote for Obama, as many moderate democrats will do in the election.

Now, I do not think that Obama would be a 'fool'. I just think he is (at this point in time), naive. IMHO, he needs another 8 years of experience in Congress (or VP), in order to be really ready. Then, and only then, would I vote for him.

I'm jersjusttrolling, and I approved this message.

No moderate democrat would vote for Mccain over Obama. They are diametrically opposed on every issue. There's been some evidence the opposite has been happening, though, Obama will steal some moderate Republicans from McCain, because of his appeal.

President is more or less a glorified cheerleader anyway, the power to inspire should not be dismissed, when your advisers actually do most of the heavy lifting. The problem with Bush wasn't his inexperience, it was the corruption and incompetence of those he chose to surround hinself with.

As for the question, the smart money, and by that I mean my money, is on Obama winning Texas and Clinton winning Ohio.

@jbolli: "president is a glorified cheerleader" wow.

JFK, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman....

Well, I did say "more or less"

:)

jersjusttrolling,
I Agree Completely I Am A Moderate Democrat Who Voted For Hillary Clinton But Would Do What I Have Never Done Before, If Hillary Does Not Win This Nomination, Then I Will Vote For McCain, I Actually Expect The States Of Florida And Perhaps New York (Hillary's State) To Go Republican If She Is Not The Nominee.

As I See It Only Hillary Or McCain Could Win In November, Barack Obama Could Be Given The Nomination, But Thats FAR From Becoming President!

Hillary (or McCain) '08

McCain is the second coming of Bush.

Let's imagine for a moment that she does somehow comeback. How is she going to get anything done? Much of her political support have already switched camps and voiced their support for Obama. I doubt that she would be able to function well knowing that all of these people have sold her out.

"For the very first time, a woman will be the Democratic Candidate for President. And she will win the election." -- Is gender affinity the basis for your political support?

Neither of the two would be "fools". Naive? Not any more naive than "Mission Accomplished" [Bush] or "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America." [Hillary Clinton]. Naive does not worry me. What worries me is how fractured this nation is, how divisive Hillary Clinton is, and how "Bush-like" McCain is.

We need someone who can engender a spirit of unity in the American people, and neither Clinton nor McCain can do this.

"We need someone who can engender a spirit of unity in the American people"

Now Thats Naive!
We Need Somebody With The Experience To Keep Us Alive!
Keep Our Military Strong Enough To Defend Our Children!
To Suggest That Obama Unites Us Is Naive As Well I Am A Life-Long Democrat, I Feel No Unity From Obama Or His Supporters Who By The Way Want Us To Believe It's HOPELESS That Anyone Other Than Obama Will Be The Next President, The Premise Suggests That ALL Of Hillary's Supporters Are OWNED By The Democratic Party, McCain Only Needs To Win Hillary's Votes And His Republican Base To Become President!

I See It As A Mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY That Obama Will Actually Be President, I Reiterate However Winning The Democratic Nomination Is Not The Same As Being Elected President!

At This Time Half Of All Hillary's Supporters Would Choose McCain's EXPERIENCE Over Obama's Lack Thereof, The Other Half Of Hillary's Support Will Come Around After The Media Begins Bombarding Obama's Record, Which They Will Conveniently Wait To Do Til He Wins The Nomination.

Putting Your Money On Obama To Win The Nomination MIGHT Be a Safe Bet, But I Caution You Against Believing He Has A Snowballs Chance In Hell Of Actually Becoming Our President!

Why, as a moderate democrat, would you pick McCain for his "experience" when his views on every issue are diametrically opposed to yours? And, assuming you are now supporting Clinton, Obama agrees with you on like 99% of the issues?

McCain has allied himself with Bush completely now, every position he takes is essentially identical to the current administration.

I think this is a knee-jerk reaction by Clinton followers, but when you look more closely at how far right Mccain has moved recently (he just backpedaled on torture, for God's sake, a few days ago), and what his specific positions on the issues are, you'll end up gravitating to Obama.

"I think this is a knee-jerk reaction by Clinton followers, but when you look more closely at how far right Mccain has moved recently (he just backpedaled on torture, for God's sake, a few days ago), and what his specific positions on the issues are, you'll end up gravitating to Obama.
posted 9 mins ago"

You Are Completely Wrong Concerning My Views, McCain Is Also The Most Liberal Republican I can think of!
McCain Has Said Over The Past Few Days He WILL Pull Our Troops Out Of Iraq, But Will Do So Only As The Commanders On The Ground In Iraq Suggest, Again This Is The Experience Which Prevents Him From Making IDIOTIC Promises He Cannot Keep.

As For You Knee Jerk Reaction Comment, Your Wrong Again I Decided Some Time Ago That I Could Never Vote For Obama, Besides His Inexperience He Is Connected To Terrorist William Ayers, And Syrian Born Money Man Tony Rezko!

I Can Think Of MANY Reasons NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA, None Of Them Are Related To Race, As So Many Foolishy Believe That Those Voting Against Obama Are Doing So Because Of His Race.

I Assure You I Will NOT "Gravitate" To Obama!
I Have Spoken To Many Hillary Supporters Who Have Said The Same Thing, And Who Are Also Aware Of OBAMA'S TERRORIST CONNECTIONS!

If You Believe The Republicans Are Just Going To Stand By Without Attacking Obama's Record Your Naive, I Say To You; I think this is a knee-jerk reaction by OBAMA WORSHIPERS, but when you look more closely at how far LEFT OBAMA Is, and what his specific positions on the issues are, you'll end up gravitating to McCain.

Terrorist connections, lol. I take it all back, YOU definitely should support McCain.

jbolli, your an idiot search "william ayers obama"

i am quoting here :
" "Memory is a motherf*cker."

That's the opening line of Bill Ayers' 2001 book, Fugitive Days, about his execrable days as a Weather Underground terrorist. Now a (gasp!) tenured education professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, he's a campaign issue for Barack Obama.

Ayers, along with his fellow former Weather Underground terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn, are among the two most despicable people in living in America. And Obama served on a board with him. That will play well in rural Ohio--for John McCain.

While the Arizona senator was being tortured by his North Vietnamese captors, Ayers was openly cheering for a Communist victory over our troops.

One year before McCain achieved freedom, Ayers participated in a bombing of the Pentagon. Of that day, Ayers wrote:

Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.

The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.

In 2001, Ayers gave a donation to Obama's campaign fund.

That same year, ironically in comments published on September 11, 2001, Ayers had this to say about his bombing past, "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough."

It'll be a real motherf*cker of a YouTube video."

So Uhm Yeah Keep Drinking Obama's Kool-Aid! jbolli

here's a read for anyone undecided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

I really did appreciate Obama's turn-of-phrase when he pounced on McCain's "I've got news for Obama ...". That was swift and appropriate thinking. Many of my views coincide with Obama's. Especially the 'never should of gone into Iraq in the first place" theme song.
However, we are in Iraq. And we need to get out. But, not so fast, for many obvious reasons.

Many of you will recall the old tale of the Daddy Bull and the Young Bull on top of Hill.
In this case, Obama (Young Bull) wants to run down the hill and get one of them there cows.
Hillary (Daddy Bull) wants to walk down the hill and get all the cows.

I Love Obama's Zeal, Oratory Skills, Spirit, Independence, and his many other qualities. He is, in my mind, an "up-and-coming" Democratic Leader. He's polishing his national campaign skills. He will be a force to reckoned with in future. I hope and pray he continues to push for his views and the views of many Americans.

And I hope he'll run again in 2016.

He will then have my vote.

In the meantime, would the Obama supporters please continue to dump your money into this market. It drives down the Hillary prices, and will make for a great profit-taking machine. hehe

"Keep Our Military Strong Enough To Defend Our Children!"

Keep Our Military Strong Enough To Bankrupt Our Children's Children's Children! I'm all for ridding the world of terror in whatever bunker it hides, however it is clear to me that the debt created by our military actions of the last 6 years is a far greater threat to my liberty than anything Al Qaeda has done to date.

I am for a strong military, however the price in American lives and accumulation of America's debt and its looming threat on our credit rating is causing our currency to tank. Does America really have a plan to pay back 174 Trillion dollars of debt we owe China, Saudi Arabia and our other global creditors?

We have to show our superiority in the world through means other than our military, as currently, this strategy is bankrupting us.


"To Suggest That Obama Unites Us Is Naive"

Looking at recent primaries, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Youth, Labor, Men, Women, Educated Professionals -- this is Obama's political base. Hillary's base is the uneducated and those older than 60. What candidate has accumulated the support of such varied groups of people? I thought Hillary was supposed to have the Women and Hispanic vote? They have turned away from her and gone to Obama.

