...Or maybe I missed it on the news, but can someone please tell me when Sen. Obama received the requisite number of delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination for the office of President of the United States on the first ballot?
Until either candidate receives a majority of the delegate votes cast, there is no winner and there is no loser.
My candidate, Hillary Clinton, has not lost. Your candidate, Barack Obama, has not won.
Until either candidate reaches a "majority vote of the Convention's delegates" (that's from the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in case you were wondering) this race is not over and there are no winners or losers.
FL is not re-voting. Obama will lead in every metric. Go discuss it on the last post and come back here when you catch up.
...That Article VIII.C.7.b. of the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention says "A majority vote of the Convention's delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate"; and
Is it not further true that Appendix B of the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention sets the total number of Convention delegate votes at 4,049; and
Is it not further true that a majority of the 4,049 Convention delegate votes is equal to 2,024.5 Convention delegate votes; and
Is it not further true that as of March 17, 2008, neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have the requisite number of Convention delegate votes required to nominate the presidential candidate; and
Is it not further true that if Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have the requisite number of Convention delegate votes, then any assertion that either one of those two candidates have "won" or "lost" is incorrect?
Speaking of delegates - there's a "Breaking Blue" post about another superdelegate for Obama. But earlier today - MSNBC reported this wasn't an addition because she was already a delegate.
I don't believe they can be counted twice.
If she can't win caucuses. It's over. Get used to it.
I can't help but notice you've done everything you can to change the subject. Are you able to discuss the content of the diary?
It(wright) won't matter because the recession will be so bad that no one will want McCain/Bush/Republicanism economic policies.
I'll take that as a "no, I can't discuss the content of the diary. I'm busy changing the subject".
BHO is very likely to meet the threshold before the convention (I'd say around middle of June). Care to take a wager? The only reason this ain't over thus far is because the superdels are waiting for the "vetting" process to play itself out.
Once Obama gives his speech regarding the role of race in the nomination process thus far (and in American society in general), the superdels will have had all their concerns addressed (in no small part due to Hillary fighting tooth and nail for the nomination; so she definitely deserves kudos in that respect).
A whole can of whupass is about to open up on HRC regarding her prevarication on things like earmarks, Clinton library donations, business/PAC/lobbyist connections, tax returns etc.
Face it. Every single so-called scandal that was supposed to have decimated the Obama campaign has, heretofore, done squat to slow him down. Obama will most likely be the Democratic nominee for POTUS. And he's gonna win with or without your vote. So stock up on the Xanax -- you're evidently going to need lots it!
and Clinton does not need Obama supporters
I'll take that wager. What are we wagering that no one will meet the threshold before convention? That is unless a mutual deal is strike by BOTH candidates?
Ohmygod ... that is so pathetic.
Your guy's chances of winning in November are absolutely crashing down all around your feet (just look at the reaction on that graph) and as long as he wins the nomination you really don't care ... I'm not sure there's a word for that level of cynicism. So much for "hope" ...
