> > And, I am more than willing to accept other > > possible explanations of this late-night > > posting binge. > > Judy wrote: > Gee, Barry, you know, you're so ignorant about > what's going on in the primary contest, you really > should just button your lip > As long as we are trading insults this morning, why don't both of you shut your pie-holes and get some sleep?
> so you don't look like a total fool. > Thanks for your primer, but don't you think this is a little detailed and long for Barry to read? Do they even have U.S. voting machines in Sitges? > 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. >