He is already uniting a crosssection of America, and he's not even the nominee yet.


"I Am A Life-Long Democrat" -- And I've voted Republican in the last 3 Presidential elections, and I once voted for Ross Perot. I also know I'm not the only one.

"I See It As A Mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY That Obama Will Actually Be President, I Reiterate However Winning The Democratic Nomination Is Not The Same As Being Elected President!" -- True, however, I and many others do not want some 71-year old war-mongering second coming of Bush in the Oval Office.

"McCain Has Said Over The Past Few Days He WILL Pull Our Troops Out Of Iraq"...and move them next door to Iran!



"You Are Completely Wrong Concerning My Views, McCain Is Also The Most Liberal Republican I can think of!" -- Yeah...um ever see that picture of him hugging President Bush with a tear in his eye?


"I Can Think Of MANY Reasons NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA" -- There is a subset of society that will never have anything to do with a Clinton. The scandals, the dirty politics that the Clintons have made famous -- many people want none of that. Some of those people are Democrats. Others are Republicans who could potentially be swayed by Obama. McCain is not an overly popular choice for the entire Republican party. If you checked the polls, Hillary has the largest "Anti-" vote -- people willing to vote for anyone but Hillary. If the Dems want it this year, they need to pick Obama.

"If You Believe The Republicans Are Just Going To Stand By Without Attacking Obama's Record Your Naive" -- Mr. Naive, that's "You're Naive", not "Your Naive" --
actually, "you're naive." if your caps lock works properly. Again, the educated population is in Obama's corner.

I doubt that there are any real attacks that can sway an Obama voter to the McCain camp, other than an authentic photo of Obama frying up dead babies and eating them. Attack away!


"In 2001, Ayers gave a donation to Obama's campaign fund." -- so you're point is that he wasn't entirely insane?


"And I hope he'll run again in 2016." -- Not likely, as the Constitution only permits someone to spend 10 years as POTUS.

bluejello ...
Uneducated are going for Obama. I know, I live in Houston, supposedly one of Barack's bastions in Texas. And, the Educated, mindful that we need more than a cheerleader, are voting Hillary.
Oh, btw, mr educated, the Constitution only allows someone to spend 8 years (or two four year terms), as POTUS, not 10 as you suggest.

And, on another front, your statements above are not entirely accurate. Boy oh boy, Obama has done a real job on bluejello.

"Oh, btw, mr educated, the Constitution only allows someone to spend 8 years (or two four year terms), as POTUS, not 10 as you suggest." -- Have you actually read the 22nd Amendment?

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Last I checked 2 + 4 + 4 = 10...does math work differently in Texas?

mrbluejello,

"Keep Our Military Strong Enough To Bankrupt Our Children's Children's Children! I'm all for ridding the world of terror in whatever bunker it hides, however it is clear to me that the debt created by our military actions of the last 6 years is a far greater threat to my liberty than anything Al Qaeda has done to date. "

If You Had Family Who Died On 9/11 Perhaps Your Perspective On National Security And The Threat Of Al-queda Would Be Different, If You Or Your Children Were To Die, What Would Debt Mean Anyways?

"In 2001, Ayers gave a donation to Obama's campaign fund." He Actually Had Much More Of A Relationship Than This, If You Did Your Homework About Who You Voted For You Would Know This!

If Obama Fails To Gain The Support Of Hillary's Supporters, Which He Will NEVER Do If People Like You Continue To Attack Them, Then No He Does Not UNITE US, Do You And I Seem UNITED?

As For The Rest Of Your Attacks They Are FOOLISH, And If I Need Grammar Correction I Will Seek It From A Truly Educated Person!


----------------------------------------------------------------------


here's a read for anyone undecided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

"If You Had Family Who Died On 9/11 Perhaps Your Perspective On National Security And The Threat Of Al-queda Would Be Different, If You Or Your Children Were To Die, What Would Debt Mean Anyways?" -- Yes, Al-Qaeda is a real threat, and so is Osama bin Laden...so why did we go into Iraq? I don't recall an Osama sighting in Iraq. Saddam was an evil b@st@rd, but he had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. The world would be a safer place if we would have gotten the job done in Afghanistan, gotten bin Laden and his conspirators. Instead, we're spending BILLIONS of dollars every month fighting an insurgency and occupying a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

"If You Or Your Children Were To Die, What Would Debt Mean Anyways?" -- to any individual personally affected by this tragedy, not much. To our sovereign nation, our standing and influence in the world is only as good as the value of our currency.

Regarding your interest in Ayers -- Yes, I don't really know anything about this situation, and I'm having a really tough time imagining a situation that Obama participated in that would comprimise his ability to lead our nation today.

"If Obama Fails To Gain The Support Of Hillary's Supporters, Which He Will NEVER Do " -- he's already doing it...

" If People Like You Continue To Attack Them, Then No He Does Not UNITE US, Do You And I Seem UNITED?" -- I don't recall attacking anyone? As far as I was aware you and I are participating in a discussion. Perhaps you don't agree with Mr. Obama or his ideas, but has any leader ever gotten the support of 100% of the people of a country? I am not alarmed by your dissention, and I respect your right to think freely.

"As For The Rest Of Your Attacks They Are FOOLISH" -- Nobody is attacking anyone. You need to relax a little, this is just a comment area, not an arena. When you attempted to call me naive, I found it ironic that you were the one trying to correct my thinking with your poor grammar. Again, when you tried to correct my thinking about Presidential term limits, I cited the 22nd Amendment to correct your "mis-correction".

My advice to you is to not throw stones in a glass house...

bluejello...
there is no way that Obama can win this nomination, win the election, AND serve 10 years. Texan's use real math, not jellomath.

Bluejello,

I Didn't Say ANYTHING About Term Limits, Your Confusing Me With Someone Else!

If You Believe Grammar Is More Important Than Substance, It Would Fit Your Belief UNITY Is More Important Than EXPERIENCE. Get Over It, Like Oratory It's Not MOST Important!

Moderate Democrats ARE FACTUALLY Voting For Hillary Clinton, They Are NOT Switching To Obama, Nor Do I Believe They Will Translate Into Votes For OBAMA In November! Your Confusing Media Bias For Unity, I Don't Know If You Heard About The Recent Stabbing In Pennsylvania, Which Was A Result Of An Obama - Clinton Supporters Difference Of Opinion. That's Just One Example That Obama Opposition IS STRONG Amongst Hillary Supporters. (this is NOT UNITY)

Also Should Hillary Fail To Be The Nominee It Is NOT Obama's Voters That Will Elect The Next President It Is Hillary's Voters Who Can Decide To Either Support A Radical Liberal With Ties To Terrorists Such As Obama, Or His More Moderate Counterpart, Who Happens To Be A War Hero John McCain.
Obama NEEDS A MAJORITY OF Hillarys Votes To Win In November, I Don't Believe That Will Happen! Apparently You Do, I Get That, But Yet I Disagree
__________________________________________________________________________________



here's a read for anyone undecided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

and bluejello, if you actually read what you post, you'll note that the 22nd amendment would in fact work like this:
2+4 and your out. no 2+4+4 is allowed.

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

Since you accused me of posting about term limits, i read what you wrote and your displaying Ignorance In Suggesting 2+4+4=10, The Poster jersjustrolling Is CORRECT It Would Be 2+4, Not 2+4+4=10, To Put It Simply IT IS NEVER MORE THAN 9 YEARS!
IF YOU SERVED 1 YEAR OF SOMEONE ELSES TERM YOU COULD SERVE 2 (4) YEAR TERMS OF YOUR OWN BUT IF YOU SERVED 2 YEARS OF SOMEONE ELSES TERM YOU COULD NOT!

TYPICAL OBAMA SUPPORTER, NOT CHECKING THE FACTS, JUST RUN IN HALF-COCKED!

bluejello is not a typical Obama supporter, as cancelledbysbc has suggested. The most typical Obama supporter is a Junior in College, has completed at least some college-level math, knows when to keep their mouth shut, and when to cheer (as at collegiate sporting events, pep rallys, and I guess, political rallys). The better rally you throw (read party), the more cheering! Most college students would at least read what they post before posting it. Especially as it reflects upon their own intelligence/merit.
jmho

"I Didn't Say ANYTHING About Term Limits, Your Confusing Me With Someone Else!" -- Indeed I am! For that, I do apologize.

