Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
(Post 177050)
How would Florida underscore the trouble he's already in (which also assumes he is already in trouble)? He hasn't campaigned there at all. He hasn't spent any money there at all. He hasn't visited the state with any sort of regularity (if at all). How does losing there underscore the "trouble" you say he is in (let alone "continue" to underscore the trouble he is in)? In case you haven't noticed, Obama leads the actual delegate count right now. He is WINNING so far. And he should win in South Carolina as well. Florida doesn't matter (unless Hillary underperforms like in Michigan, in which case it is GREAT for Obama going into Super Tuesday).
|
Florida has a good cross-section of the US, and has become an unexpected close-call bellwether in recent elections. Obama's troubles there, especially sans campaigning, signals a larger problem to me. You're welcome to disagree, just don't put words in my mouth.
Below is a sample article making the point that Florida still matters, and interestingly enough, makes this observation:
Quote:
Indeed, most Clinton supporters believe Florida will count, while Obama's camp tends to downplay the significance of the primary.
|
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/...RIDA_0114.html
Kinda matches you, doesn't it. Although I think Clinton would be easier to beat, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm not blinded by an Obagasm.
As for the delegate count, I think you're falling into the pit that puts too much importance on such things. I'd love to say Romney is clear frontrunner based on the delegate count, but I think it's misleading. All it takes is one day (Feb 5) to turn that relative small margin on it's head. You're probably one of those who thinks Obama "really" won in Nevada, even though he lost the popular vote.
|