It's about the DELEGATES, stupid. Here's how they're allocated in Pennsylvania.

The language often being used seems to pretend that there's some other objective. There isn't. There is no "win" or "lose" today except on a delegate-by-delegate basis. All else is spin, hype, and bullshit.

The 'prize' is the 2nd Congressional District's 9 delegates. There are seven delegates each from the 1st, 7th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Congressional Districts and six from the 6th. Each of the other twelve Congressional Districts get lesser number of delegates down to 3 delegates from the 9th Congressional District.

Interestingly, if either candidate gets 1 vote more than 85% in any Congressional District they get ALL those delegates.

Fifty-five delegates are awarded statewide which means about 1 delegate for each 2% of the statewide popular vote.

All this obsession on the statewide vote is only a ROUGH approximation ... and it matters WHERE the vote is.

Now, let's look at some of those Congressional Districts in order of decreasing delegate allocation strength.


That's where it's at. Today.

Obama is going to do relatively well in the delegate count. I think the Philly area is going to help him immensely.

Early reports are not looking good in predominantly AA areas.

:(

:tinfoilhat:

election fraud...we all know it goes on...

if in fact the machines are breaking down.

Convenience in that it helps Hillary.

Conspiracy if Hillary is indeed behind it.

No ones saying that.. but it sure is convenient.

Sheesh! :puke:

I'll just give this the little kick and rec it deserves and be on my way. Lotsa folks to tease!!!!



:kick:

Hell ... why the FUCK must *I* (an independent!) school people who call themselves "Democrats" on how THEIR party chooses delegates for the nominating convention??? It's fucking insane that folks don't seem to cmprehend the deliberate emphasis on 'Democratic strongholds" ... both at the state and Congressional District levels. All the claims and counter-claims of "electability" and "big states" and other shit IGNORES the fact that the Democratic Party has built in the electoral strength considerations in the allocation of delegates!!

Fucking frustrating to see so much vacuous, mind-numbing, fact-free crap. :grr:

I'm mostly brain dead but at least I know it and understand a fine argument or an insightful piece of information when I see it.

You're one of the best DU'ers around here....even if you ARE just an independent......


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:





:patriot:

Hillary represents an enormous majority of the "moron democrat" vote (and yes, there are quite a few of them, even here on DU).
Not to mention the clueless trolls who chime in just to demonstrate their stupidity.

... I try to remind myself of some key 'truths.' I use the example of Don Quixote's heroism. While some may deride him as a fool tilting at windmills, the lesson is that it wasn't relevant that the windmills posed him no threat. The fact that he believed they did is sufficient to say he was courageous.

When folks support a politician out of a belief that they will act in ways to honor certain values and principles we hold dear ... justice and equity ... I have to remind myself that they MAY be wrong, but that doesn't make them inimical to those values. The problems, of course, are far more complex than tilting at windmills. Some supporters actually DON'T hold the same values and principles dear as I do. They, in fact, may be motivated by a self-interest that's contrary to my interests and the interests of many. They may, in fact, not be motivated by a sense of justice and equity ... but more out of a sense of a perpetuated privilege they enjoy. (But God forbid they admit it.)

Sadly, fools and the implacably ignorant eschew learning the complexities of economic policies in particular. Over and over and over again we see small-to-vanishing differences on the GUT issues totally overwhelm what miniscule comprehension of economic issues may be present. Hell, we even have some totally deluded (or abysmally selfish) souls arguing that capital gains taxes SHOULD be lower than taxes on EARNED income - income we obtain by our LABOR - and making the same ol' 'trickle down' pseudo-claims that have been soundly demolished. That's just plain stupid. (Oh well.)

:shrug:

There's no law that says someone actually be informed in order to form an opinion. (If there was, most of us would be arrested.)

Hoping that someone that has time (AKA no kids to put down) will be able to track this as it comes in.

If I understand the breakdown, Rendell might be in a position to influence the appointment of many of the unpledged delegates.

That number includes congressmembers and senators.

(1) Members of the Democratic National Committee who legally reside in the state;
(Rule 9.A.(1), Call, I.F., J., K., & Reg. 4.13.)
(2) All of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Members of the U.S. House of Representatives
and the U.S. Senate; (Rule 9.A.(3), Call I.G. & K.)
(3) The Democratic Governor; (Rule 9.A.(4), Call I.G. & K.)
(4) “Distinguished Party Leader” delegates who legally reside in the state. (Rule 9.A.(5),
Call I.K., and Reg. 4.13.)

See rules http://padems.com/files/Delegate08Final806.pdf">here.

Afaict its only the 3 add-on unpledged that get selected by the state committee.

I will find the link I read this morning.

:eyes:

Here in TX, her people were all over the media saying that her South TX supporters would put TX in her column. Sounded good til one looked at the delegate layout and the majority were in NORTH TX.

Math is not their best subject apparently.

All this simple-minded, brain-dead crap on DU about raw vote totals and the PRETENSE of "win" or "lose" is total nonsense - people pawing through bullshit.

I didn't know you had it in you.

Just kidding, I appreciate the work in this post, and will be referring to it through the night.

:kick:

NT!

:silly:

THANKS!

and thanks to dbmk for that post too. she won the battle and lost the war