There has been a lot of talk about why Hillary Clinton is losing in the delegate race, and just what exactly this means for her campaign.  The simple fact is, she didn't realize what kind of campaign she was running, or more to the point, what type of game she was playing.  Hillary assumed, wrongly it seems, that a presidential campaign was going to be like a game of poker, instead it seems, it's more like a game of cribbage.  If you don't know what poker is, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker, for cribbage go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cribbage.
    To be fair to Hillary, most campaigns have been like somewhat like a game of poker.  All the candidates come in to the table, raise and bluff for months on a single hand (Iowa) then all but two or three players are left at the table.  From there, the front runner raises a lot, bluffs a little, and destroys his opponents in a couple of hands.  He may lose one or two hands, but he'll win enough to quickly get the nomination.  
    It was like this on the republican side this year and that's why McCain won the nomination so quickly.  In Iowa, Romney put down a large chunk of his money and political capital, then lost all of it to Huckabee, whereas no one else invested much in that game and survived in tact.  Then in new Hampshire, McCain won the hand, gaining a large chunk of political capital (and money) at the expense of Romney and to a lesser extent Huckabee.  From there, while McCain lost a hand or two, (Michigan, Maine, Nevada) the respective pots for those states were so little that it didn't matter.  He won all of the chips in south Carolina, Florida, and then won enough hands in super Tuesday thanks to the winner take all rules to secure the nomination.
    This is the strategy Hillary had been using, win new Hampshire, possibly Iowa, then win enough hands on Super Tuesday to secure the nomination.  Unfortunately for her, as she played her cards, she quickly realized that due to the rules of the democrats, she was playing cribbage, not poker.  
    Cribbage is quite similar to poker in the sense that pairs, and runs are relevant, but unlike poker, it is not winner take all, even if you lose a hand, your not at that much of a disadvantage unless you lose big.  In cribbage, each player gets plays two rounds, a round of pegging, and a round of counting cards.  The pegging is where players put down their cards, and try to earn points by getting runs, pairs and fifteens.  Each round in pegging goes up until the cards add up to 31, or get close to 31 where no player can put down a card without going over 31.  This is done until both players use up their cards.  
    This is quite similar to the democratic system of super delegates, points racked up outside of primaries or caucuses, depending on luck, strategy and  cards.  The second round, after pegging is where you count out fifteens, pairs, runs, flushes, and knobs to get points.  In this case, points are the same as delegates, and this round is equivalent to the primaries and caucuses.  Just as both Obama and Clinton are running to get 2,025 delegates, in cribbage you play until one player gets 121 points.  Unlike poker, and many of the republican races, neither the democratic primaries/caucuses, nor the rounds in cribbage are winner take all.  Both players, depending on how they play their hands can come out with similar delegate amounts, regardless of who has the better hand.
    The 20+ primaries and caucuses throughout Super Tuesday were equivalent to 20+ hands of cribbage.  Hillary won big states, getting a lot of delegates, just as you can get a 20, or 24 point hand in cribbage (the largest hand is 29 points) unfortunately for her, due to proportional rules, and close margins, while she won with a 20 point hand in new jersey for example, Obama had a 16 point, a very small net gain.  Despite the large number of delegates in  new jersey, she only gained a net of about 12.  This was true all over the country as she gained few delegates in big states winning with 20, 24 point hands against Obama's 16, 18 point hands.  In the caucuses meanwhile, there weren't many points available, but she lost by such margins that it didn't matter, Obama won in the net.  Minnesota for example was like Obama winning with a 10 point hand to Clinton only having one pair (two points).  Sure there weren't that many delegates up for grabs, but he received such a large net gain of delegates that it was enough to keep him in this.
    Now, with super Tuesday, the cross country, and the Potomac primaries over, Obama has a slight delegate lead, and pledged delegate lead of about 7%.  In cribbage you can still catch up if you fall behind, but it requires one player to get one or two VERY good hands, while the opponent gets no better than a mediocre hand.  In other words if Clinton wants to win, she needs more than wins in Texas, and Ohio, she needs blowouts, while holding her own in Vermont and Rhode island, otherwise that gap will just keep getting larger and larger.  

Where will online poker be in the year to come?  Does MyDD think that it is a doomed industry?  Do the people here believe that it should be banned?  I thought my site www.onlinepokerconsulting.com was a step in the right direction for the industry.  A true sign that 'poker professional' was becoming a respectable career path with coaches out there working to improve the business acumen of these individuals.  No one wants to work in an illegal industry.  What will happen?  Does anyone have insight into the process that is required to fully ban poker?  I know that the banks can no longer process online gaming transactions, what about arresting citizens in their homes for clicking 'bet'? Thank you for your opinions.

The Democrat Party's leadership abilities are constantly being attacked in the media, and rightly so. Whether it's Democrats attacking Republican proposals without having counter-proposals, or the deafening silence when Republicans take an unpopular step (Dems hoping that rusty nail will given them lockjaw come election) leadership is looking weak. Now I'm no Democratic Karl Rove, but I've had a lot of ideas that aren't in the media so they must be fairly original. I've taken a few weeks to put them to paper.

Why hasn't new ideas been discussed much? Maybe they haven't been discussed in the Democratic circles because they are hiding their cards fearful of Republicans stealing the good ones and attacking the rest. In last two disappointing presidential elections there were DAMN FEW great ideas that pointed to Democrat's possessing true leadership. The cards they held couldn't even beat Bush's weak pair of tax cuts and tough talk. That said, rather than waiting till the election to see another Democrat bad poker hand, it's time to pick the hand we should see, even if Republicans get to see our cards.