"and bluejello, if you actually read what you post, you'll note that the 22nd amendment would in fact work like this:
2+4 and your out. no 2+4+4 is allowed." -- If someone is Vice President, and the President dies, the VP is now the President. As long as the remainder of the term is 2 years or less, this person can serve up to 2 years of this Presidency, and he can also take the office of President for two additional terms. If he assumes the office for a period LONGER than 2 years (President dies after 1 year in office for example), the 22nd Amendment only permits 1 additional term in office. This person cannot exceed 10 years as the POTUS.

Perhaps the math would be better described as...

1.99999 + 4 + 4 ~ 10


"Get Over It, Like Oratory It's Not MOST Important!" -- Indeed. *grin*

"Your Confusing Media Bias For Unity"

Chicago Tribune - "He added to his base of support among the well-educated, the young and African-Americans by also prevailing among blue-collar workers in an overwhelmingly white state."

MSNBC - "Memo to Hillary Rodham Clinton: Barack Obama is stealing your faithful...He did so by winning over many of the voters who form the core of Clinton's political base."

MSNBC - "In Virginia and Maryland, Obama and Clinton were splitting whites almost evenly, according to an exit survey conducted for The Associated Press. Even white women were beginning to move toward Obama — Clinton won 60 percent of their votes, a much lower percentage than in contests past...Obama was also running about even among those over 65, a group Clinton usually dominates."

Star Tribune - "Exit polls of voters show it was a serious collapse that saw Barack Obama erode — if not capture — much of the heart of her support...Of the types of voters who usually support her, only older people — especially whites over age 65 — remained solidly loyal."

I guess there aren't that many moderate Democrats out there then.


"It Is Hillary's Voters Who Can Decide To Either Support A Radical Liberal With Ties To Terrorists Such As Obama, Or His More Moderate Counterpart, Who Happens To Be A War Hero John McCain." -- There is so much anti-Republican sentiment out there amongst Democrats that I really don't see them crossing party lines to have another 4 years of a Republican controlled White House. I know there are many people out there that prefer Hillary over Obama, but there are very few Democrats that will pick any Republican over Obama.

I also know that a leader with enough charisma and leadership skills can entice voters over all party lines. If Obama is the nominee, there will be Republicans crossing over to vote for Obama. I will be one of them.


"Obama NEEDS A MAJORITY OF Hillarys Votes To Win In November, I Don't Believe That Will Happen! Apparently You Do, I Get That, But Yet I Disagree" -- The Democrats know this is their big opportunity to shine. For once, I am confident that it would be very difficult for the Democrats (lead by Obama) to screw this election up.

People are sick of the Iraq war, they believe it to be a poorly conceived initiative that does not further American interests, and they are going to vote for the one candidate that has always said this was a bad, bad, bad idea. (and didn't vote to authorize our mission in Iraq!)

"To Put It Simply IT IS NEVER MORE THAN 9 YEARS!" -- Again, where's the math skillz? You can be president 1 second short of 10 years, which is more than 9 years.

The pundits were wrong in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. They didn't see George W Bush coming until it was too late. They've given so many breaks to Obama that THAT has now become an issue, and a pot full of laughs on late night TV. They made sure Obama "shined up real nice" after VA, MD, and DC. The followup wins were impressive I'll admit, but that is about all the steam that Obama will generate. The wind will get kicked out of him on March 4th. Oh, he'll stay in the race until PA (and lose), and then I think we'll start to see the party circle the wagons around Hillary.

"MSNBC - "In Virginia and Maryland, Obama and Clinton were splitting whites almost evenly, according to an exit survey conducted for The Associated Press. Even white women were beginning to move toward Obama — Clinton won 60 percent of their votes, a much lower percentage than in contests past...Obama was also running about even among those over 65, a group Clinton usually dominates."

Star Tribune - "Exit polls of voters show it was a serious collapse that saw Barack Obama erode — if not capture — much of the heart of her support...Of the types of voters who usually support her, only older people — especially whites over age 65 — remained solidly loyal."

If You Read What You Post You Would See The Contradiction Of These 2 Statements, Which Only Furthers The Idea The Media Is Skewing Information In An Attempt To Manipulate The Constituency.

Where You Are Going Wrong Here Is NOT Conceding Barack Obama COULD LOSE, HOPE IS NEVER CERTAINTY!

"The wind will get kicked out of him on March 4th." - Do you have any evidence to this assertion? How are the next 3 races going to be any different than the previous 11? Hillary hasn't landed any successful attacks, they've all left her with egg on her face.

Her piss-poor "Change you can Xerox!" attack occurred in the same speech where she plagiarized both her husband and Howard Dean, almost word for word. People saw through this quickly and were quick to denounce this tactic. She then flip-flops on "Obama is a decent man" while giving her resignation speech (or so it sounded!), then switching to calling him dispicable 48 hours later for bringing up her old quotes that illustrated her support for NAFTA. She is truly in panic mode and I do not believe this lack of strategy can instill confidence in the electorate. I guess we will find out on the 4th, now won't we?

I quoted articles talking about 2 seperate races. MSNBC quote talked about Virginia and Maryland. The Star Tribute was talking about the Wisconsin race.

"Wisconsin exit polls highlight Clinton's eroding base of support as she looks ahead"
http://www.startribune.com/politics/15833487.html

"Obama Cuts into Clinton Base"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23136915/

For good measure, I am including the Chicago Tribune article quoted as well:

"Obama, McCain Win Wisconsin"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama_wins_webfeb20,1,4569598.story

"Where You Are Going Wrong Here Is NOT Conceding Barack Obama COULD LOSE, HOPE IS NEVER CERTAINTY!" - If Obama lost 11 races in a row, the media would be questioning why he hasn't dropped out, and the Democratic party leaders would be asking him to drop out of the race. Anyone who thinks Obama is getting special treatment by the media is overlooking this gaping disparity.

The only way that Hillary can take a commanding lead at this point is to do some shady back-room delegate wheeling and dealing. Given her history as a Clinton, this could still prove quite successful for her.

if you are basing everything you believe on polls that too is foolish obama had egg on his face in new hampshire, and to recover from his defeat he claimed racism, will you do so too when hillary wins on march 4?

"If Obama lost 11 races in a row, the media would be questioning why he hasn't dropped out, and the Democratic party leaders would be asking him to drop out of the race."

more qoutes from the media, time to think for yourself.

I think that clip is just another indicator of her desperate situation. She has run out of substance and can't differentiate herself on the issues and qualifications, so she has turned to mocking the other candidate.

I cringed the first time I saw this last week. I would not call this behavior befitting someone who is looking to run the most powerful nation in the world.

"if you are basing everything you believe on polls that too is foolish obama had egg on his face in new hampshire, and to recover from his defeat he claimed racism, will you do so too when hillary wins on march 4?" - Well, the poll's had Hillary at a 20% lead back in November nationally, now she's at a deficit to Obama. I guess those polls can be quite fickle...claimed racism? I have not heard this.

"more qoutes from the media, time to think for yourself." -- That's news to me. A friend and I were discussing this last week at lunch, I didn't know the media had picked up on this as well.

oddly i posted something similar in several blogs just before she used the tactic because i believe obama supporters are drunk.

this was my exact blog post:

"Welcome All To The Barack Obama Religious Revival Where Our Messiah Will Heal All Our Wounds And Bring Us Eternal Life Forever, We Shall Forever Live In The Shadow Of His Great Majesty Barack Obama, Should He Find You Sick Or Crippled He Will Place Hands Upon You And You Will Rise From Your Disabilities, He Shall Part The Waters Of The Sea, Bring About Nucleur Disarmament, And Place A New Star In The Heavens, All Within 30 Days Of Taking Office!

Keep Drinking The Kool-Aid!"

So Uhm She Isn't The Only One To See The Hyperbole.

"more qoutes from the media, time to think for yourself." -- That's news to me. A friend and I were discussing this last week at lunch, I didn't know the media had picked up on this as well."

Word For Word This Has Been An MSNBC Report For Awhile now because they want to pressure her to quit BEFORE SHE KICKS OBAMA'S BUT IN OH & TX!

...has run out of substance and ... has turned to mocking the other candidate.

Have a nice evening. It is time for bed.

FYI - I don't get MSNBC. Good night again.

good-night jello we shall have to agree to disagree about clinton and obama, either way we will not be united as has been suggested!

But I too agree that we shall disagree. Unity at last!

you too are too kool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

And this is before McCain became a George W. Bush clone.

Wow, so many posts....

