It's Time For Hillary To Concede

[Nbadan]

There is no way the numbers can work out for her even under the best-case scenarios which just aren't happening...to make things worse, her biggest supporters are cross-over Republicans and too stay in now can only serve to sever feelings within the party, a party she claims to serve - it's time for Hillary to concede....

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter


Of no surprise, of course, is that in making the Sunday talk-show rounds Barack Obama's more prominent supporters called for -- begged for -- Hillary's withdrawal at the crack of sunlight, March 5. Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition," Senator John Kerry said "Hillary Clinton has to win a big victory in both Ohio and Texas ... not just winning a little bit ... she’s got to win a very significant victory." Senator Dick Durbin, on Fox, was a bit more specific, defining Hillary's challenge as the need to score "extraordinary percentages" in all the remaining primaries just to catch up. And by "extraordinary" he meant insurmountable, even fantastical...Then, revealing his and others' extraordinary frustration, Durbin said, simply, "I hope after Tuesday her decision is made on the basis of the unity of the party." ...Adding that "I just think that D-Day is Tuesday," unaligned Gov. Bill Richardson said on "Face the Nation": "The concern that I have is the bickering that took place between those two very fine senators is going on too long." So much for his non-alignment...But, Hillary's supporters say: Of course those guys would spew such unenlightened garbage, given that they're on the wrong side of "What-if?" history. What these Clintonites intentionally ignore, however, is that even their own guys have been out there, conceding the same. From chief Clinton supporter Bill, to past Clinton mouthpiece James Carville, to current co-chief Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, and most recently, the chiefest strategist of them all, Mark Penn, who now barely recalls having even visited the Clinton headquarters -- all have effectively bailed, pre-March 4. It seems they can add.

With no personal financial interest in extending the agony, however, was Hillary the next day, which would be yesterday. Speaking in Houston, she let loose a few words that surely horrified the true party faithful: "I think we’re going to do well tomorrow," she said. Well, that wasn't so bad. Whew. But then it came, the denial, the fantasy, the laughing against deadly mathematical odds: "Then it’s on to Pennsylvania and the states still ahead. I’m just getting warmed up."...One could almost hear Democratic hearts thudding on floors all across the land. She's kidding, right? Tell us she's kidding. Please...And who knows? Maybe she was. There's no sense in demotivating supporters on primary eve, even when those primaries are essentially meaningless. What we do know, however, is that the GOP is praying harder than anyone that she was not, in fact, kidding.

Hardcore Republicans are now her biggest supporters, her most devoted boosters. Echoing the likes of predatory opportunists such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan, Karl Rove also spoke Sunday on Fox for the right-wing "You-go-girl" crowd: "I think it's a mistake for campaign to be calling for her to drop out," he said, with laughably feigned indifference. "It’s up to the delegates at the convention to decide who wins and loses." Them, and snickering GOP strategists, I guess...

Naturally the GOP understands as well as objective Democratic strategists that Hillary's odds of success now stand at near absolute zero. Numbers are numbers, and they're furiously stubborn. You can move them around, shift them sideways and yank them up and down, but they'll still total what they total. God didn't play dice with universal mathematics, and He hasn't exempted Hillary's crunchers

...She's lost. And today is but a manic exercise in party demolition. Mrs. Clinton may indeed still score some victories, but if so they'll remain far short of the needed "extraordinary percentages" to shift the balance of overwhelming power and momentum that is Obama's. It was over yesterday, is over this morning, and will be just as over on the morning of March 5. All Mrs. Clinton can accomplish now is the brutal strafing of party resources and desperately needed unity. That, and the provisioning of John McCain with the best of both worlds: providing him the resources he otherwise lacks to effectively diminish in the electorate's mind the Democratic Party's all-but-officially nominated nominee...Some might say, Well, that's a Democrat for you, always self-serving. But in this case, there's no longer any self or cause to realistically serve. It's just monstrously blind demolition. True, the theater of it all may be enjoyable, but its ultimate consequence might not be.

