Wyoming, being one of the lesser-populated states in this great nation of ours, had only 12 delegates up for grabs. Obama got 7, Clinton got 5.After losing Democratic contests in the delegate-rich states of Ohio and Texas this week, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama won the Wyoming Democratic caucus Saturday.
Obama led rival Sen. Hillary Clinton by 61 percent to 38 percent, with all of the precincts reporting.
He was favored to win, by the way.
A word or two about the Texas/Ohio/Rhode Island/Vermont numbers. According to CBS, Senator Clinton's showing in those four states recently netted her 177 delegates. Those same contests netted Senator Obama 171 - she gained only 6 delegates.
With Wyoming, Obama whittled that gain down to 4.
Hey, who knew Steely McBeam had a cousin in Wyoming?
7 comments:
According to boy George Stephanopolis Obama's pledged delegate lead prior to March 4th was 155. After Wyoming it is now at 150. Even with Florida and Michigan Hillary cannot win!
If there is a do-over for both states I think Hillary wins Florida by a comfortable margin, whereas Obama would win Michigan, a state where Hillary came close to losing to "uncommitted", by double digits.
"I wish I could quit you." -- Steely McBeam.
Hey, who knew Steely McBeam had a cousin in Wyoming?
Lotta inbreeding in that family.
.
OBAMA WON TEXAS.
He narrowly lost the primary and won the caucus. He WON the state.
The MSM keeps reporting that she won Texas - I expect better from 2PJ!
Janis
Let me echo the sentiment that Obama did come out of Texas with more delegates. And since this process is about winning delegates, he won Texas.
But a couple of other points too...
One, while Wyoming is a lower population density than most states, it still counts. And whether or not Obama was favored to win, there's no excuse for the Clinton campaigns inability to compete in an eleciton where less around 10,000 people voted.
Consistently, Clinton has failed to compete in more than half the states(all the states Obama has won).
Also, why is it that a state is dismissed because Obama was expected to win? By that reasoning, Ohio, Rhode Island and the TX primary are meaningless because Hillary was expected to win.
The fact is that all the states count.
And to that end, Clinton's large state victories, despite all the importance she has imbued them with, have failed to provide herself a lead in pledged delegates.
If we abide by the party's rules, then it comes down to who has the most delegates. Even if someone can't reach the magic number of 2024, the nominee should be whoever leads in pledged delegates at the end. And in Hillary's best case scenario, she will still trail Obama when Puerto Rica votes in June.
After all, the Clinton campaign said a while ago that it has been about the delegates. Whether Obama has a lead of 1 or 150, it is important to remember what Thomas Jefferson said:
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt."
John K. says: Just keep this in mind. Your actual vote in the primary counts for nothing. If they do not like the results then they will rely on super delegates. And if the super delegates do not deliver the right person then you can always resort to super-duper delegates. In otherwords, why do Democrats vote and have rules. They just keep changing and revoting until they get the result they want. Why waste the time and money. Just take in campaign contributions and give them to the starving people in Darfur.
John K. says: Watch me wiggle my willie! Lookee! It's my very own willie! Lookie!
Post a Comment