Reply With Quote
This Hussein crap is so stupid ray.
Grow the up, old dude.
This Hussein crap is so stupid ray.
Grow the up, old dude.
There's a more up to date graph.
I was wrong about about her being negative since Super Tuesday. It would appear that she's gained SD's with Obama at almost a 1:1 ratio in mid April. Still not nearly enough for her. She can't trade them evenly with him, she needs to win them at over a 2:1 ratio in order to have a shot. And thats not going to happen because Obama is going to destroy her in North Carolina (and grow his pledged delegate lead while doing that too).
Let me break it down to you like this, If Clinton wins EVERY SINGLE ELECTION from here on out by a 60:40 margin - she'd be behind by 70 pledged delegates.
At that point, she'd need 222 of the remaining 304 Super Delegates to win.
#1 - There's no way in she's winning 1 election from here on out by that margin much less all. She's going to lose some of those elections.
#2 - No way in she's getting 222 of the remaining 304 SDs when at the climax of her campain she's struggling to maintain a 1:1 ratio.
http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
Go do the math yourself. I don't make these things up.
You are correct that she cannot catch Obama in the delegate count. But is is STILL conceivable that the super delegates could give her the nomination.
I'm not saying it'll happen but it COULD and that is a FACT.
But I agree that it is a long shot.
And it is a FACT that the nomination process is NOT over.
I agree with all of this but....officially the nomination process is NOT over.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Its over, Joe. If you're saying its not over as a technicality well no but for all intents and purposes this ship has sailed and it did so a long time ago.
I just showed you how INCONCEIVABLE it was for her to get the nessecary Super Delegates in Clinton's wet dream of a scenario and there is no way that scenario plays out. When you make more realistic, she needs to win them at a nearly 4:1 clip!!! I didn't even think it was that bad till I looked at the numbers myself today.
There's a reason that everyone in the blogosphere has said this was over for over the past month. And thats because it is.
No but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the intent behind Smeagol's question. he wasn't asking of the nomination process was over, he was asking if Clinton had a realistic shot at winning the nomination.
She does not.
I know what conceivable means and yeah, technically it isn't over and that is the point I was making.
Like I said I know she has little or no chance of winning the nomination but if you think the Clinton's don't have other game plans you are kidding yourself. If it was just about the delegates for fHillary she would have already dropped out. I'm sure she can do the math herself too.
Yeah, I'm sure she has some super secret game plan and is just waiting to bust it out to pull out the miracle come from behind wind at the last second.
Joe, she's had game plans the entire way. Thats what a campaign is. The thing is, they're LOSING game plans or else she'd actually be ahead in the delegates. Whether or not she cares about the delegates is irrelevant. Barak is going to get them and there's pretty much nothing she can do (apparently) to stop it.
She's lost, just because she hasn't acknowledged it and just because the media hasn't held her accountable doesn't change the reality of the delegate math one bit.
Because of the bickering among candidates.
Because of many Democrats (some of which post on this board) saying that they will not vote Obama if Hillary wins and vice versa.
Because some idiots liberals call Hillary, Hitlary.
Can you imagine Republicans saying that they will not vote McCain because they wanted Romney to win?
Even the most conservative Republicans will vote for McCain, even though they probably don’t agree with him on a number of issues.
But some stupid democrats (dan, GGA, peewee, etc) will not vote if “their” candidate does not win the nomination.
That amigo, is stupidity at it’s best.
Bickering? Its called politics dude. No one can make Clinton drop out if she doesn't want to regardless of whether or not the race is over. I don't see how the political process being played out means the Democrats should lose. What would you have them do, force her out? That would be horrible and by far the worse option. Democrats undercutting democracy WOULD be a reason for them to lose in the fall.
Actions speak louder than words. Republicans say the same thing btw. Recent NYT article with polls shows this isn't true on a large scale anyway.Because of many Democrats (some of which post on this board) saying that they will not vote Obama if Hillary wins and vice versa.
This is just ridiculous. So what?Because some idiots liberals call Hillary, Hitlary.
Uh, they did! It was huge all over republican talk radio. Did you not here when they said Hilary was more conservative? Dude, if you honestly plan to make statements like this you really should inform yourself more about the subject.Can you imagine Republicans saying that they will not vote McCain because they wanted Romney to win?