[boutons_]

Hillary is the key. If she drags the battle into repulsive, negative, personal Rove-ian territory (she will, esp since knows she's losing the delegate count significantly and desperately), Obama will have to follow and counter. Complete ugliness.

but I read one take that said a "good fight" would keep both Dem camps highly energized, and ready to support whoever won, with the Dem turnout overwhelming the Repug turnout.

[PixelPusher]

Perhaps if she can't win, she'll only be too happy to drag Obama down with her, so she can run against McCain in 2012.

[Tike Mailer]

Hillary will win the Nomination, thanks to the Super Delegates.

[Doc Jerome]

Indeed, Hillary Clinton is personally seeing to it that the Democratic Party is destroyed. And if for whatever reason the Dems again never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, I venture to say it (the party) will not recover from this.

Here's a little food for thought when considering Hillary's experience or lack there of.

http://barackthevote2008.com/btvblog/files/200803051151am.php

[Nbadan]

Perhaps if she can't win, she'll only be too happy to drag Obama down with her, so she can run against McCain in 2012.

Huckabee stayed in even though he was mathematically out of it for months, but Huckabee was hardly a threat to McCain, unless McCain stumbled to the finish line....and Huck didn't really attack McCain....given that Hillary was able to hold onto a 8 point lead in Ohio, the Hillary camp has shown that it can have some success with their kitchen sink strategy of attacking Obama, but this strategy can also backfire, as it almost did in Texas with her 3:00 a.m. ad....

[Nbadan]

Hillary will win the Nomination, thanks to the Super Delegates.

What evidence do you have?

[possessed]

Hillary is the key. If she drags the battle into repulsive, negative, personal Rove-ian territory (she will, esp since knows she's losing the delegate count significantly and desperately), Obama will have to follow and counter. Complete ugliness.

McCain can sit back and smile while they do his dirty work for him.

Brilliant.

[Nbadan]

The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:


1) Most of the "Big States" she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain.

2) Of the states she's won so far, the big exception to this rule is Ohio. Ohio is in fact a critical battleground state where Hillary has demonstrated that she has a leg up among lower income whites and older voters. But the polling also shows that in a general election, Barack offsets this advantage in Ohio among young voters and college-educated independents. In a McCain-Clinton match up the later group could gravitate heavily to McCain in Ohio.

In an Ohio general election, Obama's ability to attract independents and mobilize young and minority voters will trump Clinton's advantages among non-college whites -- a group that will break heavily for either Barack or Hillary against the "free trade" McCain.

Just remember, in Ohio right now, "national security" is a job. The economy and trade -- not "national security" -- will almost certainly continue to be the overriding issues for non-college whites in Ohio this November.

3) Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American -- 6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary....

Huffington (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html)

[boutons_]

Obama claims Hillary closed the delegate gap Tuesday by only 4 delegates.

[Nbadan]

Obama is set to unload a superdelegate time-bomb...

Clay Confirms Obama Has 50 New Superdelegates


Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO), Sen. Barack Obama’s Missouri co-chairman and pledged Obama superdelegate, said Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided Democratic superdelegates later this week, according to the Columbia Missourian.

Said Clay: “She (Sen. Clinton) will not make up those numbers. This race is over.”

Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obamas_secret_superdelegates.html)

[atxrocker]

clinton haters run rampant

[Mr. Peabody]

Obama claims Hillary closed the delegate gap Tuesday by only 4 delegates.

Hell, Obama won the delegate race in Texas by four or five. Now the delegate race is even tougher for Clinton.

[Mr. Peabody]

Obama is set to unload a superdelegate time-bomb...

Clay Confirms Obama Has 50 New Superdelegates


Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obamas_secret_superdelegates.html)

The Obama campaign has denied this claim.

[AFBlue]

If 50 Superdelegates do come out for Obama and Hillary continues to see her lead among them shrink, you might see some folks inside the campaign urge her to get out or start thinking about it.

But IMO, those 50 Supers wouldn't be enough for her to back out before Pennsylvania. And when she wins Pennsylvania, it's not like MORE will defect or commit to Obama.

Obama has to pull out these 50 and BEG the Supers to come out for him after he takes Wyoming and Mississippi. If that happens, then I think you see her start to consider dropping out.

Personally though, I think it'll take her getting hit by a freight train to get her out of this race...

