Per the rules rural venues have to calibrated to relfect a representative result..

Obama has won the delegate count and more importantly he can carry the whole state, diversity wins again..

HRC wins Democratic enclaves ... Obama elsewhere. In the fall, Democrats will 'come home' to the nominee, and doesn't it make sense that the better canddiate is someone who can not only win our usual voters but pull from non-traditional areas for Democrats? And that isn't Hillary.

per the rules rural venues have to be claibrated to reflect a representative result.

Obama winning of the rural venues has him on top and more importantly diaplays diversity rules in Vegas!!!

Obama folks are grasping at straws. Hillary won. Obama lost. Sounds like you folks who like the special weighting for rural areas must have loved the 2000 election (after all, your candidate loves Reagan and Bush did, too). And I suppose you liked the system back in the first half of the twentieth century, when rural areas could elect the legislature despite majorities in the cities before the Supreme Court decreed one man (sic!)/one vote. Ah, those were the days!! Before that nasty system of popular voting where the majority wins. The evil Hillary tries one of those nasty tricks again. The majority wins!! What nonsense!!

It doesn't matter who "won" or "lost" here (if Hillary won the popular vote fairly, then kudos to her). But which candidate has the ability to pull in crossover voters, not just die-hard Democrats? I think that data will prove very interesting.

For various reasons - I think she's too centrist, mainly. I will vote for her if she wins the nomination (the Republican candidates are scary). However, I don't think she can win a national election, regardless who would run against her. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. I think Obama is much more qualified to beat the Republican nationally.

People often accuse Hillary of questionable logic, but it seems to me that the Obama supporters are the ones most guilty of twisting reality to serve their purpose.

Hillary wins in NH?

It's because of racist white women... meaning, Obama is still the winner!

Hillary wins in NV?

It's because of the die-hard Dems... meaning, Obama is still the winner!

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a win is just a win.

And it's funny to see the same people who decry rural voting advantages at the national level praise them here, when they happen to work in favor of their candidate of choice. Either you're against the inequality of votes, or you're not.

I'm talking about who's better able to win moderates and independents in the fall. And if you think Hillary Clinton is that person ... please buy my bridge!

Senator Clinton has a former President of the U.S. and a former head of the DNC walking through a Casino strong-arming votes and she still can't convert a slight victory into more delegates - because Barack Obama, of all people, is more appealing in rural Nevada than she is!

Unfortunately, she is toast in a general election. My worst fear is a McCain/Huckabee ticket where both independents and African-Americans do what those people in rural NV did.

I think it is significant that Obama supporters are pointing out how the delegates are counted in Nevada. If Obama did win the rural counties then I think it's logical to say that Obama would be a better candidate nationally, because we have the undemocratic Electoral College. The issue is not whether the weighting factor is fair in Nevada (in my opinion it is not), the issue is the correlation of Nevadans' vote to the Electoral College.

We have to live with the Electoral College in 2008!

Rosenkavalier -

HRC has many women supporters who believe electing a woman president is and end in and of itself. Nobody thinks that's racist. If she cannot beat Barack Obama in rural Nevada, how can she win the general election?

A little context hear, please. The Democrats have not even ammassed in total the vote count of Romney on his own. To say that a country is demanding movement in a rapid pace toward change on the one hand...Then to have the party considered responsible for what's needing change most end up having such a much higher turnout is, to say the least, glaring...

The Dems are doing it all wrong, again.

First, crying and bickering in NH.

Then, race baiting and attempting to take the vote to the courts before it even begins...plus having one of the candidates chanelling Ronald Reagan, of all people!...obviously isn't getting it done.

In other words, somebody, at least one of these candidates, should talk about the change really needed before assuming the media picks the President!

Nonetheless, if assumptions are allowed here's one: Democrats disappoint, again!

If you count special delegates, Hillary Clinton still has double the number of delegates as Obama, almost 2:1 (Clinton approx. 200 to Obama's approx. 100) and tabulating Nev. delegates is an Obama campaign confabulation.

-eeave

I read that too, that HRC has many delegates coming out of the gate before any voting. But then I read that these superdelegates can change their votes. Does she really have that many already committed?

Lloyd-

I wouldn't put too much stock in the vote totals as an indicator of anything. I don't think it translates into any discernible trend in November.

I hope you are having a good time in Las Vegas, Ms. Walsh.

When I first moved here, I thought this might be a more liberal area but quickly disabused myself of that notion .... I was in a local bar and GW Bush came on the plasma screens (neighborhood bars can afford such, here) and I said something out loud enough to attract a lot of attention. A few at the bar were with me -- the majority were agin'.

Long story short, the bartender about threw me out because I told him in no uncertain terms that bush was an idiot for taking us into war with Iraq. In Las Vegas, shrub had his supporters firmly in place back then.

Back to the matter at hand... It's the record, the record, the record, as Molly Ivins used to say. Whoever has one more delegate than the other in the Silver State to me doesn't matter so much. What I see is a win-win for all of us.

And when the other side comes for our candidate, we tell them they are full of shit - I'm rather fond of our Consititution, and Democrats are the only ones who seem interested in its' protection.