Letters to the Editor
-
What about the Delegates
"It is amusing to see Salon calling 39% over 37% a "stunning victory". Especially if she doesn't get any extra delegates from it."
A. The pundits once again prove themselves as "stunningly" useless jackals.
B. Either the polls were "stunningly" wrong,
C. Or if the polls were right, Clinton gained somewhere over 10 points in two days. Thats fukkin' stunning.
Mentioning delegates brings up a good point. Isn't what this is all about? Getting a majority of delegates, a simple majority at that? I have no idea why coming in first means so much, it is not a winner take all delegates contest.
Based on MSM coverage it is not clear that Huckabee has a substantial lead in delegates and that the top 3 dems are fairly close in delegates. Further, there is a 7 delegate difference between Obama and Edwards - a 24 delegate difference between Huckabee and McCain. And since Republicans require half of the delegates the Dems do, Huckabees lead is more significant.
Based on coverage it seems like it's all about coming in first, not about amassing delegates. Romneys right about getting silvers, and look at Edwards, he is certainly still in it (delegate wise) even though he "only" has a silver and a bronze.