[101A]

The Clinton Campaign's post March 4th message is to forget about the delegate count and nominate Hillary because she can win the big states Democrats need in November. That argument simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Here's why:



Huffington (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/clintons-big-state-myt_b_90115.html)Ahhh, but there are TWO other BIG battleground states not represented:

Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Both will vote very similar to Ohio, IMO; and because PA hasn't happened yet, and Michigan's primary is nullified (so far), she doesn't get the benefit of that. Hillary would also cary Florida, if the Latino bias that has been EVERYWHERE else is any indicator.

The Dems, with their apportioned delegates, cancelled primaries (in two BIG states) and "Super" delegates are a complete joke. Were this a general election between Barrack and Hillary; she would have won in a LANDSLIDE!!! It would seem intelligent that you would pick your nominee is at least a similar fashion that they will do battle in November (the Spurs don't play "HORSE" to get into the palyoffs, do they - they play the same games that will be played in the playoffs!).

Not the Dems - they pick the strongest candidate in one type of election to run in a completely different type of (the more important) election!

Obviously logic, and far-sightedness aren't any stronger in their selction process, than they are in their policy choices.

[101A]

Hell, Obama won the delegate race in Texas by four or five. Now the delegate race is even tougher for Clinton.Clinton wins by FOUR or FIVE % points, but Obama gets more delegates???

Fucking Hillarious!

Democrats are stupid.

[Mr. Peabody]

Clinton wins by FOUR or FIVE % points, but Obama gets more delegates???

Fucking Hillarious!

Democrats are stupid.

She got two more delegates in the primary, but Obama received seven more delegates from the caucuses (+5 for Obama).

The funny thing is that, according to Glen Beck, the Texas caucuses were put in place to prevent Jesse Jackson from winning Texas and now they've given Obama the delegate victory.

I do agree that the Demos need to reevaluate the system after this election. No matter which candidate wins, their respective supporters will feel that they were cheated.

[Mr. Peabody]

The Dems, with their apportioned delegates, cancelled primaries (in two BIG states) and "Super" delegates are a complete joke. Were this a general election between Barrack and Hillary; she would have won in a LANDSLIDE!!! It would seem intelligent that you would pick your nominee is at least a similar fashion that they will do battle in November (the Spurs don't play "HORSE" to get into the palyoffs, do they - they play the same games that will be played in the playoffs!).



Just going off on a tangent here - I actually prefer the Demo primary apportioned delegate system to the general election winner take all system and I wish the Demo apportioned system would be adopted for the electoral college.

The reason I say that is that it would make the general election a true national election. The Democratic candidates would have to visit districts in Texas and Republican candidates would have to do the same in Florida. I just remember that in 2004, here in Texas, it felt as if the presidential campaign wasn't taking place in our state. It'd be nice for us to have an opportunity to have both candidates in our state trying to win votes.

[101A]

Just going off on a tangent here - I actually prefer the Demo primary apportioned delegate system to the general election winner take all system and I wish the Demo apportioned system would be adopted for the electoral college.

The reason I say that is that it would make the general election a true national election. The Democratic candidates would have to visit districts in Texas and Republican candidates would have to do the same in Florida. I just remember that in 2004, here in Texas, it felt as if the presidential campaign wasn't taking place in our state. It'd be nice for us to have an opportunity to have both candidates in our state trying to win votes.You WANT national elections? "Flyover" states would become that for the politicians, as well.

I sure as hell don't want urban areas ALONE picking MY president.

[MannyIsGod]

She's going to have to crush to close the delegate gap. Its just NOT going to happen. She's not even going to win every state from here on out much less destroy Obama in each state.

If she's asking the super delegates to overturn the pledged delegate counts then she's asking to ruin the Party and disillusion a lot of people who are enegergized for this election. She's asking to hand it to the republicans.

I've lost a lot of respect for her recently. I never liked her before this race, I was starting to like her a lot more, but now this si ridiculous. She's putting her personal ambitions above everything else.

[Yonivore]

She's going to have to crush to close the delegate gap. Its just NOT going to happen. She's not even going to win every state from here on out much less destroy Obama in each state.