Jello - Living almost my whole life in Ohio and being involved in politics for most of it, there is no way Obama wins Ohio, unless an unbelievable amount of Repbublicans jump the party in the primary. Ohio was nearly destroyed economically during the 80's and was given a second chance in the 90's. There is alot of Clinton loyalty here. Secondly, Ohio does not have a track record of voting for black candidates. Most of the blue-collar, suburban, Reagan-Democrats would not ever consider voting for Obama. There is only 1 house district that has ever elected a black member in the state and no black Democrat has ever been elected to statewide office. Our "Democratic" Governor is a NRA member minister. Not exactly Obama like. Obama's major support is from the black population and college kids, neither of which has historically voted in the numbers they polled at.

Jello,
To Note You Said (obama)"claimed racism? I have not heard this."
Well To Clarify He Sent Michael Eric Dyson To MSNBC To Make Claims Of Racism First Against The Voters Of New Hampshire, Then Michael Eric Dyson Took Out Of Context Bill Clintons' "fairy-tale" Statement (which refered to the fact obama voted to pay for the war, that he supposedly is against)

The Full Transcript of that appearance Can Be Found Here:

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007220&docId=l:726260364&start=4

Man, Quit With The Capitalizing Every Word If You Could.

My Eyes Are Bleeding

If You Have A Problem Just Don't Read It, Correcting Someones Grammar Or Text Is Silly, & Rude.

FINAL ANSWER!

typinG witH improperlY placeD capitaL letterS foR everY worD iS noT onlY sillY buT alsO annoyinG.

TYPING WITH ALL CAPS IS RUDE BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE YELLING.

There is a thing called "netiquette" that all Internet users used to abide by, back when users knew not to do such things.

"There is a thing called "netiquette" that all Internet users used to abide by, back when users knew not to do such things"

I Guess You Will Have To Adapt To Change!
Again Silly, Ignorant, Rude, And Off-Topic, If You 2 Wish To Discuss It With Each Other Be My Guest, However Your Options To Force Me To Change My Habits Are NONE!

I'm Willing To Discuss The Actual Question, But This Is Ignorant.

Back To The Question:

here's a read for anyone undecided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

Want to see another good read? Courtesy of Wikipedia

Closet Republican?

"In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.[19] She served as president of the Rockefeller Republican-oriented[20] Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year"


Hillary has ties to Communist Party members!

"In the late spring of 1971, she began dating Bill Clinton, who was also a law student at Yale. That summer, she interned on child custody cases[42] at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein,[43][44] which was well-known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes;[44] two of its four partners were current or former communist party members."


Wal-Mart : the #1 importer of NON-AMERICAN MADE goods, keeping the fine people of OHIO unemployed

"In addition to her positions with non-profit organizations, she also held positions on the corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985–1992),[107] Wal-Mart Stores (1986–1992)[108] and Lafarge (1990–1992)."


You can dig up the past, it makes great headlines (like your William Ayers thingy) but most has little relevance to the present.

BTW, Mr. "Inexperience" Obama has held an elected public office longer than Hillary. Prior to being elected NY Senator in 2000, Hillary was President of the Young Republicans on campus, and was elected President of the Wellesley College Government Association. That is her history of elected public service.

Jello, how dare you try to inject reason into this debate...

i think those arguements are very weak, being connected to a terrorist is far worse than being educated at yale or working for wal-mart.

you obama people are really grasping for straws aren't you?

Expecting more from Obama supporters, is foolish.

Their candidate sux and all they can say is he was in the Illinois Senate.

since when did working for wal-mart become a bad thing, especially since she was the first woman on their board?

obama is going to lose the nomination to hillary then these idiots will just vanish back into anonimity

mrbluejello why are your comments so petty?

are you here to talk obama-clinton or attack other hubdub users?

Bluejello,
You Forgot To Add That She Also Served Official Positions As Both The First Lady Of Arkansas, And Then As The First Lady Of The U.S.

In Fact Millions Of Children Have Health Insurance Thanks To Hillary, And Well Barack Obama's Illinois District Suffers From Extreme Poverty Which He Did NOTHING To Fix While He Was In Office Running For His Next Job!

As An Elected Senator He Failed To Hold Hearings On His Committee To Correct The Issues That Are Causing Us To Fail In Afghanistan, Because Quote "I Was A Little Busy Campaigning" How Does Any Of What You Wrote Make Obama A BETTER Choice?

"Jello, how dare you try to inject reason into this debate..." - Hey, someone's gotta try :)

"Their candidate sux and all they can say is he was in the Illinois Senate." - At least his best qualification isn't that he's riding the coattails of a former President.

"since when did working for wal-mart become a bad thing, especially since she was the first woman on their board?" - It is a bad thing if you are trying to be the "Working Man's Candidate" in a state [Ohio] with unemployed factory workers whose jobs have all moved to China. She also has this nasty habit of denouncing those evil Washington insiders all in bed with corporate interests. She was on the board of one of the largest corporate interests aside from the oil industry! Personally, I don't have any problem with her Wal-mart history.

"mrbluejello why are your comments so petty?" - Every statement I say, I back up with a reason, so I don't really find them to be petty.

"are you here to talk obama-clinton or attack other hubdub users?" - I have attacked no one. When I see people attempt to make points that they cannot back up, I take issue with that. The whole point of those comments about Hillary are that they really DON'T MATTER. It is ancient history. Unless Obama bought the bombs and lit the fuse I believe this "terrorist conspiracy" with William Ayers is equally meaningless.

Syrian Born Tony Rezko Stole Money From Low Income Public Housing Heating Funds To Give To Barack Obamas' Campaign, Causing Residents To Go Without Heat In The Chicago Winter, As I Am Sure We Will Hear Even More About Next Week After Rezkos' Trial Begins!

We Must Be Vigilant To Fight Terrorism And Bring Down All Those Who Support Terror Like Barack Obama.

c'mon guys, its fake money, maybe we should all be nice to eachother.

"You Forgot To Add That She Also Served Official Positions As Both The First Lady Of Arkansas, And Then As The First Lady Of The U.S." - The last I checked, those are not elected positions.

"In Fact Millions Of Children Have Health Insurance Thanks To Hillary, And Well Barack Obama's Illinois District Suffers From Extreme Poverty Which He Did NOTHING To Fix While He Was In Office Running For His Next Job!" - His district is filled with farms workers working for corporate agribusiness, and out of work factory workers whose jobs have moved to China. Until you dismantle the agribusiness lobby, funded by ADM, and give a State Senator the authority to alter federal trade policy this problem will persist for his former district.

"As An Elected Senator He Failed To Hold Hearings On His Committee To Correct The Issues That Are Causing Us To Fail In Afghanistan, Because Quote "I Was A Little Busy Campaigning" How Does Any Of What You Wrote Make Obama A BETTER Choice?" - I'm gonna guess that when he becomes President, he will have greater authority to help start fixing what is broken in Afghanistan. Keep in mind that Hillary's public service in NY was entirely a springboard for her Presidential bid. She's been waiting for this opportunity for years. Barack has not been groomed for this day for the past 12 years like Hillary has.

Who is this Rezko guy? Is this who you are talking about?

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618480.shtml

"c'mon guys, its fake money, maybe we should all be nice to eachother." - It is fake money, and I haven't seen anyone being mean, it just appears to be a healthy debate about the future of our country. Have there been any personal attacks? Its all about the issues man.

granteD, therE arE somE annoyinG typinG habitS beinG discusseD...

What kind of nonsense is this? I've never even met Barack Obama.

So first, Bill, are you sure you want to make a public statement like that? Won't that make you easier to find?

Second, wow, so much idiocy to respond to here, I don't know here to start. But like any debate where the boundaries of civility have started to disintegrate, we should always have recourse to basic civility, otherwise what is the point of the interchange of ideas? If you just want to shout the loudest and pretend that you have then won an argument, go on Bill O'Reilly. For if there is one thing I have learned from World of Warcraft, internet boards, and the like, is that anything written in all caps, or in effed up writing is usually the refuge of the weak, or ill-thought out argument.

Third, and I'll stop here for now, on the issue of grammar, legibility, and the like. . . . commenting on grammar and spelling is neither silly nor rude. Without language, we cannot communicate. If we can't communicate, then this is all pointless. And much like Ford Prefect was able to convince the Heart of Gold to let him out by proving he could still count, without functional (not even sophisticated) language, we will lose the ability to think in complex ways. Read your 1984.

Thanks for the vine, I am out.

