So Goes Portland So Goes the Nation

I don't know how to call Oregon. I've said that I think this has become a racial election. If that's true Hillary will do surprisingly well; but it's also possible it's become a fascistic election, in which case Obama's support will be overwhelming.

Oregon is half conservative and half liberal, but only the liberal half will be voting Democrat. Liberals have an inclination towards the strong man, Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe come to mind. Obama personally is a weak fish, but he certainly has a nice contempt for the democratic process and for all those who don't support him. Who knows how well that might appeal to Portland?

I'll stick with Hilllary by two points, because a white response to black racialism would be wholesome, and it might happen; but then there is that extraordinarily unnerving 75,000 soul rally Obama had just this weekend, of the brain dead, the committed, the violent. These are extraordinarily dangerous people, in that their contempt for opposition is absolute --any means to any end. Such people in any society tend to be in the minority, simply because such violence of conviction requires an absorption most people don't have time for, just because they're too busy being involved in their own private life...

But then this is just an election. Just one primary. It's easy to just send in a ballot, just like your vocal neighbors... But then it's also very easy just to send in a ballot the opposite of your neighbors, just because you're sick of them being such intemperate jerks.

We'll see.

------------------
A word on the possibility that Obama may claim victory tonight in Iowa in terms of having secured a majority of pledged delegates. As it's expressed in the New York Times:

The results from the Kentucky and Oregon primaries on Tuesday will almost certainly allow Mr. Obama to reach a threshold that his campaign has long sought to establish as the critical measure of the will of the party: winning a majority of the delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses. (emphasis mine)

And as countered by Michael Barone:

Obama is not likely to have enough superdelegates lined up by next Tuesday night. As this is written, RealClearpolitics.com has Obama at 1,891 delegates. Current polling gives him 58 percent of the two-candidate vote in Oregon and 34 percent of the two-candidate vote in Kentucky. That should give him, under the proportional representation rules, about 17 delegates in Kentucky and about 30 in Oregon. That puts him at 1,938.

The number needed to declare a majority, and that's only by totally disenfranchising both Michigan and Florida, is 2,025. To get to that number he would need superdelegates. Superdelegates are not elected in primaries or caucuses, thus to suggest that he's gotten to 2,025 is to mislead; and anyway, the expressed will of the superdelegate has no legal standing, since at anytime they can change their mind. Their votes can only be determinative when cast at the convention.

Note: The best article I've found on the complexities of the Democrat math, both in counting the delegates and determining the popular vote.

Note once again: I finally understand what's being argued. By the end of tonight Obama will have a majority of the delegates that are to be selected through primaries and caucuses, but not the number needed for the nomination, which is dependent on the superdelegates; neither candidate having the possibility of gaining that number through the vote. I've always understood that to be the case. Why did I misunderstand that tonight Obama would be claiming the number needed for nomination? I would have to review what I've read, but I have an idea there's been some word play, such that "pledged delegates" were conflated with the delegates to be selected by the vote tonight, suggesting he had won a majority through the electorial process, and leaving out mention that his majority depended on the superdelegates. --Or maybe I just read carlessly and should just scratch this post. --I think I'd better start a new post.