Not to be too much of a grammer nazi, but that would be whoever wins, not whomever. "Whom" is only used when the person referred to is a direct object -- the person to whom she gave it; whom did they elect? "Who" is used whenever the person referred to is at least partly a subject -- they gave the nomination to the person who could win. You would never ask: Whom won the election? Would you?
Posted by kaleidescope at February 3, 2008 11:12 AMHaving lived in CA for over 40 years, my inclination is that the state will go for Hillary. First, Bill Clinton carried CA in every election, and he's liked. Second, CA is not as progressive as some would have it. The coastal region is more progressive than the central region, but even within the coastal region, the places that are very liberal are San Francisco, Marin County (just north of SF) and LA. Alameda County (west of SF) has pockets of extreme liberals, like Berkeley. We sometimes call Berkeley, the Peoples Republic of Berkeley because it's more liberal than SF. So here is my take: Democrats in the very liberal areas (LA, Marin, SF) will tilt to Obama, but I would say it will be close, not a rout in those areas. Some cities, like Oakland and Richmond with a heavy black voting block, will go for Obama too. The rest of the state will go for Hillary significantly. I think Hillary will take CA 52 percent, Obama 45 percent and the rest of the Democratic vote will go to Edwards and other candidates who are out of the race. People have been voting via mail for weeks now, and Edwards will receive many of those votes, plus some voters will vote their preference for other candidates even if there is no chance of their winning the nomination. The numbers will be similar to FL.
Posted by Prabhata at February 3, 2008 11:33 AMHeh, didn't know you were an Oregonian as well Turkana... cool!
Since losing Edwards, I've been looking for something to look forward to in this race and I may have found it the Oregon primary now having an outside chance at playing a role in the primary process.
Posted by simp at February 3, 2008 11:56 AMif you don't want to be a show-offy grammar Nazi, then please resist the temptation. It's kind of obnoxious.
Posted by at February 3, 2008 12:45 PMLove the grammar lesson - thanks kaleidescope. I like the tight race and the fact that my vote in Texas might help select the candidate.
Posted by jmac at February 3, 2008 12:56 PMYeah, the who/whom thing gets me as well; almost as bad as the their/there/they're one. It's not a big thing, but when you're reading along and one of those mistakes pop up, there's a pause where there shouldn't be one.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2008 01:08 PMBut, but, but Huffington says Obama is surging. They're an unbiased source, right?
Posted by But! at February 3, 2008 01:43 PMAnd when people say, "could care less" when they really mean, "couldn't care less"...turns my brain around.
Posted by Sharon at February 3, 2008 01:47 PMAs long as we're on grammar, I wish everyone (not necessarily here, though I've seen it in comments, but *everywhere* I read), would learn to spell LOSE. It's LOSE, not LOOSE! Whew, glad I got that off my chest.
So, is it an advantage or disadvantage for our primary to drag on, assuming the republican's doesn't. Does it hurt (presumably) McCain not to able to specify whoM he's running against? Does it hurt the dems to have this drag on with the likely ugliness that goes with it, despite some nice debates?
Posted by CG at February 3, 2008 01:48 PMYou might be right that it hurts the Dems to drag on, but the exposure to the candidates can't be all bad. Most people are not political and don't even know anything about the candidates until the last debate before the general election or one ad or media clip they see before the election. That's not going to be the case this year.
Posted by jmac at February 3, 2008 02:14 PMLooking at headlines 99.9% in favor of Obama, I believe I am witnessing the greatest national lynching in my political life which spans back to JFK's nomination... I am sick to my stomach at what is going on. The tragedy unfolding which can be seen by visiting any newspaper in the country whether it's the LATime's ridiculous story about push polling based on a single witness testimony (and an unreturned email) or this abc story http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448&page=1 about Clinton garnishing wages. That story is merely based on the fact that Stephanopolous asked her about garnishing wages. Has there ever been anything else quite like it? I think not. This, recall, is the same media that put the AWOL, drunk driving, failed businessman, inarticulate, angry and aggressive Chimp in the most powerful office in the world and gave him free rein to slaughter as many Muslims as he could get away with.
Posted by fenner at February 3, 2008 03:00 PMI would be beyond shocked if my vote in the Oregon primary would make a difference to this contest. As unprecedented as that would be, I would almost rather have the whole thing decided on Tuesday so we can get on with the McCain bashing!
Whoever wins California wins it, and whomever loses it loses it.
Bull - Cali awards delegates proportional to vote, yes?
This is going to continue after Tuesday, and it's now a question of delegates.
That's better - for a moment there, you looked like the handcar speeding along the hairpin turn on two wheels.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 3, 2008 06:14 PMAs idiosynchronic said, winning may NOT be winning. The California Dem. party has a truly bizarre way of allocating delegates by district, so esp. in a close race, one candidate could win the popular vote and another the delegates (ala Nevada).
I think some of the other Super Tuesday states also have proportional delegates.
The last thing we need, if this goes to the convention, is for the Dem. nominee to win the most delegates while losing the popular vote. Here's praying it does NOT happen, esp. if Obama loses the delegates but wins the popular. Many of his supporters are already on record as planning to vote Republican if Hillary wins. If she wins by delegates but not by votes, they will go ballistic (as if they are not already going ballistic).
Posted by LC at February 3, 2008 06:30 PMI'm confused. So is it "Cheney and the chimp, WHO are complete ass holes", or "WHOM are complete ass holes?
Posted by TIKI AL at February 3, 2008 09:55 PM