Obama Wants To Cause War With Pakistan a Nucleur Armed Nation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UodaKiSp9xc



Obama On Rezko (rezko's trial begins next week):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxyPBmZE69s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VKuV9pc6Cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGnTWMPSyXg



Michelle Is Not The Only Unpatriotic Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo



Obama Bamboozling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU



What Are Obama's Accomplishments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m01NyUlyjfE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o



Barack Obama Plays The Race Card to DIVIDE AMERICA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHv2LgnqCCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnWQ3zSZg24



Obama Linked To Terrorist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eOuXlVr5DE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZDS3MrMQ9s&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpjWAzqAwcw

Ugh...hubdub needs an "ignore" function...

i personally think all this posting concerning other peoples text is stupid, and i agree it's off topic, since when is it not RUDE to point out flaws someone elses grammar?
being educated doesn't make you less of an a-hole.

post about hubdub, post about hillary vs. barack, but for god sake grow the f*** up!

Keep Up The Good Work Cancelledbysbc, You Are Opening My Eyes To Thing I Didn't Know, And That's Worth Far More Than The Petty Ramblings Of These Obamabots.

So I thought I was out, but I keep getting pulled back in. But all I have to say at the moment is, wouldn't it be sad if you were so insecure about your own comments and argument that you had to create alter egos just to pat your own back? I'm just asking.

Bwahahaha...that is so clearly, unmistakably you, SBCwhatever, uh, I mean "devil." LOL

Believe What You Want, I Am Cancelledbysbc And No One Else.

BTW Ty Devil.

You guys are funny :)

mrbluejello is one of the few rational people here.

Bwahahaha...that is so clearly, unmistakably you, bluewhatever, uh, I mean "gradgrind." LOL

your all ignorant and deserve each other, however many of you there are

Who woulda thunk a week ago, when the commentary commenced here, this prediction market would evolve
into this incredible social dialog.
Truly a snapshot into early 21st century culture.

"Bwahahaha...that is so clearly, unmistakably you, bluewhatever, uh, I mean "gradgrind." LOL" -- Sorry, not me, however I do appreciate you thinking of me first.

"your all ignorant and deserve each other, however many of you there are" -- apparently there is now one more. Welcome to the club!

Oh, and gradgrind, I do appreciate your most recent contribution to the discussion ;)

Okay, so first of all sbc, you should really be giving props to jbolli who made that comment first. Second, if you look at the questions I have created, and the comments I have made, you will see that is not the case. And third, fine, me and bluejello are the same -- because we want a modicum of civility, look for rationality in discourse, like proper spelling (have you ever heard of spell-check by the way? I mean nucleur, really?) because we value language? And here I need to apologize to bluejello in case I am putting words into his mouth.

But here's my fundamental point -- people should make informed decisions for themselves. This means, sadly, you need to read and listen to what candidates say. You need to listen to various analysts. You need to, of course, and most importantly, have your own opinion about what you believe in, and in this case, what kind of country you want. (I, personally, did not vote for Obama. And, in the interest of disclosure, was an Edwards supporter.) You need to be wary of youtube clips, and quotes taken out of context. You need to be aware that politicians rarely speak their mind.

And, speaking as a historian, you really need to be really careful of trusting wikipedia.

Now, as for this election, I have serious problems with both Democratic candidates. I feel that Hillary is unelectable, and, honestly, I don't like Obama's idea of working across the aisle. I worry about his lack of experience, though as I think jbolli said way back, the president is very much a figure-head and rallying point. This is not to say that s/he won't wield power, but Washington is so convoluted, and we don't actually have a king. All that being said, I will vote for the Democrat, because McCain, though he used to be an independent, has so contorted himself that he has become a party-liner. I can no longer tell him from George W. Bush. And, finally, you know what? If Obama were actually a muslim, I would not give a rat's a**.

"If Obama were actually a muslim, I would not give a rat's a**." -- Spoken like a real American.

Amen to that.

I Hope Your Eyes Bleed As You Read Into How Little I Care About Your Arrogant Commentary on The Silly Text Crap Again Ugh.

I Have No Idea However Why You Would Assume That Just Because Someone Else Shares MY Opinion That They Are Copies Of Me, What Basis Do You Have For That, Btw "you should really be giving props to jbolli who made that comment first" 92 Comes Before 93, Who Also Shares YOUR Arrogant Opinion, By Your Standards I Can Obviously Assume You Are All The Same Person Too.

Perhaps You Editors And English Professors Spend Too Much Time Here!

As To The Presidential Race I Have Laid Out My Position, And Should Hillary Fail To Gain The Party's Nomination I Will Vote For McCain As I Am Sure Many Of My Fellow New Yorkers, And Disenfranchised Floridians Will, Look Back On 2000 Because It's About To Happen All Over Again If Obama Is The Nominee, This Should Be Evident To You Scholars Based On Barack Obama's "Red State" Wins Which Could Catapult Him To The Nomination Over The Objection Of The Democratic Base In New York, New Jersey, Massachuesettes, And California(a total of 113 Electorates out Of The 270 Needed To Win, For The Brain Dead Among Us)

While This Nomination Should Be A No-Brainer Educated(haha Arrogant) People Like Yourself Seem To Think Obama Is The Rightful Nominee.

All I have to say here is: I am the one spending too much time here? I am? Really? And you and your 141 comments only pop by every now and again? Alrighty then.

This market discussion was once known as the "Mutual Admiration Society"
now perhaps the "Mutual Admonition Society"?
any corrections on sentence structure or use of words greatly appreciated.
As Stephen Hawking spoke on the "Pink Floyd" lp:
"For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals
Then something happened which unleashed the power of our Imagination
We learned to talk"

What was the original question here, by the way?

Eyes bleeding profusely. JBolli down.

Shadofax, hilarious man (or woman). And may I add, in the spirit of Douglas Adams, learning to talk has been widely regarded as a bad idea.

Jbolli isn't down, it's okay, he's just pissed.

gradgrind,

"All I have to say here is: I am the one spending too much time here? I am? Really? And you and your 141 comments only pop by every now and again? Alrighty then"

I Don't Correct Peoples Spelling Errors Or Grammar Like I Am An Out Of Work English Teacher!

"For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals
Then something happened which unleashed the power of our Imagination
We learned to talk"

Hmm TALK? Speak Up I Cannot HEAR You!

"Peoples" should have an apostrophe: people's.

LOL

Since My Spell Check Is Broke, Help Me Ou Am I Spelling "condescending" Correct?

Yeah but you can't spell "out" for crap

Yes, you spelled condescending correct"ly". And, since I am trying to be helpful, your spell check is "Broken" and I assume you meant "Help Me Ou[t]".

And, for the record, as I said earlier, I am a historian by trade.

You gotta help me out man -- make me work for it. At least pitch a few; t-ball is only so amusing.

Oh Thank You All I Don't Know Where I Would Be Without Your Expertise, Next Time I Wish To Write A Formal Letter I Will Know Who To Come To!

Thankfully Though This Is Just A Commentary Board, Which I Wouldn't Take So Seriously As To Waste My Time Like It My "Trade", But You Gentlemen Keep Up The Good Work. You're All Doing Such A Fine Job Of Skirting The Issues To Be Petty, Much Like Obama Does. Time For Bed For Me Kids.

"And Should Hillary Fail To Gain The Party's Nomination I Will Vote For McCain" - Before you vote McCain into office, please pay attention to who his running mate is.

McCain will be 72 and 5 months on Inauguration Day. "Average" life expectancy in US is somewhere in the 75-78 range depending on who you ask.

This will be the first election where people will have to seriously scrutinize the VP nomination because with a President as old as McCain will be on innaguration day (72 years 5 months), there is a real and likely possibility that McCain will be dead or incapable of carrying out his duties by the time his term is up.


"Perhaps You Editors And English Professors Spend Too Much Time Here!" - The point is, your medium clouds your message. How you share your message affects how people perceive the substance of your message. If Obama dressed up in a clown suit and gave the exact same speeches he's been given, they would not be taken seriously.

In the same way, if it looks like a 7-year old typed in your comments for you, it is easy to assume that a 7-year old may have thought them up as well. Poor command of the English language and its textual representation distracts from the message.

How you write your messages is obviously your choice, but I will tell you that just by comparing the elements of what you have written (bizarrE capitalizatioN, creative spelling ["Massachuesettes"], misuse of punctuation, run-on sentences) compared to gradgrind's comments (organized paragraphs which start with an assertion that the rest of the paragraph supports, sentences that start with a Cap letter and end with a period to let us know where sentences start and stop).

Now I'm not here to give anyone a grammar and spelling lesson, but when you say these things don't matter, I take issue with that.

Oh the irony! I got so lost in the comparisson of the two writing styles that I failed to make a complete sentence. It was supposed to end with " it is easy to guess whose comments look more refined."

Double irony! I spelled comparison incorrectly!

BAH!

However I hope that did not distract from my point. ;)

"You gotta help me out man -- make me work for it. At least pitch a few; t-ball is only so amusing." - he could help you swing the bat?