Yeah? Same thing with Democrats.Even the most conservative Republicans will vote for McCain, even though they probably don’t agree with him on a number of issues.
You make the same incorrect point many times. Its wrong and misinformed. Not trying to be a , just the truth.But some stupid democrats (dan, GGA, peewee, etc) will not vote if “their” candidate does not win the nomination.
That amigo, is stupidity at it’s best.
"In Obama, there is a very real danger that the party sends to the general election another George McGovern, who ultimately was viewed as the quintessential affluent, educated, urban North-Eastern uber-liberal who failed to connect with the working class. He lost the 1972 election to Richard Nixon in a landslide, with a 23.2 percentage points margin of victory in the popular vote, the 4th largest such margin in Presidential election history. McGovern, like Obama, aroused excitement among the youth vote, and ran an effective grass-roots campaign that won him the nomination. But from there he imploded, winning just one state, Massachusetts, in the general election. Many Democrats are starting to worry that Obama, against the GOP's presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain, who is perceived as a moderate independent, may face a similar fate.
And it is precisely McGovern's debacle that gave rise to the party's superdelegate system, a supposed fail-safe against sending another weak candidate to the general election even though voters may have fallen in love with him. It's naive and a mistake to think the Super D's will merely look at the current "math" in the Obama/Clinton race. Call me crazy, but I suspect as we draw closer to the convention, these party officials are going to focus more on true electability than anything else."
Talking points are nice, doesn't change the delegate math though.
You call it "talking points" eventhough the Super Delegate system was put in place for this very scenario?
If you think Rush and other right wing radio hosts bashing McCain, is the same as what is going on between the two democratic camps, it is you who is misinformed.
At the end of the day, all those Republicans that don’t like McCain are going to vote for him. I can assure you of that.
On the other hand, it looks many Democrats will stay home the day of the genera election.
And that is stupid.
So you too think we shouldn't use the man's name.
I was being sarcastic. It is childish for me NOT to be
able to use a person's real name. Maybe others ought
to grow up.
I can't wait for the meltdown that's going to happen at the convention. You think liberals were mad in 2000? That will be nothing compared to this!
And Democrats are right to be worried right now. Their front-runner has been exposed as another "northeastern" (he's not actually from the NE), affluent, academic, educated, super-lib, the likes of which generally get creamed in national elections. You don't need to quote to me the math -- I know the numbers. And the numbers say that neither candidate has enough delegates to win decisively, certainly not enough for the Super-delegates to not get involved.
And if you think that the Clintons are going to let the Super-delegates just give her nomination to this upstart, you don't know the Clintons. It's not over.
And, like I said, I would prepare for the worst in Denver.
What are you basing that off of?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us...in&oref=sloginAccording to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.
Now Don you did a no-no. You called him an elitist
Liberal. Obama doesn't like that, nor do his supporters.
They also don't like that you associate him with the
Rev. Wright. Or call him by his middle name or bring
up any of his "indiscretions".....no.no.no.no. you mustn't
do that. He is a man of change. He is a man of hope.
He is a phony. He is a liar. He is a socialist to the nth
degree. And he cant stand the heat.
This from the gys who call democrats, dimm-o-craps . . .
How old are you again, ray?
Uh, what does the intentions of those who put the Super Delegate system into place have to do with you posting a talking point for the Clinton Camp?
The intentions are irrelevant at this point considering that the Super Delegate system is in place and working right now. Clinton simply isn't getting enough of them to win.
There is no magical Super Delegate day where they all delcare; they declare a little at a time on almost a daily basis and as you can see by the math I've posted in this thread Clinton needs to up her April gains by about 400% in order to have a shot at the nomination.
At the climax of her campaign she's not even coming close to that and its pretty much downhill from this point on. There is no state nearly as monumental as PA left and she's going to lose ground in both Super Delegate totals and Pledged delegate totals from here on out - Especially after and during the NC primary.
She just can't get enough delegates - pledged OR super - to win. No amount of posted talking points is going to change that.
There was a quote a couple of weeks ago where it said approximately 20% of Obama supporters would not vot for Hillary and vice versa.
I'm sure GGA remembers the thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
