Icing on the cake: Richardson's endorsement puts Obama ahead in every possible delegate scenario

[mythyc]

FlyingSquirrel already noted that yesterday afternoon, Obama pulled into a tie with Clinton WERE Michigan and Florida included.

Like him, this is a number I've been following closely for weeks now, because with it, Obama holds all the cards.

You can check the numbers on his post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5186653 , or on the Democratic Convention Watch Website, which keeps the most objective and verifiable delegate tallies of any site I've followed.

Without MI/FL, Obama was already ahead in every possible "final tally" category except total supers: Pledged delegates, States, Popular Vote, and Total delegates (pledged plus supers)

With MI/FL he still had the lead in all of the above categories but Total delegates, a significant point. If you've been monitoring this monkey wrench, he's been creeping up steadily, and today the official number even there is Obama 1689, Clinton 1688 (DCW has not changed the figure yet, but they're fast, expect it by the morning); Obama is now ahead no matter how you count it

:woohoo:

No matter which way you split the votes, which way you count them, how you look at it, Obama is now ahead. True, Clinton could go right back ahead after Pennsylvania, but I forecast more Supers coming to Obama's side in Richardson's wake. A large group of supers endorsing Obama could even swing Pennsylvania, probably not to an Obama victory, but perhaps to a closer margin such that she will not catch him from this point on. If Obama goes into the convention with these leads in tact, it's his nomination, not just because as leader in totals he controls the credentials committee which has the final word on FL/MI, but also because with every small victory he adds to the insurmountability of his lead. Last I saw, what was it 47% of remaining delegates total that he needed to reach the magic number?

this is why the Richardson endorsement in my opinion, on so many levels, is huge. :thumbsup:

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Kick!

:kick:

[trained specialist]

16. it looks more like Richardson cut himself a deal

He has little or no clout with anyone outside of the home state, I'm afraid.

[dethl]

19. How many governors do you know with diplomacy skills like Richardson?

It makes me proud as a New Mexican to see him go out and make some real change in the world (Darfur/North Korea) while the bobble head that is our current president continue to make war.

EDIT: I definitely agree that with Richardson's endorsement that Obama will see many more SDs head his way.

[Perry Logan]

2. This explains the calmness and confidence displayed by Obama supporters at DU.

(Irony.)

[mythyc]

3. no i believe it's called sarcasm

check your rhetorical figures.

while you're at it, look up the "sweeping generalization" fallacy ....

[Perry Logan]

5. Sarcasm and irony are pretty close. For me, sarcasm implies a more sneering tone than irony.

"Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance between what a speaker or a writer says and what he or she means, or is generally understood."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

[Usrename]

7. I don't see any irony in the fact that the Obama folks are calm.

I think they are supposed to be with this kind of lead.

[mythyc]

14. he was being sarcastic -- not *all* obama supporters by his statement

are calm (excepted he did imply all). I'd agree with that, though far less are shaking in their boots about his presidential prospects than the statement suggests as given and obvious (hence sarcasm level deux --- in irony, the two sides are fully actuated, without need of exaggeration,, you know, definition of 'is' is type stuff). The lion's share of Obama supporters I've seen here, minus the odd worry wort, feels pretty confident about Obama's prospects of securing the nomination....

[ORDem]

11. Difference between sarcasm and irony

Sarcasm and Irony have a very close relationship with one another. Both tend to be used to make a poignant or entertaining statement. Often times, people say something is ironic when it is actually sarcastic and vice versa because the two concepts have become so intertwined, whereas, in actuality, sarcasm is a concept that utilizes irony. In many instances, sarcasm is a remark seasoned with irony. You can think of irony as a vessel to express many things in a sarcastic way. For example, if a girl takes an especially long time to get ready as her date patiently waits for her, when she finally emerges, her date might remark with a deadpan tone "Well, you certainly don't take long to get ready." In the circumstance, again, irony is utilized to express the opposite of the actual situation to mock the extended length of time it took for the girl to actually get ready. Irony is employed, but the humor that is achieved though its use is sarcasm. In addition, sarcasm is always considered a form of wit, whereas irony can be found in any type of situation, be is funny or quite serious. Irony takes on many forms (generally tragic and situational irony) that are very saddening and in no way considered mockery. In this sense Irony is a bit more varied and far-reaching in its scope than sarcasm.

From: http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/sarcasmandirony/

[mythyc]

13. for it to be irony both sides need to be actual and not supposed

now had you said "some" of Obama's supporters, the statement would have been perfectly valid, while still snarky (no problem with a little snark here and there, mind you). true irony, in its rich and chewy form, would have accepted, relished even, that some of Hillary's supporters do the same (crossed circuits of that ilk would constitute a chiastic irony ; yum). that's why I recommended looking up sweeping generalizations while you were at it.

;)

[slinkerwink]

4. yes!!!!!

[elocs]

6. I am sure that Clinton and her supporters would have loved to get Richardson's endorsement.

Then it would have great meaning, but since it went to Obama the endorsement means nothing. It's completely bizarre how Clinton supporters can spin Richardson's endorsement of Obama as a negative. Evidently they operate in their own fantasy world logic where to gain support and delegates is actually an indication that you are losing. Strange, just strange.

[ORDem]

12. This explains the HRC camp's reaction to the Richardson endorsement

[Scurrilous]

8. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Voice for Peace]

9. Thanks for the additional information.

Much appreciated, K&R!

[mythyc]

15. you're one post from 1000

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

use it wisely padawan :)

[Voice for Peace]

18. no I made it! I'm now officially viable

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5192941

[mythyc]

20. dude... sweet.... dude... sweet

:thumbsup:

[azmouse]

10. K & R

[anonymous171]

17. k&r

:kick: :thumbsup:

[sniffa]

21. Woah! WTF did I miss today?

Richardson endorsed!!?

:woohoo:

[mythyc]

22. indeed!

:D

[Snarkoleptic]

23. k&r

[Megahurtz]

24. Yes! We! Can!

[FlyingSquirrel]

25. Cool - sorry for stealin' your thunder but you said it better anyway

Glad to see I wasn't the only numbers geek out there!

:hi:

[mythyc]

26. not at all, you were watching for the tie, I for the lead

one-two punch, hehehe

you may have stole the thunder but I got the lightning! the real point though is that by all counts Obama is control of every possible delegate count which means he goes into the convention on top. Now that this has happened, it's just a matter of time...

:hi: back at ya :)

[CarbonDate]

27. Any move to include Michigan....

...would have to, at a minimum, include a provision by which the "Uncommitted" 40% who showed up just to vote against Hillary be pledged to Obama. By my math, that would give Hillary only a 44 delegate net gain.

Were that caveat put in place regarding the uncommitted Michigan delegates (only fair; why should the people who showed up to vote against Hillary have their votes counted for Hillary?), I would be willing to accept both Michigan and Florida being seated at the convention.

Thing is, Hillary still loses even if you do, and the Florida and Michigan delegates would put Obama 127 delegates closer to 2,024. He could conceivably pick up the remaining delegates in the remaining contests.

Hillary might actually be better off if they don't seat Florida and Michigan, because if they do she doesn't have that stick to beat Obama with.

[mythyc]

28. Flying Squirrel's got something on Michigan in his original thread

check the link in my Original Post for this message. I should have mentioned it, but the gyst is those numbers don't even include Michigan because those votes are "uncommitted." It's almost certain that they will go to Obama at the convention, which blows this gap open even wider. I think it was 44 total, but I could be wrong about that....