MWC, that's the whole zombie kid "I like turtles" thing. Google it, or search for it on YouTube. You'll find a lot.
Those numbers you're quoting, JL, would spell doom for Clinton, if the number crunching analysts are correct. One I read the other day even upped the "she must take TX & OH with at least" number from 60% to 70%, but even 60% is a good chunk from 49%...
Also that is a gauge of popular vote, not any breakdown by district or delegates, so if that tidbit I cited back there a ways about relatively low turnout in the last election in more heavily Latino areas, and the opposite in more heavily African-American areas, and correspondingly an arguable benefit to Obama and disadvantage to Clinton due to corresponding delegate values is all accurate, well you might see results that brought the two closer together rather than split them farther apart and gave her a shot at a bigger delegate "take".
More on that
here:
Quote:
Clinton now faces a difficult mathematical challenge. She will need big margins in upcoming states to make up ground. A split of 52 percent to 48 percent in Ohio on March 4 would net her only about five more delegates than Obama would gain. A 60-40 victory in Ohio would give her about 30 more delegates than him. In Texas, a 55-45 split would give Clinton about 19 more than Obama, although Texas rules are so convoluted that those numbers may overstate the difference. [my emphasis]
Obama's campaign now argues that she must not only win those states but win by margins big enough to make substantial progress in the delegate hunt. The Clinton campaign may be satisfied for now with victories, hoping that defeating Obama even by a narrow margin would change the narrative of the Democratic race, give pause to other voters and especially give pause to those superdelegates needed to help Clinton win the nomination.
Clinton's team also will press harder to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, states that were stripped of their delegates after they moved up their primaries, on the theory that she will grab the lion's share of those delegates. But that could be an ugly fight that party leaders hope to avoid -- and it's unlikely to be resolved without some adjustment in the delegate split that would come out of the results of those states.
|
But of course a lot could still happen between now and then and the voters could surprise the pollsters again, as we well know from this year. As the
New York Post puts it in typically colorful, all-caps fashion (one ponders the lack of exclamation points
):
DO NOT WRITE HILL OBIT JUST YET.
Black leader and superdelegate Lewis Leads also has made the headlines
here with his switch from Clinton to Obama.
And Robert Kuttner says
here that Obama is successfully channeling Edwards:
Quote:
And on Wednesday, unveiling an explicit and far-reaching economic program at a GM plant in Janesville, Wis., Obama declared, "The fallout from the housing crisis that's cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle" but of policy made in Washington and on Wall Street.
This is strong stuff. Coming from Edwards, similar words were often criticized as divisively populist. But Obama manages to be a unifier - yet around a very progressive critique of what ails America.
|
Steve