Why aren't the people gnashing their teeth over Obama's words doing the same over Hillary's...

[Joe the Revelator]

Actions?


The attempted supression of votes in Nevada is a much worse situation then Obama correctly analysing Obama's appeal. So why is there absolutely no outrage for her supporters over her own actions??

[Terry_M]

1. For the same reason

Obama supporters aren't gnashing their teeth over Obama's words... There's a lot of people here lately that don't have an open mind and are very politically naive... They actually believe their candidates can do no wrong, and would defend them if they literally started eating babies.

[aquart]

3. I don't see Obama eating babies.

I see him buying a house with "help," however.

[aquart]

2. HER actions? Was her name on any of those legal documents?

And I would like to stress LEGAL. This was a perfectly legal action in a perfectly reasonable dispute. Which, btw, is going to have to be adjudicated over and over because this is not a good precedent that was just set.

So LEGAL actions by a supporter are NOT ALLOWED if don't benefit Obama? We are no longer allowed recourse to the courts in this country? Well, there's an Obama-change.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. Captain Obtuse to Hillary's rescue

If you honestly don't think she's involved, even in the face of Bill's impassioned defense of the suppressive law suit, and the fact that Hillary's campaign lawyers were involved, then I don't know what to say to you.

[Rageneau]

7. If I'm innocent, I sure don't want you on my jury.

You apparently can determine guilt by supernatural means. And are so sure of yourself that you "don't even know what to say" to someone who asks for proof, or even evidence.

Did it never occur to you, ever, that you might be wrong?

Cause you are.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. So you have the supernatural ability to determine innocence...

in the face of damning evidence?

Excellent, you can be on my jury any day of the week.

[ShortnFiery]

15. A number of people DIRECTLY linked to HRC's campaign were a part of this BS. eom.

[papau]

5. Casino voters get 10 times the number of delegates given to other caucuses with same population -and

Obama has condemned this unfairness? - maybe not so much -eh? :-)

[Joe the Revelator]

6. Bill said it was 5 times more, and he was fibbing as well

[papau]

10. It is not known in advance - but it will between 5 and 10 times - so is it fair

[BenDavid]

12. Bill Clinton could be right as it is based on total turn out at the 9

at large casino's.

First, make your best guess on what turnout will be in the at-large precincts on the Strip (assuming they survive the legal challenge filed Friday). Now divide your guess by 9, making the assumption that turnout will be equal among the nine sites.

We’ll call that number X, and it represents how many people will show up at each Las Vegas Boulevard site.

Then plug X into this formula of how many delegates are awarded to each precinct depending on caucus turnout, as laid out in the state Democratic Party rules.

If X is not greater than 400, divide it by 5. If X is between 401 and 600, divide it by 8. If X is between 601 and 800 divide it by 10. If X is between 801 and 1400 divide it by 15. If X is between 1401 and 2000 divide it by 20. If X is between 2001 and 3000 divide it by 30. If X is between 3001 and 4000 divide it by 35. If X is above 4000 divide it by 50.

Call this new number Y. It is the number of delegates at each at-large caucus site.

Now multiply Y by 9, and that’s resulting total number of delegates created on the Strip. Call that number Z.

Still with us?

Now take Z and add it to 10,446, which is the total number of delegates elsewhere in the state. This new number is ZZ.

Divide Z by ZZ. Multiply by 100.

Voila!

That’s the percent of delegates these at-large precincts will contribute to the state’s total.

So here’s our math (the algebra teacher at our public school would be so proud).

We took a robust prediction of 10,000 people showing up to the Strip at-large caucus sites this coming Saturday. We divide that by 9, and get 1,111-and-change showing up to each at-large precinct on Saturday.

Now plug 1,111 into the handy-dandy formula provided by the state: 1,111 divided by 15 = 74-and-change. Round down to 74.

That means that given our scenario, 1,111 people will show up at each of 9 caucus locations. And each caucus location will get 74 delegates.

Now multiply the 74 by 9. We get 666. That’s the total delegates from the at-large precincts.

What percent is that of the total delegates? Well, there are 10,446 delegates elsewhere in the state. So by doing the last step, it equals a little less than 6 percent.

Whether those extra Strip delegates will be enough to change the outcome of the caucus remains to be seen, of course.

[ShortnFiery]

13. Interesting how Bill Clinton, et. al. were fine with this up until two days after they failed to ...

achieve The Culinary Union's endorsement? :evilgrin:

[AtomicKitten]

8. Let it go, little buddy. ;)

Yes, it sucked ass, but people will decide for themselves. I have the info in my sig line if anyone is interested.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Because when The Clintons do IT, it's not ever wrong. The DLC tells us "little people" to FOLLOW.

:crazy:

[Occam Bandage]

14. You know why.