"In the same way, if it looks like a 7-year old typed in your comments for you, it is easy to assume that a 7-year old may have thought them up as well. Poor command of the English language and its textual representation distracts from the message. " I am laughing my a** off.

"'You gotta help me out man -- make me work for it. At least pitch a few; t-ball is only so amusing.' - he could help you swing the bat?" He could at least pitch.

And, finally, Grey Goose is my friend.

The answer is "42"
Thanks for all the Fish.

In the spirit of Douglas Adams, of course.

The answer cannot be 42, all of the polls show it is going to be 24. 24 has more experience. Obviously.

42 has been known to have close ties with two odd numbers 41 and 43, which clearly makes this number unelectable.

24 is definitely the number to beat in this race. He's the only truly "Pro-Even" candidate in this race. He's also proven to be divisible by 12, which is a claim that 42 has made in the past that we all now know to be a lie!

did gradgrind just suggest that he wants a pitcher? ha.

A pitcher of Grey Goose? (insert Homer salivating here).

On another note, I have always been suspicious of 24's claims to "Pro-Even"-ness. It was not so very long ago that he was associating with 21 and 23. And I have heard rumors on the internet (which, as we all know, is the font of all truth), that he has been seen next to 25. Remember, don't believe everything you think.

The liberal media is feeding you lies about 24. 24 is a solid number. There are photos of 24 next to 25 but they were clearly photoshopped. 24 has a clear history of "Pro-Even"-ess, as he was President of the Evenness Society at Harvard, and was awarded a Professor Emeritus of Evenness Studies at Yale later in his career. I am not familiar with the allegations of associating with 21 and 23, but I highly doubt this could be true.

But think about this. Factor out 24, and you'll see what he is hiding. Look more closely, you see 12 x 2, which looks okay, but then factor 12, and you get 4 x 3. 3!!!! What could be more uneven that 3 I ask you? If you don't probe into a candidates childhood, you'll never find the truth of things. Because everything they do as small children and teenagers clearly and obviously represents everything they are now, despite anything they have done or said since.

Wow, Thanks for the very clever commentary on that rascal "42". Huge grin on me mug right now.
What a pleasant way to start the first Sunday in March.
Remember, the month of March contains the only day of the year that is also a command.
Though other dates in their dreams think they can boss around,
The 4th of March has always been proud to carry this distinction.

What did you expect? March = 3rd month, 4th day = 3 x 4 = 12, multiply that by two and you get our good buddy 24 once again. Yes, he does have a history with 3, but his association with 4 and 2 far outweigh that connection.

Sigh, I guess when someone has already swallowed that 24 Kool-aid there, rationality becomes of no avail in the discussion. Though, I feel I must warn those observers out there that the upcoming vote is not only happening in the 3rd month (with whom 24 has had a close association in the past), but in the first! week of that month. All those odds will no doubt have an impact on the outcome. Remember, the truth is out there.

24, as an even, has ZERO chance of being elected. He may do well in the cities, and on the coasts, but middle America and the South, in particular, will never support a candidate that isn't odd.

Yes, but he does have the Hollywood celebrity constituency, actors like...Kiefer Sutherland for instance. They are a powerful influence on the campaign trail, they can really motivate the electorate to show up! Who is 42 going to get to show up? Some dead British author? I don't think so!

You all are going to be so sorry when hillary wins texas and loses ohio, then we'll see whose in the top 10.... me, thats who.

and the 24 thing, very tom robbins, but c'mon its been like 3 days of this crap, can we stop?

March Forth!
into the Breach.
Nice reference to Tom Robbins.
the number 8 does seem in colusion with can o' beans.
okay, I'll cut the crap. neat to see how close the outcome here will be.
imagine if H.C. gets Texas and loses Ohio. big gains for some folks!

things'll be duckie for duckie!

"You all are going to be so sorry when hillary wins texas and loses ohio, then we'll see whose in the top 10.... me, thats who." -- And you too will be sorry when you wake up from your crack-induced fantasy Wednsday morning and see Obama sweep 4 races ;)

"and the 24 thing, very tom robbins, but c'mon its been like 3 days of this crap, can we stop?" -- Have you ever seen 24 stop? I DON'T THINK SO!

In it to win it baby!

I have more than enough crack to see me through to the end of the week. As such I am supremely unconcerned about waking up tomorrow.

"Zogby Poll: Obama overtakes Clinton in Ohio"
http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2008/03/03/daily3.html

The polls have Obama ahead in both Texas and Ohio now...still within the margin of error, but this is truly a nightmare scenario for Hillary.

Of course, there is only one true poll that counts...

the hubdub poll?

Yes, the hubdub poll determines the outcome for the entire nation. Or maybe the elections tomorrow...maybe.

does anyone have a good website for watching the returns? i cant seem to find anything yet. the best i have seen is realclearpolitics.com

CNN Politics site seems to work well for me...

http://www.cnn.com/politics

The graphics should change later in the day to show the returns as they come in. At least they have done that in previous races.

Jello a bit silent, maybe he finally realized that Obama will definately lose Ohio

So if Hillary wins Texas lets say 55-45 (don't think it will be that much or at all), Ohio 55-45 (plausible), Rhode Island, she still will be down close to 100 pledged delegates to Barack. Then there is 7 weeks til Pennslyvania, then North Carolina (likely Barack territory) and Mississippi (definitely Obama land). So the convention which isn't for 6 months has no clear winner?
Here is an idea and maybe it is foolhearty, but why not have a national primary day, give each candidate 30 minutes of television time in primetime the night before, and then count each vote as 1. Who ever ends up with the most votes is the candidate, and then on the day of election do the same thing. Our country is past the point of being a group of independent states, we are a unified country ran by a federal government.

destry -- you wanna amend the 10th Amendment? ;-)

On a different note, I can't wait to see how the likelihood percentages on this question match up against the outcome(s)!

Oh, I forgot to include Article II in the above.:-|

If she does that well she will be down 50 or less delegates. More importantly if she wins Ohio and Texas she will have won 6 out of the biggest 7 states (CA, TX, NY, FL, OH, MI) and is leading in the polls in PA. The only large state Obama won was his home of Illinois. Regardless of the delegate count, if she wins both of the big ones tonight, she has a better claim to being the Democrat that is most electable in November. In order to win in November the Democrats have to win Ohio or Florida. A Clinton win tonight will result in Obama supporting a call for new primaries in Florida and Michigan as his only way to salvage legitamacy.

Regarding a national primary, that is essentially what you had with Super Tuesday. After that debacle, I am certain the parties will spread out the primary season next time.It is however up to the states to set the time place and manner of elections for the selection of electors. (Something that our Supreme Court ignored in 2000.) Regarding primaries, the Constitution says nothing, the system is state by state and party by party, so there is no legal mechanism to provide for a national primary

destry,
the us constitution article 2 or the tenth amendment has nothing to do with the democratic or republican nomination process.

article 2 refers to the electorate (which is november)and presidential powers.

the 10th amendement "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." would allow the states to create their own state election process but does not require it to be created in any specific manner


my point is to create a national election day within the democratic party, only requires the democratic party to make that policy, and the legislatures of the several states to concur.

on a side note if we had winner take all system like the republicans do and like the november election will be, then the democratic party would allready have it's candidate choosen, you may be surprised to know that hillary would be that nominee, because obama would have gotten no delegates for ny, ma, nj, ca, etc. etc.

please just give us winner take all on the delegates then this crap can never happen again!

Interesting last minute surge for Clinton losing Texas and winning Ohio.

Time to get the pizza and beer!

I think that is because even if Clinton wins in the primary, she could lose in the caucus later in the evening and thus garner fewer delegates. This question I believe earlier stated that it would be answered based on delegates.

i only bet on her losing texas just now because of the delegate vs. popular vote count, i expect her to win the popular vote in both tx and oh, but with that crazy texas process she can't depend on those delegates

Cliton has won most of the large states, but to say that equates to Obama losing them, were he to be the nominee, is specious. And the statement that Clinton won Michigan and Florida is just flat wrong, considering all the candidates decided beforehand not to campaign there. Your larger point is well-taken, though.

Conversely, Obama has a much better chance, a truly legitimate chance, of winning my state (Virginia) than Clinton would...so it works both ways.

i don't think we would be correct in assuming obama has a better chance of beating mccain, it will all come down to experience vs. change and all we have to do to determine the odds on that one is look at history, also to assume obama will win in florida in november is very chancy, also assuming hillary's votes in ny will come through for obama is risky too, she has said herself between obama and mccain, that mccain is more qualified that alone should steer so votes to mccain if obama is the nominee, if hillary is the nominee all the democrats have to worry about is the youth, and black vote staying home, but historically this is no cause for concern.
i understand virginia could fall to barack obama but virginia is only 13 electorates in november, ny is 31 and fl is 27, so all things have to be looked at in perspective of this map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electoral_map.svg

the winner in november must add up to 270 to win.