If she's asking the super delegates to overturn the pledged delegate counts then she's asking to ruin the Party and disillusion a lot of people who are enegergized for this election. She's asking to hand it to the republicans.

I've lost a lot of respect for her recently. I never liked her before this race, I was starting to like her a lot more, but now this si ridiculous. She's putting her personal ambitions above everything else.
Welcome to the party, grab a beer and enjoy the show.

[Mr. Peabody]

You WANT national elections? "Flyover" states would become that for the politicians, as well.

I sure as hell don't want urban areas ALONE picking MY president.

No, I'm not advocating for a purely majority wins election. I just think that instead of the winner takes all electoral college system here in Texas, the electoral college votes would be apportioned by the Congressional districts they represent. That way the candidates can't ignore states during the election.

[101A]

She's putting her personal ambitions above everything else.You're going to hold this against a politician?

I thought that was the definition!

[101A]

No, I'm not advocating for a purely majority wins election. I just think that instead of the winner takes all electoral college system here in Texas, the electoral college votes would be apportioned by the Congressional districts they represent. That way the candidates can't ignore states during the election.
Got it.

Doesn't sound bad; gonna think about the downside of that (if there is one).

[101A]

Got it.

Doesn't sound bad; gonna think about the downside of that (if there is one).OOOOOH, I know!!

Majority of Congressional districts are urban nationwide - carry those; win the presidential election. OR; you could end up with some VERY creative Gerrymandering to counteract that.

Also; would each state get two at-large electors (for the senators)?

[Mr. Peabody]

OOOOOH, I know!!

Majority of Congressional districts are urban nationwide - carry those; win the presidential election. OR; you could end up with some VERY creative Gerrymandering to counteract that.

Also; would each state get two at-large electors (for the senators)?

Well, the majority of the population is located in urban areas, so as the system stands now, you just have to focus on urban areas. My problem with the system now is that in a hyper blue (California) or hyper red (Texas) states, the candidates don't have to put in as many resources or address as many of our concerns as they do in true swings states.

However, if we award electoral college votes based on district, the Republican candidate will have to fight for votes in the Valley and the Democratic candidate will have to fight for votes in certain areas of California. I just think it is a way of making sure that neither party takes our states for granted.

[101A]

Well, the majority of the population is located in urban areas, so as the system stands now, you just have to focus on urban areas. My problem with the system now is that in a hyper blue (California) or hyper red (Texas) states, the candidates don't have to put in as many resources or address as many of our concerns as they do in true swings states.

However, if we award electoral college votes based on district, the Republican candidate will have to fight for votes in the Valley and the Democratic candidate will have to fight for votes in certain areas of California. I just think it is a way of making sure that neither party takes our states for granted.Fair enough; although I would argue there are enough states where the "rural" is important enough, that they cannot be ignored. Midwest, primarily. Maybe it's there inordinate influence over the primaries that give them the influence, however.

You're right about Texas (and California) being either conceded, or taken for granted, however. Becauses of their isubstantial representation in Congress, they never get overlooked in terms of national agenda.

[101A]

(on a side note:
primaries NOT= general election

so this conjecture on how well obama/clinton might do in the general, based on primary results, not good.)You think that Hillary being stronger in Ohio than Obama is meaningless in the general election?

O.K.

[Yonivore]

I think you're both missing the fundamental purpose of the Constitutional intent behind the manner in which the Executive is selected.

The "people" were never intended to elect their president. The president is the Chief Executive of the federal government and was supposed to be picked by an electoral college populated by delegates selected in any manner the various states saw fit.

So, while the states could collectively change the manner in which they choose their electors, I wouldn't hold my breath for a constitutional amendment that would take that power away from the states -- even if many of them choose, themselves, to allow popular and proportional selection of the electors through statewide elections.

The U.S. House of Representatives is your representative at the federal level and, until the 17th amendment, was the only person the general public had a constitutional right to select. The Senate was originally intended to be populated by persons, selected by the states, so that state interests would be guarded at the federal level. That got screwed up by the 17th amendment...a mistake the States aren't like to repeat.

The President was only ever intended to be an administrator of that government.

Oh well...

