Saturday, January 19, 2008

No post due this week. Go Review for the EXAM!

The next blog window is January 14-27.

Check out this blog post from MHS Graduate Elliot Anderson an activist in Nevada (complete with photo op with former President Clinton):

My inside man in Nevada says the Dem. caucuses are crazy. He says they are putting a lot of pressure on the people running the caucuses to make sure they are run fairly (he is running the open caucus at the Mirage). He said he actually yelled at Terry McAuliffe (former DNC chair) to make sure former President Bill Clinton had credentials when he entered the caucus for a last minute vote-canvass!

From what CNN is showing, it's a lot more of a raucous caucus than in Iowa.

Why isn't the Obama camp making more of the fact that they won more delegates in Nevada than Clinton did? Why aren't they saying, "Hey, we actually won!" 13-12 delegates.

Maybe the Obama camp is planning ahead for Feb.5 Here's the thought process: If Clinton wins the two biggest states of CA and NY and wins the most delegates, but Obama wins the most states throughout the Midwest and the West, maybe 15 of the 22 states (according to MSNBC's Chuck Todd), he could claim that as a victory. However, if he's harping on the fact that the delegate count is most important, Clinton can come back and say, "Barack, last month you said it was delegates that count the most, not the popular vote/number of states."

So, Feb. 6 Obama says, "Congratulations to Hillary for winning the most delegates, but we're happy we won the most states in a cross-section of the country in the rural areas and the cities and the suburbs. This shows we have what we will need to win in the general election: a broad-based support throughout the country."

Just some thoughts...


BrookeS said...

Mr. Bretzmann, I think you should be the first teacher at MHS to propose putting an end to this torturous ritual we like to call "exams" (just a thought)

ericag said...

I will have to say that the caucus the former MHS grad helped at seemed right up your alley. Anywhos the article about his day was really cool.

Ps. i actually knew what he was talking about. =]

katiekso said...

I have a question. What is more important, winning delegates or winning states? Because I know that these presidential candidates need a certain number of delegates to be the nominee for their party. However, winning states seems pretty important too. So, what do the candidates really want to win, delegates or states?

Mr. Bretzmann said...

The answer to Katie's question is: YES. It depends on how you spin it. In the early states it's important to win the states. On Super Duper Tuesday it will probably be more about delegates (think about this rough estimate: there have been under 100 delegates awarded so far and on Feb. 5 there are over 1000 delegates up for grabs). So the early states were important, but now people are going to start counting delegates. One more thing: mathematically nobody can win enough delegates on Feb. 5 to win the nomination. The beat goes on...

ericag said...

Does that mean that Wisconsin is going to matter?

Mr. Bretzmann said...

I think it's going to matter to both parties. Then again, making predictions this election season doesn't seem to work out for most people! I just don't see how both races aren't still between at least two people.

Alex D said...

It sure would be nice for Obama's sake to be able to say that he won more states than The Hillary I think that would look better for him, even if Hillary wins more delegates. HOwever I simply do now seem to see how that is going to happen. HIllary is expected to win California, New York, New jersey and now florida, I think that Hilary's recent wins along with her very steady lead in the big time states will no doubt carry her through to a big super tuesday win.

I think its long due for a talk about a conservative something

PS. we talked about political ads that bash the person they are talking about, while looking at some news site I came across a video talking about Obama and it talked alleged some pretty harsh accusations against Obama. I am not going to post a link because its topic is probably inappropriate, how ever if you do not head my warning I would look up Larry sinclair, although this is most likely very fake it seemed like enough have viewed it and even believe it to possibly hurt Obama's campaign, especially if it makes national news.