I was kinda. . .commenting on the race.

I am not sure what you are doing.

That was not your point. Your point was that Hillary was in the lead for Supers and that counted more than Barack's lead in pledged delegates. Already the Supers are considering deserting Clinton and her supporters are on the phones trying to get them to wait until Texas.

Isn't that amazing. . .that all those Supers you counted will start disappearing unless she can take Texas by 10 points or better?

We are going to convention no matter what. But the Supers will not overturn the pledged and popular vote totals. They will nominate Barack if he leads. Again, nominees are chosen. Establishment support doesn't win you a nomination. Neither does endorsements. You must convince the Supers that you are electable. They are not going to elect Hillary unless she can prove she can beat Barack. They are not going to nominate someone who has a good chance of losing.

I told you that from jump.

Wisconsin will tell you about Texas/Ohio. On the real. She knew she would lose the Potomac Primaries. But they thought they would be within 10 points or so, especiallly in Virginia. They really thought they would get a good number of delegates.

Well. . .

Now they actually think the will win Wisconsin. They are keeping that on the DL. They want to claim an upset even though she was leading in the last polls. They will know what the future holds if she loses badly in Wisconsin.

Here is a little bit of information about Texas that the media is not reporting in detail. Texas is not just a primary state. It is also a caucus state. We have both.

Even if Hillary wins the majority of the Latino vote she isn't guaranteed a larger portion of delegates in Texas. If Obama carries a smaller portion of the Latino vote and he receives a huge portion of the AA votes/districts he will win the most delegates in Texas.

The reason is because if a district (heavily populated latino, white or black) carries more delegates in the previous presidential race and they do the same thing in the current race they will be given more delegates in the current presidential race.

In the 2004 presidential race, the AA districts in Texas voted more for John Kerry and the Latino districts voted in greater proportion for Bush. As a result the Democrats were unable to carry a large portion of Latino votes resulting in fewer delegates from Latinos.

African American neighborhoods in Texas will be given more delegates in this years race.

Obama has been unbeatable in caucus states. Three weeks to concentrate on only three states is a long time for him to make up ground on Hillary. I hope he sweeps her on March 4th.

Oh, because of New Hampshire. There is a theory that Obama overpolls. Because young people get all excited and say they will vote. But then get to partying and forget. So you have to always be careful.

The truth is her numbers did not hold. She really expected the gap to be smaller. She thought she would hold onto "White" women and the working class.

That didn't happen. She can't go to Texas, splitting or losing the "White" vote, giving him 35-40% of the Latino vote, and losing 80% of "Blacks".

The best case scenario is that she wins by 4-5 points. She needs to win by 20 to make a real difference in delegates counted. She cannot continue to let him have the lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates.

Absolutely tremedous.

Thank you sir/madam for your insights. That is quite a bit of detail.

Boy! I sure messed up that time. I did mean to say Africans are not stupid. Let me go back and fix that. Thanks for pointing out my error.

Actually, I think some of us were slow to support him. We just saw the absurdity of the NAACP calling for the seating of the Florida and Muichigan delegations. These are generally thought to be Hilary delegates. It just goes to show you that the NAACP is still more concerned about pleasing its zionists than they are about African interests.

What I am thinking is that if we can drum a little more African support for Barack, he will likely win both Texas and Ohio. This is one election when Africans can make a lot of difference simply bt being true to our African-ness and against house neeegrowism and Uncle Tomism. I mean, we even had Africans talking about how Brother Barack was an African because he has kinfolks in Indonesia, etc. But, Slick Willy really went overboard with his Sista Soulja-type lies and tricks.

Again, thanks for catching my typographical error.

I am commenting on the election, too. But, since you raised the issue of so-called sexism, I thought it would be helpful to point out the obvious: Hilary is all wrong because of her politics, not her gender. There are many women, black and white, who would make better president that she.

This sexism thing is not new. I think Hilary expected to be able to play the sex card and embarraas us into supporting her. It did not work and could not work because Sister Oprah supported Brother Barack. I sincerely would like to see Oprah take the same type of ideas and phylosophy that we see in her girl schools for Africa initiative into a political program that could very well make her president. Plus, Sister Michelle is an outstanding example for our young women who need to see the proper role of African wives in relationship to supporting their African husbands. She has done a remarkable job of campaigning for Brother Barack. If this is any indication of her political integrity (note: Hilary has no politcal integrity), she would make a great candidate for high office, including possibly president.

I think this is important to note. As I have said repeatedly, things will never be the same again. I am very proud of the fact that so many outstanding African leaders are available for us to choice from. I do not think it is too early to start thinking about an African woman as president. Nobody needs Hilary.