[Mr. Peabody]

I think you're both missing the fundamental purpose of the Constitutional intent behind the manner in which the Executive is selected.

The "people" were never intended to elect their president. The president is the Chief Executive of the federal government and was supposed to be picked by an electoral college populated by delegates selected in any manner the various states saw fit.

So, while the states could collectively change the manner in which they choose their electors, I wouldn't hold my breath for a constitutional amendment that would take that power away from the states -- even if many of them choose, themselves, to allow popular and proportional selection of the electors through statewide elections.



Again, I'm not arguing for a direct election, just apportionment of electors. And I may be mistaken, but don't some states do that already? I just think it'd be nice if Texas and other states adopted that system as well.

[Yonivore]

Again, I'm not arguing for a direct election, just apportionment of electors. And I may be mistaken, but don't some states do that already? I just think it'd be nice if Texas and other states adopted that system as well.
I understand. You're arguing for a national requirement for how the electors are apportioned. This would require either convincing 50 states to change the way they pick their electors so that they all do it the same way or to amend the constitution to require the states to pick them that way.

Not going to happen. It cedes too much power to the federal government.

The biggest mistake the states have made in the last two hundred plus years is giving away the power to pick their Senators. They're not likely to do the same with the executive.

[Mr. Peabody]

I understand. You're arguing for a national requirement for how the electors are apportioned. This would require either convincing 50 states to change the way they pick their electors so that they all do it the same way or to amend the constitution to require the states to pick them that way.

Not going to happen. It cedes too much power to the federal government.

The biggest mistake the states have made in the last two hundred plus years is giving away the power to pick their Senators. They're not likely to do the same with the executive.

No, I agree. Plus, whoever is in power at the time (Demo or Repub) will not want to change the system that put them into power, which is why no matter how much we Demos bitch about the current primary system, it won't change.

[Yonivore]

No, I agree. Plus, whoever is in power at the time (Demo or Repub) will not want to change the system that put them into power, which is why no matter how much we Demos bitch about the current primary system, it won't change.
The Demos won't bitch when the system works to their favor.

But, we're talking apples and oranges now; the primary system is something entirely different than the electoral system. You won't find political parties mentioned in the constitution...and, I could care less (outside of my own affiliated party) how the partisans pick their candidate.

[Evan]

clinton haters run rampant

Perhaps there is a reason why?

[Wild Cobra]

She's putting her personal ambitions above everything else.
Are you finally realizing this? Those of us to the right have known that for several years. She has always operated that way, including her husband.



However, if we award electoral college votes based on district, the Republican candidate will have to fight for votes in the Valley and the Democratic candidate will have to fight for votes in certain areas of California. I just think it is a way of making sure that neither party takes our states for granted.
To my understanding, that is exactly why such a system was developed. This nation is a republic, not a democracy. No democracy has lasted over 200 years.

[Nbadan]

Looks like DNC chairman Howard Dean isn't in too much of a hurry to let Florida and Michigan vote again...


wvEIS-WGQVA

[Nbadan]

...and Dean says FL, MI delegates won't be seated without a new primary


xmz1TXVIIdU

[Yonivore]

I heard somewhere, and you Demophiles can correct me but, without Michigan and Florida, Obama needs to win 77% of the remaining delegates to take the nomination and Hillary needs to win 97% of the remaining delegates. so, if Obama get 4% more and Hillary gets 24% more (very likely for both of them), this shindig doesn't get decided until the Convention. Right?

Somebody help me out here...

[Yonivore]

And speaking of conventions...

Ever notice how suicidal the left-o-sphere is? No sooner did Nancy Pelosi become speaker than Cindy Sheehan was running against her. Now there is a group that wants to turn the Democratic National Convention next year into Chicago 1968. Great strategy: Let’s turn Hillary into Hubert Humphrey.

This is so bizarre that I wonder if Recreate ‘68 (http://www.recreate68.org/) isn’t some sort of parody. Its mission statement:


Welcome to the “Re-create 68″ website, your virtual activists’ Convergence Center for the Denver Democratic National Convention of 2008. This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party.

