Ten days ago, Jiminy Jilliker! (yeah, like Yahoo!, I think you always have to include the exclamation point) noted that California's certified count of delegates showed a swing of eight in Obama's favor. JJ also noted that this news, uh, wasn't. (Sorry for not getting around to spreading the word as you exhorted, until now, JJ.)
On a related note, my new favorite podcast, PoliSciFiRadio (hands down winner for Catchy Title, too), started off this week's show with a report from Iowa. Seems the Hawkeyes finally officially selected their delegates, some of the Edwards delegates switched over to Obama, and the result is a gain of about nine for our side. Forbes has a story on this, too.
Forbes also notes in the same article that Texas finally got around to finishing their caucus count. Final score: Obama "won the state" by 4 delegates. (I use quotes because the only thing actually won is a talking point; unlike the general election and some states in the Republican primaries, states are not winner-take-all in the Democratic primaries. But still, the next time some tiresome Clintonite talks about "winning" the "big states," you can now offer up the Lone Stare.)
There has been way too much MSM chatter about Hillary's supposed momentum lately, and it'll be interesting to see if actual, tangible, countable real results get anywhere near the same coverage. After Hillary picked up a thirteen delegate advantage in Ohio, Obama has netted two from Wyoming, five from Mississippi, and added to the above, we have a gain of 8 + 9 + 4 + 2 + 5 = +28 since.* Interesting!
Well, I say "interesting," but I'm betting crickets.
* Running totals so far show Obama up by about 170 pledged delegates, with a little less of an edge (120 to 140) if superdelegate counts are to be believed. John Nichols has a nice summary. Also, for the similarly hopelessly incurably addicted: Forbes and Slate both have delegate calculators for you to play with.
2 comments:
I love that Clinton's essentially stagnating delegate count is still being spun as momentum.
It's been a while since I've been in a physics class, but from my recollection, momentum requires some velocity.
Or at least, if the velocity is basically in reverse, then the momentum is not forward momentum.
Also, I'll take the exclamation point thing under advisement...
I do like me some nerdery brought to bear on a political debate.
Only teasing about the exclamation point.
Post a Comment