Skip to main content

View Diary: Just Words (275 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Umm, Obama has more delegates, (0+ / 0-)

    is there something more than that?  Will of the people, pledged delegates, is there some sort of disconnect that I don't see?

    If you want to talk about Texas, then please tell the people of Texas that the caucuses don't count, because they chose to award 1/3 of their delegates based on that.  They might have an opinion or two on your choosing to look only at the primary, i.e., 2/3 of their vote.

    •  nobody is saying the caucus doesn't count (0+ / 0-)

      and no one said that he didn't win the caucus - I certainly didn't.  the comment dealt with the Texas primary.  not my fault their convoluted system has both.

      •  Hillary won the primary, (0+ / 0-)

        and Obama won the caucus . . . and Texas.  

        •  meh (0+ / 0-)

          apples and oranges again.

          too bad we don't have a national caucus, then.

          •  Obama has won more primaries. (0+ / 0-)

            Do you have a point?

            Oh, right, because New York, California, Mass. and NJ won't go Dem unless Hillary is the candidate.  Uh huh.  

            •  I really don't have a point (0+ / 0-)

              good call - except that no one really cares to be logically consistent.

              Oh, and yeah, that's a completely bullshit line of argument - not one of the smarter things to come out of the Clinton campaign (really, I'm not sure anything smart has come out of her campaign since late fall).  I like Obama's map out of the latest SUSA polling better than Clinton's, and have said as much.  You're conflating two completely unrelated arguments.

              •  Since when did, "conflating," become (0+ / 0-)

                the new DKos word?

                It is so over-used.

                Now then, speaking of same, what did you mean by, "too bad we don't have a national caucus, then."

                •  lol it's late and I need a coffee (0+ / 0-)

                  I was comparing the results of the Texas caucus to the Texas primary.

                  I get the value of caucusing - I just don't necessarily see the payoff.

                  Anyway, we were discussing the diary, which quotes an article (which we have established is correct) that Clinton won the Texas primary.  And because I was made a comment about the Texas nominating system, you come back with a Clinton campaign point (inflammatory and insulting - not to mention I've never claimed any states don't matter).  Nothing to do with  the diary, the article, or the sub-point we were going back and forth about.

                  I guess I could've called you out on just being a dick rude, but I said conflated instead and suggested that I don't buy that campaign point to begin with.

                  Clearer?

        •  That is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DrJeremy

          what I said in the comment you replied to

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site