R-68 agrees with the proposition, POTESTAS IN POPULO, “all power comes from the people.” What stands between the people and power are the party machines. The parties were devised as a means to represent the people. Today they represent nobody, not even party members, but only party bureaucracy. The people have been left without appropriate institutions for their representation. We intend to create those institutes!

Join us in the streets of Denver as we resist a two-party system that allows imperialism and racism to continue unrestrained.
Grassroots? Remove the G and the R.

Sadly, I have no address for Republicans to send contributions to these loons.

[Mr. Peabody]

I heard somewhere, and you Demophiles can correct me but, without Michigan and Florida, Obama needs to win 77% of the remaining delegates to take the nomination and Hillary needs to win 97% of the remaining delegates. so, if Obama get 4% more and Hillary gets 24% more (very likely for both of them), this shindig doesn't get decided until the Convention. Right?

Somebody help me out here...

The percentages are the percentages of "pledged" delegates they would have to win to secure the nomination prior to the convention. That number does not factor in the superdelegates. It could be the case that by the time the convention rolls around, one candidate has reached 2,025 delegates by combining pledged delegates and superdelegates.

Here's an explanation of where it stands as of now -



The math has been simplified. ABC News’ delegate count has Obama with 1,566 (a 109 lead despite Mrs. Clinton’s Tuesday win) and Clinton with 1,457. And with 12 contests to go, the democrats are left with 611 more pledged delegates to grab in, Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico.

Now, if a candidate wants to avoid the superdelegate contest in August, he or she needs 2,025 to claim the democratic party’s nomination, but neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama can reach the required number without the votes from the superdelegates.

getting the math right

The math from ABC’s Political Unit’s delegate calculator further predicts that to secure the nomination before the convention, Obama would need to win 75 percent of the remaining pledged delegates and Clinton would need to win 93 percent of them, a tough job indeed if not outrightly impossible.

This means that it all comes down to the superdelegate vote to be decided at the Democratic convention. A possible Democratic convention that officials want to avoid due to the worry that there could be a general discontent if the candidate with fewer elected delegates gets chosen. The 1968 Chicago convention, it seems, has a role to play in this worry.

preventing the super vote

This superdelegate race could just be prevented. That is, if the two candidates recompete for Florida and Michigan — the two states had their primaries results cancelled due to non adherence to party rules – with a combined number of 366 delegates.

But should the unwanted superdelegate vote take place, the general question will be; how are the candidates faring on the grounds of superdelegates? Have any superdelegates pledged their support for any of the two?

To begin with, there are about 800 superdelegates recorded by the democrats. Clinton so far has a lead over Obama in the superdelegate count. In conclusion, the remaining questions cannot be answered, simply because they are not forced to support the leading candidate at the convention and also even if some superdelegates favour one candidate now, they reserve the right to change their minds in the end.

[Holt's Cat]

What provision in the Democratic party primary process binds the "pledged" delegates to vote for a particular candidate at the convention? If I am not mistaken, there is none.

[Yonivore]

The percentages are the percentages of "pledged" delegates they would have to win to secure the nomination prior to the convention. That number does not factor in the superdelegates. It could be the case that by the time the convention rolls around, one candidate has reached 2,025 delegates by combining pledged delegates and superdelegates.

Here's an explanation of where it stands as of now -
As long as it goes to the convention, that's all I care about. Life would be perfect if that crazy "Re-create '68" crowd then turned the convention into a vivid reminder of what the Democrats were in 1968.

God Bless America and the Democratic nominating system.

[Holt's Cat]

How about this scenario:

New primaries are held and Hillary takes Michigan and Florida.
She wins Pennsylvania.
She's still short in the pledged delegate count but the margin is under 50.
She makes the case that she's won every big state primary or caucus save for Illinois and is more electable in the general election.
She calls on the superdelegates plus any pledged Obama delegates willing to switch to vote for her at the convention.

?

Not only could I see that as a possibility, I think that's her strategy. The Clintons aren't going to walk away from this now that things are a little messy. That's not exactly their M.O. Messiness breeds opportunity for them.

[Nbadan]

How about this scenario:

New primaries are held and Hillary takes Michigan and Florida.
She wins Pennsylvania.
She's still short in the pledged delegate count but the margin is under 50.
She makes the case that she's won every big state primary or caucus save for Illinois and is more electable in the general election.
She calls on the superdelegates plus any pledged Obama delegates willing to switch to vote for her at the convention.

