This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter). Comments here or emails to me at are encouraged... or follow me on Twitter as @abulsme.



Electoral College: Obama weakens in New Hampshire

Based on a new update today on (but of a month old poll) New Hampshire moves from “Weak Obama” to “Leaning Obama”, putting it into play for McCain.

Current Summary:

McCain Best Case – McCain 334, Obama 204
Obama Best Case – Obama 330, McCain 208

And if everybody gets their leans (and Obama gets DC) – McCain 278, Obama 260

Hmmm…. When You Shrink It I Don’t Like It

If I stick with the larger width, I think I’ll also change my CSS to change my minimum width for the whole site. Right now you can resize the site down to the old width needed for the 400 pixel images, and then those images slide under the right column. I don’t like that. Maybe I should have stayed with 400. Buyers regret and all that.

Anyway, I don’t really have time to play with it right now, so maybe I’ll look at it this weekend to increase the minimum width. Only one number to change, but not right now.

A Switcher Plus a New One

One important superdelegate switched his support from Clinton to Obama. Plus one new California superdelegate declared for Obama.

Net change: Obama +2, Clinton -1.

Updated stats:

The new delegate count is: Obama 1732, Clinton 1592, Edwards 19

In percent terms that is: Obama 51.8%, Clinton 47.6%, Edwards 0.6%

2025 delegates are needed to win.

There are 705 delegates yet to be determined.

Obama needs 293 more delegates to win.

Clinton needs 433 more delegates to win.

In percentage terms, that means:

Obama needs 41.6% of the remaining delegates to win. (It was 42.9% before PA.)

Clinton needs 61.4% of the remaining delegates to win. (It was 59.3% before PA.)

(Still no update on the final 2 Democratic delegates from the Pennsylvania primaries, or on ANY of the delegates from the Republican Pennsylvania primaries. Both of those things really annoy me.)

[Edit 3 May 2008 17:06 UTC to fix a typo in Clinton’s percent of remaining delegates, it was 61.4%, not 61.1%.]

From 400 to 500

For a long time on this blog (years) I have kept the maximum width of pictures I post to 400 pixels. And almost always when I put up any image at all, I resized it to either a 400 pixel width or a 200 pixel width.

Earlier today I decided that I would post that video WITHOUT resizing it downward to 400 pixels. I could have easily done so with the embed code. Indeed, in my first draft I had it that way. But it didn’t look as good that way. It was meant to be a larger size. And 400 pixels is pretty small these days, as most people have nice large monitors.

So I’ve decided to make my new maximum a 500 pixel width. And maybe… maybe… I won’t always resize everything to 500 and 250. :-) Always having things the same size made sense way back when my site had a fixed width… but now I have it adjust with the size of the user’s window, so “filling the column” is no longer what is happening anyway in most cases.

Now, this probably will still be problematic to some of my readers. I believe my mom, for instance, likes to keep her monitor set at an 800×600 resolution. A size I can barely even imagine living with any more. She may have to horizontal scroll a bit. I am sorry mom.

I’m not sure. I may end up regretting this decision and reverting. But alternately I think it will give me a bit of breathing room.

We shall see.

If any of my readers actually have a strong opinion on this (which I doubt) let me know, and I may take your opinions into account.

Great Summary

(via Andrew Sullivan)