By Big Tent Democrat
Speaking for me only
I found this passage from Jon Chait amusing:
The spin now is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates' hands" (Los Angeles Times). These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small. . . .
(Emphasis supplied.) Um, noooo. A lead can be large but surmountable and it can be small but insurmountable. An insurmountable lead is not, by definition, large, in my understanding of the English language (admittedly my second language.) And when a contest is to reach a certain number of delegates, the only MATHEMATICALLY insurmountable advantage is when one of the candidates reaches the magic number (2025 or 2214 total delegates being the one ones that matter here, not the majority of the pledged delegates) More . . .
|< Hillary Says Bush Should Boycott Olympic Ceremony | Hillary And The Trina Bachtel Story: Part II >|