Whatever the Obama delegate count is he got it by playing by the rules. SO ... yes, maybe the rules do need to change - next cycle. Rightnow, by the rules he leads, tho, as you point out not by that much.
Besides, if the vote counts per district were rounded off correctly the advantage of getting a 'round up' is offset by the disadvantage of getting a 'round down' (a basic 'law', if you will, of statistics) so your analysis would have to examine each district's vote and vote breakdown - I'll leave that for someone else. For the moment I don't see it as a real big problem, except for a talking points memo.

Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!

SteveMule

My whole point is that Obama likes to use his "lead" as direct evidence of his huge lead across the country. It's just an artifical "lead." Especially as evidenced by the description from the blog I cited above.

Obama's lead is "real" precisely because of the math explained on that MyDD blog post. He's winning some precincts by a wide margin, and he's not getting blown out of very many.

Also, don't forget that the 50-50 splits in districts with an even number of delegates, tend to be offset by the 3-2 and 2-1 splits in districts with an odd number of delegates. So in one district going 54-46 can get you the same number of delegates as your opponent, while in the next district over winning 51-49 gets you two delegates versus one. Which is more fair? Less fair?

Say what you want about the delegate lead Hillary will not be able to overcome it in pledged delegates. Also lets look at the popular vote:

13,025,003 49.4% Obama
12,421,316 47.1% Clinton

+603,687 +2.3% for Barack Obama

If the super delegates decided to override the pledged delegates there would be a lot of people talking about a stolen nomination, and I'd be one of them. I seriously doubt that will happen anyway, most of the Supes' are elected officals and they are not going to want the controversy involved in stealing the nomination from the people.

~ Bob Aubin
------------------
"When we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can." ~ Barack Obama

Dear Hillary,

Actually that post from MyDD and your comments say the opposite.

Obama leads in:
- Pledged delegates
- Superdelegates
- Popular vote
- States won
- Congressional districts won

He's proven that his message and his campaign is more effective than Clinton's. All she's shown is that she can win the states where she dedicates significant time and money.

Well it's easy to win primaries when 70% of the people who are voting in the election will vote for you based on skin color

Yep - and general elections ain't decided by caucus.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

In Mississippi

George Wallace's racist campaign got 63.5% of the presidential vote

In Memphis

Dr King was shot dead

I call it a hell of lota progress

When a black man wins a presidential primary

In Mississippi with 61% of the vote & in Memphis with 70%.

I really don't think a state like MS shows this amazing groundswell of progressive ideology as much as it shows how when you have 70% of the electorate as African American, that they'll vote over 90+ percent for the African American candidate. As has happened before in both South Carolina and Mississippi.

Ok. So explain Idaho.

Either way, he had to spend a lot more money than Clinton in Texas to get this "win".

The point was that most of Clinton's wins came in states where she spent significant time and money. When she mostly ignores a state, she loses pretty badly. I bet she wins pretty big in PA. We'll see where she puts her resources after that.

The point was that most of Clinton's wins came in states where she spent significant time and money.

Clinton won the "popular vote" in Texas while spending quite a bit less money than Obama.

Clinton won the "popular vote" in Texas while spending quite a bit less money than Obama.

And again I ask, how do you know that?

Possibly true, but also possibly not. Just because Obama has more money, doesn't mean he spent more of it in a given place.

Obama had campaigned hoping to land a knockout blow. As of March 1, his campaign had spent about $9 million on television advertising in Texas and about $4.5 million in Ohio; Clinton had spent about $5 million in Texas and about $2.3 million in Ohio, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, an ad tracking firm

.

None of the above stuff about how delegates are divided up makes sense to me and I'd rather leave it to the experts than spend time on it. What concerns me right now is this possible mail -in vote in Fla. Anything odd like that in Fla. seems like a bad idea. Whoever ever wins the Dem. nomination needs to look like it was as fair as possible. Hillary has Ferraro saying crazy things. Now tapes of Obama's minister saying "God damn America" has surfaced. Either is fodder for a McCain add. By this and the Miss. votes it has gotten crazy polarizing.