?

Not only could I see that as a possibility, I think that's her strategy. The Clintons aren't going to walk away from this now that things are a little messy. That's not exactly their M.O. Messiness breeds opportunity for them.

That's a possible scenario but conventional thinking is that more superdelegates will jump on the Obama bandwagon as he begins winning contests that are coming up, it's just like basketball, superdelegates love a winner and when it becomes more apparent that he will win the nomination they will jump on board....

[Holt's Cat]

That's a possible scenario but conventional thinking is that more superdelegates will jump on the Obama bandwagon as he begins winning contests that are coming up, it's just like basketball, superdelegates love a winner and when it becomes more apparent that he will win the nomination they will jump on board....

So he wins Wyoming and Mississippi. She just won Texas and Ohio. Out of those four, which is most important for a Democratic candidate come November?

[Extra Stout]

So he wins Wyoming and Mississippi. She just won Texas and Ohio. Out of those four, which is most important for a Democratic candidate come November?
That's always struck me as a specious argument (assuming you're referring to Ohio or any other swing state). Just because one candidate wins the primary does not mean the other candidate would be doomed in the general. You have to show some evidence that the voters who decided the election for Clinton would either vote McCain or stay home if Obama were the nominee.

[Holt's Cat]

That's always struck me as a specious argument (assuming you're referring to Ohio or any other swing state). Just because one candidate wins the primary does not mean the other candidate would be doomed in the general. You have to show some evidence that the voters who decided the election for Clinton would either vote McCain or stay home if Obama were the nominee.

Do you think those people who turned out for Clinton would do so for Obama? Ohio's like Alabama between Cleveland and Cincinnati, without the black folks.

[Nbadan]

So he wins Wyoming and Mississippi. She just won Texas and Ohio. Out of those four, which is most important for a Democratic candidate come November?


I think 15 - 3 in the last 18 would be more important....why should the big states have higher priority?

[Holt's Cat]

I think 15 - 3 in the last 18 would be more important....why should the big states have higher priority?

Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania are rather important for winning in the general election. Certainly more important than the notion that being able to win a caucus in Wyoming, Idaho, or Utah proves much.

[Holt's Cat]

Just take the '04 Electoral College results and flip either Florida or Ohio into the Demo column:

http://opinionjournal.com/ecc/calculator.htm

[101A]

Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania are rather important for winning in the general election. Certainly more important than the notion that being able to win a caucus in Wyoming, Idaho, or Utah proves much.Utah, Obama. THAT'S important.

[Nbadan]

Looks like Hillary has conceded...


D0rSeI0nhjU

[Holt's Cat]

Looks like Hillary has conceded...


D0rSeI0nhjU

Meanwhile, SNL...

[Nbadan]

Back in reality..


New survey data demonstrates in detail why Clinton's "big state" primary wins mean nothing when it comes to victory in the general election.

SurveyUSA has just released state-by-state results of a 30,000 respondent nation wide survey comparing Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's chances against John McCain.

Bottom line: this data shows that Obama has the best chance to defeat McCain. In the simulated match-ups he beats McCain 280 to 258 electoral votes nationwide, and is very close in several additional key states that could significantly boost his margin of victory.

Clinton beats McCain by 276 to 262 nationwide. But her margins in several key states are much thinner than Obama's and on balance, Obama substantially increases the number of states in play.

A couple of key results:

* Contrary to the "only Clinton can win big states" myth, Obama does exactly as well in Ohio against McCain as does Clinton. Each currently wins the state by 50% to 40%.

* Even though Obama lost the primary in California to Clinton, he polls 1% stronger in the general election survey than Clinton does against McCain.

* Obama wins nine states in the simulation that Hillary loses: Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Iowa, North Dakota, New Hampshire. He also wins several electoral votes from Nebraska, which allocates delegates by congressional district.

