Originally Posted By: the G-man
As I said before, in the end, the winner is whomever claims the most delegates. That's the only standard that counts in terms of the nomination.

Obama took more delegates in Texas than Clinton. By any measure that matters, that's a win.

To argue otherwise, is to end up like those Moonbats who still want to whine that Al Gore "won" the 2000 election, even though Bush won the electoral vote that actually decided the Presidency.


Last month, Rachel Maddow was making that same point on MSNBC and was instantly rebuked by Joe Scarbourough.

His logic? Well, his logic was that MSNBC reported Hillary winning the day after the Texas vote, therefore, no matter that the final count wasn't in till much much later, the fact that MSNBC declared Hillary the winner a month or so ago (based on incomplete data) was something that apparently was set in stone and unchangeable.


As predicted, Pennsylvania changed nothing. Obama still leads Hillary by 131 delegates overall,and 156 pledged (not "super") delegates:

 Quote:
NBC News has allocated so far a 75-65 split for Clinton out of Pennsylvania; 18 delegates are not allocated yet.

With that, Obama now leads by 156 pledged delegates: 1,482-1,326.

Our superdelegate total is Clinton 262, Obama 237.

In all, Obama now leads by 131 overall: 1,719-1,588.