--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > 7 posts before 4:00 a.m. your time Saturday > > night, Jude. > > Sorry. Saturday morning (late Friday night), > her time. > > > Could this be part of your plan to "post out" > > long before Hillary gets trounced in the > > primaries during the next few days and has > > to concede, so that you won't have to be > > here to explain it away? :-)
Gee, Barry, you know, you're so ignorant about what's going on in the primary contest, you really should just button your lip so you don't look like a total fool. Here's a little primer for you: Clinton is heavily favored in Puerto Rico and will take the majority of its 63 delegates. Obama is heavily favored in Montana, with 16 delegates, but probably won't get more than 9 of them. Clinton and Obama are neck and neck in South Dakota, with 15 delegates; Obama has a slight edge in the polling (at least one poll, however, has him well ahead). The upcoming three last primaries, in other words, aren't going to be decisive, contrary to your ignorant fantasy. Clinton isn't likely to get "trounced" except in Montana. She'll gain more delegates than Obama, but she'll still be behind. Neither of them will come close to the magic number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. At issue as well are the delegates from Florida and Michigan. The DNC Rules Committee is meeting this weekend to try to resolve that problem. It looks at this point as though the resolution, if they come to one, will accord more delegates to Clinton than Obama. But that's still uncertain; and no matter what happens, it won't give Obama the magic number. After the primaries, it's possible that enough of the currently undeclared *superdelegates* will declare for Obama to give him the magic number. However, none of this will be official until the convention in August, since both delegates and superdelegates can switch their votes. It's entirely possible that Clinton will withdraw sometime between the last primaries and the convention; or she may simply suspend her campaign, in which case she could decide to reactivate it at some point before the convention. In any case, there's no basis whatsoever to suggest that Clinton will "have to concede." She might well stay in, no matter what the results of the last three primaries and the Florida-Michigan situation and any declarations by the undeclared superdelegates, until the convention, in which case there would be a floor fight. Bottom line, at this point there's no basis whatsoever to anticipate that I would have to "explain away" whatever occurs with the last three primaries. There are far too many unknowns. Your notion that somehow the results of these primaries will decide the nomination is just abysmally uninformed. Unquestionably, Clinton's chance of getting the nomination is tiny. Her one hope is to convince enough of the superdelegates that she will have a better chance against McCain than Obama in the fall and have them switch their votes to her. There is furious analysis of the national electoral vote situation going on in many quarters right now. Some analyses favor Clinton, others favor Obama. None is definitive this far away from the fall campaign, but they may still influence the superdelegates. > > Just asking. Unlike you, I don't claim to know > > that my answer to a question about *opinion* > > is true or "factually correct." And a good thing too, since your "opinion" is based on nonfacts. > And, I am more than willing to accept other > possible explanations of this late-night > posting binge. Oh, how *gracious* of you, Barry! I'm overwhelmed by your generosity and magnanimity. But I'm not going to give you the explanation; I'll just note that none of those you've fantasized is correct.