"i only bet on her losing texas just now because of the delegate vs. popular vote count, i expect her to win the popular vote in both tx and oh, but with that crazy texas process she can't depend on those delegates" -- most of her electorate will be in bed when its time for them to show up for the Texas "two-step" to come to completion.


"i don't think we would be correct in assuming obama has a better chance of beating mccain" -- Hillary has a history of putting her interests in front of the interests of the Democratic Party, and there are a staunch group of people who will not forgive her for this. She said nothing in support of John Kerry's campaign because she knew if he won in 2004 that any words of support would be used against her in 2008. Now, we read an account of her saying that only Hillary and McCain could lead our country with foreign policy affairs. If Obama gets the nomination I can guarantee that those words will hurt the Democratic Party, as McCain will say that one of the party's leaders said that Obama wasn't qualified!

My point is that there is a group of Democrats that will refuse to vote for Hillary, plus there are so many dirty dealings in the Clintons' past that significant another group of people would avoid voting for her in a general election. Unfairly, there are also people who would vote against her based on her gender.

For Obama, there are people who do not want a black President, however I do not know of any event in his history that has caused enough controversy to make people believe that he is unfit for duty due to his character. He is also characterized as the Candidate of Change, something that has motivated hundreds of thousands of people to donate to his campaign.

Hillary tried wearing the "I'm for Change" hat too, but when it didn't fit she started this whole "Experience" song and dance. Somehow I don't see her touting "Experience" against a decorated Prisoner of War and someone who has been a Senator since 1987, back when she was serving tea and cookies as the First Lady of Arkansas.

look either way BOTH candidates have drawback but attacking senator clinton like your doing is not healthy for our party, pointing out that a certain number will not vote for obama because he is black and then ignoring that only 12% of america is black is nonsense, they both have their detractors but this entire election in november is going to come down to choosing change vs. experience, a lot of things can happen to shift that dynamic in john mccains favor but obama is so high on momentum right now that he has a long tumble down.

either way to criticize senator clinton without fairly criticizing the behaviours or motivations of barack obama is unfair to the democratic party.

i'm not trying to argue your OPINION with you but accepting the fact that ONE of these TWO people will be the democratic nominee, is the only SAFE bet, it's also safe to assume barack obama or hillary clinton will lose votes, but ask yourself which is worse, hillary's votes going to mccain or barack obama's votes just staying home(obama's votes are never going to mccain, lol, only hillarys would)

just for clarification

is the texas delegate count going to include the caucus results too?
or just the primary which is only 2/3 of the texas total?

"look either way BOTH candidates have drawback but attacking senator clinton like your doing is not healthy for our party" -- I don't particularly care about your party, because I'm a Republican-leaning independant. It's Hillary's job to look out for her party, not mine.

" pointing out that a certain number will not vote for obama because he is black and then ignoring that only 12% of america is black is nonsense" -- My point was that some people will factor meaningless things like gender and race into this competition, I don't care what gender or color our President is, as long as the winner is good for the country.


"ignoring that only 12% of america is black is nonsense" -- I would vote for the Hulk (he's green!) if he were qualified. Voting based on his skin color is moronic. Some of the biggest champions of rights for people of color have been white.

Its not like I know Obama wears a size 12 shoe, and so do I, so I feel some sort of affinity for the man. As Hillary will unfairly lose votes simply do to his gender, there are still people alive that would vote for any white man (or woman!) over Obama.


Now I will say that I have no interest in McCain due to his age (he is twice my age!), and I have no interest in seeing his as President, but this is soley because I think there is a double-digit percentage change that he could die in office due to his age.

In my eye, a candidate is fit for President if it is reasonable to expect him (or her) to be in office at the completion of the term. He will be 72 and 5 months in January 2009. Not that I wish anything bad upon him, but most people his age are concerned with diabetes, dementia, mobility problems, cancer, high blood pressure and other malladies that come with the amount of "experience" McCain has had.


"either way to criticize senator clinton without fairly criticizing the behaviours or motivations of barack obama is unfair to the democratic party." -- Again, not particularly looking out for the interests of the Democratic Party.


"hillary's votes going to mccain or barack obama's votes just staying home(obama's votes are never going to mccain, lol, only hillarys would)" -- Barack has motivated the youth to participate in the electoral process and take an interest in the people who lead our country. If somehow Hillary gets the nomination, I am confident that Obama will command his electorate to support the Party, something Hillary will probably not consider if Obama gets the nod, at least not if she thinks she has another chance in 2012 - again, her history of NOT supporting John Kerry would apply to Obama (personal interest above party).

So, if you think Obama would lose votes because Hillary is a sore loser and not fall in line with Obama & the Party, or at the very least putting her personal interests in front of her party, then I guess I would agree with you.

"is the texas delegate count going to include the caucus results too?" -- Why wouldn't it...?

i was not suggesting voting against barack because he is black is a GOOD thing, just that if that is to be a dynamic we have to look out for that the numbers are aginst him in that regard hence my 12% comment.

thank you for stating you are a republican-independant i will keep that in mind from now on when i read your opinions.

as to the question i asked it was in relation to this question and how it would be settled the question states PRIMARIES not caucus it is a logical question to ask.

does ANYONE know this answer?

just for clarification

is the texas delegate count going to include the caucus results too?
or just the primary which is only 2/3 of the texas total?

"obama's votes are never going to mccain, lol, only hillarys would"

Again, this is flat wrong. Obama and McCain have completely dominated the independents, largely the reason they are both ahead. Look at the voting results.

Common sense would dictate that with McCain/Clinton, the independents, which ultimately determine every election, would be inclined to vote McCain, whereas in McCain/Obama they would likely go to Obama. I'm basing that on which primary they independents voted in, when they were free to vote in either. Obama dominated. The base democrats will vote democrat regardless.

Concur about the polarizing nature of Clinton. A strong percentage of independents revile her and will vote Republican should she be nominated. I'd venture that she'd rally the conservatives, against her, in a way that McCain could not muster himself.

But to say that Obama's votes are never going to McCain is just not even close to correct.

ok lemme clarify what i am saying barack obama's BASE votes (i.e. 87% of the black vote being reported right now) will not go to mccain they would just stay home, of course not all of obama's voters would stay home, but the chances hillary's voters would stay home is slim, they would either vote obama (change) or mccain (experience), i assumed you would understand when i made this statement "obama's votes are never going to mccain, lol, only hillarys would" that i was talking about obama's "black" vote, which i would laugh like hell if they showed up for mccain.

"as to the question i asked it was in relation to this question and how it would be settled the question states PRIMARIES not caucus it is a logical question to ask." -- I see your point now, relating to the wording of the question. I would assume that the intent of the question was referring to the contest, as some do not understand the distinction between a primary and a caucus, or understand the peculiar combination of the two electoral processes in Texas. In a general sense, I would take the word "primary" to refer to the contest in the state. Hopefully the Politics Content Editor agrees.


" I'm basing that on which primary they independents voted in, when they were free to vote in either." -- I actually voted in the Republican primary. I was confident that Obama would take Georgia (which he did), but I wanted to make sure I got a vote against Huckabee on record. I don't appreciate candidates who suggest rewriting the constitution to fit their personal believe system.

However, had there not been a Huckabee, I would have voted Democratic for Obama.

To your point, I don't see any reason for independants to get excited over McCain. Random old war guy running to uphold the Bush legacy. Sounds like what Bush's third term would look like if that could have ever happened.

"A strong percentage of independents revile her and will vote Republican should she be nominated." -- not only independants, I would venture to guess that some Democrats won't bother to show up given the two choices.

"I'd venture that she'd rally the conservatives, against her, in a way that McCain could not muster himself." -- I would agree with you, and so would Rush Limbaugh (not that he's a genious or anything, just a mouthpiece). He was encouraging Republicans in Texas and Ohio to go vote for Hillary because he sees her as easy prey in November.

"ok lemme clarify what i am saying barack obama's BASE votes (i.e. 87% of the black vote being reported right now)" -- if 12% of the country is black, and 87% of them are his "base", then 10% of America is Obama's base...yet, somehow he has taken 12 of the last 15 contests (as of 10:50pm EST). I believe his base is a bit wider than you recognize.

