Is this the new Obama talking point? You said the exact same thing in another diary.

The problem for Obama is that it plays into the "obama fading" media narrative.

..she's a victim.

Full votes, so I guess we will see what he does when the vote is that close. There is a chance he could justify voting for either.

There was a very large number of "spoiled" ballots, according to reports from the two campaigns in Guam. No election official will certify a win for anyone for a couple of days. The Clinton campaign spokesperson in GUam has stated that they will not call for a recount, but focus on winning over the superdelegates. We'll see. In any case, can we call a halt to posting countless large images in posts? Especially the same ones, over and over again? This advertising for Obama's appearance on Meet the Press is pretty irritating. They have the money to pay for ads if they chose to do so.

Yeah, and Obama can stop claiming Missouri as a win then,,, since they tied in delegates.

How is it "clutching at anything" to remind people that you still have a solid lead in delegates? -- in fact, pretty much the same lead you had before Texas and Ohio?

No - you miss the point.  Once again Hillary comes up from behind when she supposedly has no chance.

THAT's the message here.

its bloody guam.  meaningless, not-even-a-state guam.

Angels and ministers of grace, defend us.  The Obama Nation is attacking small jurisdictions for being "meaningless" and "not-even-a-state."

Well, I suppose Howard Dean never called for a 50-state plus Guam strategy.

What a lovely comment.  The people of Guam are American citizens, and you call their votes meaningless?  Where is that vaunted Obama inclusiveness?

The point is that this election occurred in the two environments that favor Barack Obama the most: overseas and caucus.  

If he can only win by 7 votes both both of those heavily Obama favoring variables in his favor, his ship is sinking.

The batteries are falling out of the O-bots.  

Bluntly, you are overestimating both the influence of the US and the knowledge of US affairs by the other inhabitants of this planet.

Bush is probably at least one the most (in?)famous politicians in the world, but I doubt if even 50% of the people in the world have heard of him and I think its stretching it to even guess that 20% of the people in the world have ever even heard of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Most of us don't speak English, remember? (think the Internet is important? Only around 6% of the people in the world have access to a computer.)

Thats like saying that the rest of the people and animals, and plants, all life on Earth, would want to willingly DIE in a global nuclear war so that "America would remain free".

All pre Wright too. Think about that.

If they only had known what we all know now...

LOL

Keep talking about the glory days when Obama was winning.  You might as well reminisce about the days when Michael Jackson was the hottest item in pop music.  

Honey chile - -
In politics, that was eons ago.
Obama's campaign is dead in the water.

silly, silly, silly.

The Guam prediction was made up out of whole cloth.

You know what? Obama should have never let that spreadsheet see the light of day. It has become something that has come to hurt him and not help him. It worked to create a media narrative in the beginning but has since blown up in his face. People are going to be quoting that spreadsheet from now on.

I don't think campaigns make predictions at random.  Particularly not Obama's campaign and its famous spreadsheets.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=f746721e-74d7-4313-9231-7e75e5d56fbb&a mp;k=96965
One of Plouffe's most underappreciated accomplishments began, fittingly enough, with a spreadsheet. After New Hampshire, Plouffe realized that, if the campaign was going to become a battle of attrition, he needed to convince onlookers that the pledged-delegate total was sacrosanct. "His thought was that we need to cement that into the conventional wisdom," recalls an Obama aide. "That we couldn't rely on media outlets, because different folks have different standards." To this end, Plouffe had Berman set up a sophisticated counting operation that would compile votes and generate delegate allocations. The product of all this hairy math would be an intricately constructed, color-coded Excel file showing a state-by-state breakdown, along with projections going forward.

Of course they leaked them to get the media obsessed about the math, and did a pretty good job at getting the media to intervene on their behalf in order to shut the primary down for them before millions were able to vote.  And all that with math that wasn't even very good, perhaps?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHA!!

you guys are such easy pickings.

>> The popular vote is what this is all about.

Oh cool, I'll book my ticket to Denver right away.  

