>>I think it partially creates uncertainty. No idea if this side effect is wished for or not. Trying to analyze motives for electronic posts based mostly on posts and partially assumed other reasons is not really a way to come to verifyable "results", so at least I will try to stay away from such, unless it is only for a nice rhetoric point or some quipping about language. Thought experiments are nice (see my fascination with primaries) but there you have ongoing reality check and a definite end point.
>>
>
>I agree it isn't rational behavior. All I'm saying is it's human nature, which is not always rational.

Agreed - but at least I will actively try to curb such tendencies.


>(Who in their right mind would want to be VP to Hillary anyway, when she is married to a hands on ex-President? You would be one step above dogcatcher).

Anybody hoping for the typically American "Presidents Illness" contacted often from flying lead. No data on how prone women are for that, but Hil ?

>they make me mad! Even in a losing position they never get over their haughtiness.

They try to keep alive and hope for some trouble in the Obama camp at nearly random test shots - at the moment he seems like a flop eared Reagan encore - a bit darker and younger, but similarly non-adhesive and disarmingly charming. They did survive February, but TX went against their hopes. I am quite sure there will be some statistics showing the number of actual votes for her shortly before convention (if she is still alive after PA), as that should be more in her favor, as I guess typically less populated states are given more delegates per voter. This way superdelegates in her favor would "represent" this popular vote. And that CAN include FL and MI <bg>. Haven't checked on it yet.

regards

thomas