I do not believe Obama's black constituents will ever vote for McCain. I don't think any minority constituency (other than Jews due to the whole U.S. propping up Israel & Middle East terrorism thang) will find itself voting Republican under most circumstances. I think most minorities will vote non-Republican regardless of who gets the Democratic nominee is.

Yowzers, looks like I'll be a broke man tomorrow morning.

CNN is calling Hillary in OH10. Any victory for her in Texas won't put her over the top though because the delegates are proportional there. If anything, this has been interesting so far...

Her negative ads appear to have been quite effective over the past week. Perhaps it is a weakness of Obama's that he has been too much of a gentleman to get in the mud with her.

i hope this contest does not include the caucus, only because we will have to wait possibly through the weekend to settle it at least, the news said a few minutes ago that texas will not be reporting ALL of the caucus results until after friday, it actually works against my interests on my bet, but i hope this is primary only, but i guess even if i lose i win lol

12 out of 15 seems like picking and choosing she won many other states too before that and if your not going to give her credit for wins before tonight then why would you count his? tonight is all that matters now and its 2-1 with texas too close, so best case scenario he will tie with 2-2.

Hmm Seems That Even With My "7 Year Old Education" I Still Know How To Call A Bet, But I Won't Say I Told You So, I Would Probably Be Grammatically Offensive!

This race isn't over...Texas has yet to be decided.

Nobody ever said or implied that you had a 7 year old education.

"mrbluejello

In the same way, if it looks like a 7-year old typed in your comments for you, it is easy to assume that a 7-year old may have thought them up as well. Poor command of the English language and its textual representation distracts from the message (posted 3 days ago)"

Seems Poor Logic, Sarcasm, And Condecension Of Other Human Beings Get You No Where Either.
Please Grow Up! Good Night Folks I Will Sleep Well Now Knowing Hillary Stomped All Over Your Buddy Barack SLOBama



FYI:
Texas
Primary

Updated 1 minute ago

Texas

With 59% reporting

Clinton 1,059,444 51%

Obama 998,990 48% 0

Good Night Boys.

Word on the street is Obama will call Clinton tonight to congratulate her...

At exactly 3 AM.

If you actually read what I said, then you will see that I never inferred that you had the education of a 7-year old. However, your reading comprehension is making me question this conclusion.

I said that it would not be difficult for readers to make assumptions about the intellect of the author based on the appearance of his writings.

Regarding the contest in Texas, it is far from over as the margin is narrow, the ballots are not completely counted, and the caucus portion of the process has yet to have published results.

are the caucuses any representation of votes?

seems since only 40% of voters voted twice wouldn't the primary be the ONLY guage of POPULAR votes?

can a category editor please clarify if florida will be decided by primary only or will we be including delegates from the caucus too?

sorry texas not florida, lol

oh thats it hillary was just declared winner of texas too!

go hillary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama could still win the majority of delegates in the Texas primary, though he lost the popular vote.

i know how the fuzzy math works but she won the popular vote and that is only 1 per person.

i don't even pay attention to those stupid caucuses, but i have to say if she did win more delegates in texas i would lose my bet because i bet she lost texas and won ohio, but at any cost she is declared the victor so it's all semantics.

What jbolli said. In fact, as I understand it, it is quite likely that that will happen. And, as per hubdub rules, unless otherwise specified, all contests are to be decided delegate vote.

right but i am confused because the question only states primaries (doesn't state caucus) i would just like clarification.

You know, what is really sad here is that as I was typing the above I was briefly more concerned about my hubdub bet and the hubdub dollars than with what I want to happen politically. Talk about your opiate-esque false consciousness. Man, religion's got nothing on hubdub.

p.s. The imaginary numbers are pretty gleeful over that odd/even dispute. They figure they will be the beneficiary of any dragged-out contest. Vote "i" in 2008 -- Reality is no object!" Supported by the √-2.

Derrick, check out comment number 7. It will be delegate counts. I am -i and I approve this message.

my confusion is not related to delegate vs popular votes. it relates to primary vs. caucus

Good point: I apologize for my lazy reading. You are right, it appears to need clarification.

But the popular vote win by Hillary does not necessarily determine delegates. In fact, he could still win the delegate vote despite losing the popular vote.

yes but the popular vote will educate a "superdelgate" so if her popular vote win and thus media outlet declaration of being the "winner" net her more "superdelegates" then it makes all the difference in the world, i personally think we should only determine this by popular vote and we wouldn't be in this trouble if the democratic party had winner take all, which would have coronated hillary clinton as the nominee about a month ago.

The question clearly says "primaries". Caucus results should not be included at all. If this isn't settled by tomorow I will start to worry.

So...Hillary Clinton certainly seems to have the Methuselah factor, every time you think she is dead...

She Sure Does And I Can't Wait Til She Beats John McCain In November.

I agree that the Texas caucus has no bearing on this as the question clearly states primaries.

The Texas caucus has everything to do with this, as one-third of the delegates is decided by it. The follow-up statement of the question clarifies that...

"Once dominant, now weakened, Hillary Clinton NEEDS to win both of these states to remain in contention for the Democratic nomination. A loss of just one may doom her chances."

This question is about who takes each state. The follow-up statement would be meaningless if the caucus was not considered. If someone was talking about the "Iowa Primary" you would understand that it would be referring to the contest in Iowa, regardless of the fact that Iowa's contest isn't technically a primary (it is a caucus of course).

Here the term "primaries" is a general reference to the state contests. The "Texas Primary" just happens to be a peculiar primary/caucus combination.

If the follow-up statement was only referring to the primary portion of the contests, it would read:

"Once dominant, now weakened, Hillary Clinton NEEDS to win both of these states' PRIMARIES to remain in contention for the Democratic nomination. A loss of just one PRIMARY may doom her chances."

With the word PRIMARIES injected into this statement to "clarify", it would indeed make this statement FALSE, because she could lose the primary portion of Texas by a slim margin, but regain the state by taking the entire caucus.

Oddly enough though, after this lively debate, it would be ironic if the question got voided over a simple misunderstanding of the wording...

The market says primary, not caucus. Therefore it is the primary results I'm looking at. With that in mind "Clinton wins both primaries" is the settled winner.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

There is no reason to void the question, the question is very clear. It also very clearly states "primaries"

"Will Hillary Clinton be able to win both the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries on March 4, 2008?"

It does not say will Hillary Clinton win the most delegates in both states, nor does it say will see win the Ohio Primary and the Texas Primary/Caucus.

On Super Tuesday Washington had a caucus. The question that day was regarding the Washington Caucus. 10 days later they had a primary. The results weren't held waiting for the results of the primary.

I have flagged this question for review so hopefully the Political Content Editor can clarify this issue.

To me, the inclusion of the caucus portion is obvious since the nature of the question is about winning the state for Hillary to survive.

Due to the nuances of the Texas system (the only state with a combined "two-step" contest), most of America was unaware of the existance of the split system until recently when the confused media all decided to do stories on why it was so weird.

If the author of the question was even aware of the differences at the time that he wrote the question, I would believe there to be an exclusionary statement regarding the non-inclusion of the caucus portion of the contest results.

The first comment on this question states:

"In my view, as per the new Hubdub rules, this question, as written, will be determined by the DELEGATES, NOT by the popular vote." -- This issue was brought forth by him and four people (including myself and the Political Content Editor) commended is evaluation of the question.

If this were going to be an issue, I would think an active discussion would have happened before the results of the race were so close to being determined.

------------------------------------

This is about total delegates, however if you agree or disagree with this statement, I suggest making your opinion known for when the Political Content Editor reviews this question.

------------------------------------

Yes delegates won in the state PRIMARY. Those awarded in the caucus are irrelevant to this question and they are awarded separately from the primary delegates.

So once it is determined who won the majority of the pledged delgates from both PRIMARIES the question can be settled, most likely for Clinton.

Ryan,

I'm not suggested that question be voided, but my understanding that this was all about the delegates, and this had been clarified earlier by you...

"From the recent flag, I want to make it clear that this is decided via delegate counts. If for example Texas becomes like New Mexico then we will need to suspend and wait until official confirmation.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor"

Hi guys,

The market is about delegates, in that I summarize a win in a primary as a win gained by delegates. So with that in mind the market asked about the "primary." Delegates are awarded in the primary and Clinton won them. Therefore for this market she won both primaries. Now I'm not going to say that this isn't a confused and convoluted process, because it is.

The point raised about Caucus's is a valid one. But in the sake of sticking with the wording we need to settle with a specifed view to the primary. Hope this clears things up.

Ryan
Hubdub U.S. Politics Content Editor

Thank you for taking a stance on this.