Since, apparently we all get to go vote there now.

shouldn't hillary be the one trying to change numbers?

and lets say the rest of the supers split (giving obama the win) and the popular vote metrics stay the same (obama winning by every measure except the one that counts all the MI voters for Hillary and none for obama).  will you have a problem?

Even if Obama had won 100% of the vote, he would have only increased his popular vote lead by .002%.  

Guam was not "changing any numbers" either way.

"This is a race for delegates...It is not a battle for individual states."

-Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson

No Obama's claim to Texas is exactly the delegate argument.  Hilary claims a win based on a nonsense metric while Obama claims a win based on having outscored her in the only metric that matters... delegates.

You Hilary supporters can stomp and scream popular vote all you want when Barack has a total of 2025 delegates he will be the nominee.  I know that he hasn't reached that number yet, but the conditions are such that there is very very little chance that he won't or that Hilary will.

You see it IS about delegates whether they're pledged or super.  That is why Obama doesn't need to change any numbers and that is why any claim that Texas was won by Hilary shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how a nominee is selected and it's also why Obama's Texas argument SUPPORTS the delegate argument.

Not to worry though, aside from being wrong in every regard you had a pretty solid comment.  

Read this comment and disagree all you want.  See who gets the nomination.  That's because I'm right and you're wrong.

One more contest gone and Barack's lead remains the same. He doesn't need to win remaining states, he doesn't even need to tie her.

She needs to win enough of the remaining pledged delegates to make his lead small enough that she can talk the remaining super delegates into closing the gap the rest of the way plus 1.

Every time a contest is held without shrinking the lead Barack has accumulated two things happen:

The pool of pledged delegates that remain to be won becomes smaller.

The number of Super Delegates needed to hand Hilary the nomination becomes less feasible.

Additionally, every day that comes and goes with 4 or 6 Superdelegates declaring 2 or 3 for Hilary and 2 or 3 for Obama the pool of undeclared Superdelegates shrinks making the percentage of the remaining Superdelegates that Hilary would need just keep going up and up.  

No, I'm not drunk.  Have you ever seen a simpleton not get a joke and proceed to say that the joke was dumb or that the person who told it doesn't make any sense?

what did she do with the $200 million?

oh, that's right, she wasted all on supertuesday and Mark Penn.

What base this on? faith based analysis?

Clinging to your tarot cards?

except, when hillary loses NC, this board will talk about how she kept it close.

it's getting tired

what then?

Just like to get ya on the record now, before you move the goal posts, again.

We'll talk Tuesday night.

don't forget the guns!

That news saddens me.

I've long wanted an AA president that the nation and the AA community can be proud of.  It sickens me to see an amateur & fraud like Barack Obama not only exploiting AA's for votes but then selling them out in a heartbeat to appeal to working class whites in Indiana and North Carolina.  

Those states don't count. One has no black people and the other has too many.

Wasn't that two months ago??

What do you hope to accomplish by going through threads methodically insulting people?

Oops I meant MS.  Stupid state abbreviations. :-)

you obviously can't do math.  If Obama were claiming a 2-point win by saying he won 51%-49%, you'd have a point.  That's what Hillary was doing, claiming a double-digit win with only 9.2 percent.

Clearly, this was a statistical tie--but still a win for Obama (pending possible recount, of course).

Exactly. And it may not be 50/50 after all; as they now have found hundreds of spoiled ballots in Hillary's stronghold area. It looks like the Obama campaign may have some explaining to do.

Never a good plan IMHO

4-weeks

4-weeks

and it's over for Hillary

tick...tick...tick...tick...tick..

Oh, the fun I'm gonna have in 4-weeks when it's over and she has to bow out.  

Oh, it's gonna be so juicy.

he's using a typical Clinton refrain, "why can't he close the deal, he was ahead by 10 pts in new hampshire, etc. etc."  Then he flips it and turns it on you.

Well, I have Senator Obama delegate spreadsheet prediction, and his campaign predicted a win by 11 points.

That is a large win, predicted by the campaign. And now it looks like there will certainly be a recount.