More Astute Political Analysis From Ironicus Maximus

It's public service time again here in the marbled halls of IM Central. That means, as frequent reader(s) of this blog will know we're about to describe the bitterness of praying to an absent god for more guns while elite minorities raised on food stamps by single parents galavant around the country bowling for votes, and working class Wellesley alums down shots and beers then go looking for gays to beat up.

That didn't come out right, but let's get back to public service. Seems the democrats are having trouble making up their minds so, as your one stop political analysis center, we're going to provide you with an in depth explication of the two camps' strategies, gleaned from our years of experience not watching Meet The Press and our close contacts with people who actually went to a political rally within the last election cycle, either here, or in Canada. Then we will provide some Delphic Oracle quality prognostication that you can take to the bank--if your bank hasn't closed yet.

First, Senator Clinton: Senator Clinton is behind in popular vote, delegate count and free throw percentage. She has an edge in boilermakers, combat experience and being female. Her strategy is tied to wooing a major swing vote in the democratic party apparatus: the Stupid Delegates...erm..Super Delegates.

Super Delegates are people who, generally though no fault of their own have risen to responsible positions in the party and thus have accumulated prestige, influence, and occasioanlly herpes. These delegates are charged with actually picking the nominee if the regular voters don't get with the program and thus are the key to Clinton's strategy.

Clinton makes the argument that these delegates should throw their support behind her because, while Obama has won more primaries it's only because in the primaries voters are democrats, independents and republicans. Her argument is that she is better suited to win the general election when voters will be democrats, independents and republicans.

Wait. Bad example.

Clinton's real strong point is that since presidential elections are won or lost in the electoral college she's the better candidate because she's won the big states and everyone knows states award their electoral votes based on who gets the majority of votes cast by democrats, independents and republicans in that state and oh heck this isn't working out either.

Crap. Let's try Obama. His strategy is based on the fact that he's ahead and therefore his approach is to stay ahead by getting more votes from democrats, independents and republicans.

Now, when you apply a sophisticated analytical procedure to this strategy it becomes increasing obvious that Obama is placing all his hopes on winning more votes than his opponent.

Now for our prediction: The democratic convention in Denver will be deadlocked for 33 votes after which time exhausted delegates will compromise on Bono.