Did anyone see Schultz and Simpson speak about the primaries on CNN just now?

[PseudoIntellect]

An argument was made that the primary should come to a close soon for the good of the party's success in the GE. Carol Simpson argued that the 10-11 regions left to vote still ought to have their voices heard. When another commentator said that Hillary had a very small chance of winning states like OR, SD, MT, and NC, and that she HAD to win all of the remaining states by 30-point margins to catch up, Simpson replied by calling those states "little states." Oh, so the states left to vote DESERVE to vote, but the ones that Obama expects to win are just "little states," so I guess they actually DON'T deserve to vote or matter?

Ed Schultz said that this was a "virtual tie" in popular vote and a "virtual tie" in pledged delegates. However, Hillary is "ahead" in the "electoral vote." Funny, I didn't know that the electoral primary vote existed, or that it was even relevant. So 219-202 (spread of 17) is a lead for Hillary, but a 700k+ popular vote lead for Obama is a tie? And 166 lead in pledged delegates for Obama is a "virtual tie?" Ha.

Clinton's campaign tactics continue forever?

edit: I'm sorry if I stir up trouble, but I couldn't believe arguments like this were still being made.

[rocktivity]

1. "Small states don't matter"--that's the DLC thinking

that made the last two elections easy for the Repubs to steal. Then Howard Dean comes, said "All FIFTY states matter!" and we regained the majority of Congress. Is it any wonder the DLC and DNC don't like each other?

:rofl:
rocknation

[goclark]

2. Where they on the trip to Bosnia with Hillary?

[Cha]

4. I think they're sniper shocked.

ed schultz was making sense before I read this latest.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. Any excuse to keep the primary (and the advertising dollars) flowing.

Reality be damned.