I don't understand: Clinton says that if we had the Republican's nominating procedure, where winner takes all delegates in each contest, that she would be the winner. So I counted the pledged delegates from the NYTimes count and added the totals. Obama has almost 500 more than Clinton if winner takes all in each contest. This doesn't include Michigan or Florida, nor does it include states that tied or states that haven't seated their delegates yet.
How does she figure it? All of the information I've seen refutes her math.
5 comments:
She is delusional.
I think she is counting the Michigan and Florida delegates which she would like to claim even if it means cheating.
ok, if I add the 336 delegates, a combined total from MI and FL, which includes superdelegates, to clinton's tally, she still has less than obama. if tied states and states whose delegates are apportioned at the time of the convention or earlier are added then the question is up for debate, but right now she's behind by republican standards.
and she's talking about taking the "fight" all the way to the convention. is she planning major bribes to superdelegates to get them to change their minds? this is seriously aggravating.
All along her math has been scrutinized by a lot of pundits, and I've not heard or seen one yet that agrees with her assertion that she would win. She also claims she has more individual votes if you add up all the different election results, and I believe (although I haven't personally checked) that is incorrect as well.
And for the record, I appreciate that the Dems don't have a "winner take all" philosophy, as the proportional assignment of delegates based on number of votes received is much more "democratic" than the ways the Republicans do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO5soX3iLtk
Post a Comment