so according to BO supporters math then that means HRC and BO tied --- he did NOT win Guam.
Sure. If Texas is a tie.
I thought a win was a win was a win.
No, that's only true when Hillary wins. Or possibly (I hope not) if Obama gets a narrow win in NC. We will soon see.
The difference with Texas is that Hillary supporters always say "Hillary won Texas" when they really mean "Hillary won the primary in Texas."
In Guam, Obama will win the primary (the only election there) and they will tie in delegates. It's a lot more correct to say Obama won Guam than to say Hillary won Texas.
Actually I am an Obama supporter and I DO think it's a tie. If they get the same number of delegates it's a tie. Popular vote means nothing in this primary process, just as it meant nothing for Al Gore in 2000. Those are the rules.
delegates first. If that's a tie, then popular vote metrics come after that when it comes to the technicality of who "won" the state.
In terms of the metrics that matter, Guam will be a tie, though with a distinct advantage to Obama because the Guam superdelegates are actually elected as well, and Obama's superdelegates won.
But after that, if we need to discuss who won Guam, then certainly, Obama carries it (unless something weird happens in Dededo).
The logic holds: after the Nevada caucuses, Obama was projected to win more delegates, so we in the Obama camp claimed a win. In New Hampshire, the delegates were a tie, but Clinton won the popular vote, so Clinton won the state. We're consistent.
Nor did she win New Hampshire.