* Hillary wins five states in the simulation that Obama loses: West Virginia, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida. But three of these five are heavily in play. In New Jersey he loses to McCain by less than one point in the poll. And in Florida, Obama polls within the margin of error (of four percentage points), losing the simulation 47% to 45%. The simulation shows him losing to McCain in Pennsylvania by 42% to 47%. Hillary wins 47% to 46% for McCain. But remember that Hillary is very well known in Pennsylvania and Obama is just beginning to campaign there.

* Clinton actually loses the big state of Michigan in the simulation. Obama wins.

* Hillary's performance in many key states is much weaker than Obama's. In Colorado, Obama polls eight points stronger than Clinton. He polls nine points stronger in Iowa, five points stronger in New Hampshire, eight in Washington, six in Oregon, seven in Virginia, 12 in Nebraska, three in New Mexico.

* And, of course, the survey does not reflect either the fact that Obama does better as people get to know him, or that his inspirational style expands the electorate through the participation by brand new motivated voters.

* In fact, If Obama overcame small deficits in Florida and New Jersey he would clobber McCain 322 to 216 electoral votes.

If the Clinton campaign is going to convince "superdelegates" to swing her way, these survey results show that they're going to have to come up with rationale other than "electability."

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-clinton-big-state-m_b_90434.html)[B]

[Holt's Cat]

Sure, she's more likely to flip New Mexico, Arkansas, and West Virginia. Also are not Florida and Pennsylvania "big states"?

[boutons_]

I've read nothing anywhere that shows Hillary has a fucking chance of winning.

=================


The Clinton "Big State" Myth Volume #2:

New State-by-State Data Confirms that Obama Remains the Strongest Candidate in November

Robert Creamer
Posted March 7, 2008 | 01:43 PM (EST)


New survey data demonstrates in detail why Clinton's "big state" primary wins mean nothing when it comes to victory in the general election.

SurveyUSA has just released state-by-state results of a 30,000 respondent nation wide survey comparing Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's chances against John McCain.

Bottom line: this data shows that Obama has the best chance to defeat McCain. In the simulated match-ups he beats McCain 280 to 258 electoral votes nationwide, and is very close in several additional key states that could significantly boost his margin of victory.

Clinton beats McCain by 276 to 262 nationwide. But her margins in several key states are much thinner than Obama's and on balance, Obama substantially increases the number of states in play.

A couple of key results:

* Contrary to the "only Clinton can win big states" myth, Obama does exactly as well in Ohio against McCain as does Clinton. Each currently wins the state by 50% to 40%.

* Even though Obama lost the primary in California to Clinton, he polls 1% stronger in the general election survey than Clinton does against McCain.

* Obama wins nine states in the simulation that Hillary loses: Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Iowa, North Dakota, New Hampshire. He also wins several electoral votes from Nebraska, which allocates delegates by congressional district.

* Hillary wins five states in the simulation that Obama loses: West Virginia, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida. But three of these five are heavily in play. In New Jersey he loses to McCain by less than one point in the poll. And in Florida, Obama polls within the margin of error (of four percentage points), losing the simulation 47% to 45%. The simulation shows him losing to McCain in Pennsylvania by 42% to 47%. Hillary wins 47% to 46% for McCain. But remember that Hillary is very well known in Pennsylvania and Obama is just beginning to campaign there.

* Clinton actually loses the big state of Michigan in the simulation. Obama wins.

* Hillary's performance in many key states is much weaker than Obama's. In Colorado, Obama polls eight points stronger than Clinton. He polls nine points stronger in Iowa, five points stronger in New Hampshire, eight in Washington, six in Oregon, seven in Virginia, 12 in Nebraska, three in New Mexico.

* And, of course, the survey does not reflect either the fact that Obama does better as people get to know him, or that his inspirational style expands the electorate through the participation by brand new motivated voters.

* In fact, If Obama overcame small deficits in Florida and New Jersey he would clobber McCain 322 to 216 electoral votes.

If the Clinton campaign is going to convince "superdelegates" to swing her way, these survey results show that they're going to have to come up with rationale other than "electability."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-clinton-big-state-m_b_90434.html?view=print

[Holt's Cat]

primary election results mean nothing in relation to the general


Only that a particular candidate is better able to motivate particular parts of the base to show up and vote in the general. Of course it matters.