Hillary Supporters: Please tell me how she will win the nomination

[TeamJordan23]

It is mind-boggling that the media is giving the Clintons a free pass on this issue. What is the Hillary Clinton plan to win the nomination?

There are only three scenerios that can occur. And two of these scenerios will likely rip apart the Democratic party into two. So out of the three options, please tell me which one you think will occur for Hillary to win the nomination:

Option 1 - She wins the most pledged delegates. Many experts have stated that she has to win roughly 65% - 70% of the vote in the the states she is favored to catch up or take the lead in pledged delegates. Realistically, this is very unlikely. In this scenerio, the Super Delegates would push her over to get the nomination.

Option 2 - She gets the nomination because of the Super Delegates despite losing in pledged delegates. I don't see the SuperDelegates going against the will of the people. And if they do, it will likely split up the Democratic party and Hillary would be hurt in the General Election.

Option 3 - Get the delegates from FL and MI seated. This again, will cause an uproar within the party because she signed off to this agreement. I don't see this scenerio really playing itself out because the DNC is so against the idea of it. Again, if the seating of FL and MI would change thre outcome of the pledged delegate winner, it would likely split the Dem party into two.

So please tell me how you think she will win. If there are other scenerios, I would love to hear it.

[Political Heretic]

1. It's unlikely that Option 3 would give her a pledged delegate lead anyway.

So basically the only way she can win that seems even remotely possible is for the super delegates to go against the public process and crown her.

[BeatleBoot]

2. By Keeping Republicans Away from Open Caucuses and Primaries

http://republicansforobama.org/?q=node/359


E-mail to send to Texas Republicans


Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

[pocoloco]

6. Great news!!! Finally coming to their senses!!

Obama over McCain and McCain over HIllary

[BeatleBoot]

8. Yessiree!

Wooohoo!

They came to their senses like it was magic or something!

It was like, "Poof!"

This thing was over before it even started!!

[pocoloco]

11. About Time too!

[BeatleBoot]

13. Yep.

:rofl:

[VolcanoJen]

40. All part of the "Insult 40 States" Strategy

Ohio looks forward to joining the list of states that "don't count."

That piece is just pathetic pre-spin for the Texas-Ohio loss. "It's the Republican's fault! They voted in open primaries because they are so afraid of Clinton who lost 11 states in a row! It's the fault of the caucuses... they are so unfair and disenfranchise Texas voters! What? Texas law says your employer has to give you time off to caucus? Well... then, we'll sue!!"

:shrug:

[FogerRox]

3. The boat left the dock on super tuesday, its Obama vs MCain

Its time to get into GE mode, its time to work in congressional races to pad the majorities in the House and Senate, and kick John McCains butt like Goldwater in '64 or McGovern in '72 .



This shows the dem win in '64, albeit in red.

[BeatleBoot]

5. Yeah, because it's like all over and stuff.

seriously.


Dude.

[melody]

7. exactly -- well said n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Realistically, if Obama did well enough, he could DUPLICATE LBJ's performance over Goldwater

McCain would win the exact same states in a blowout, plus probably Texas and Oklahoma, Utah Idaho Wyoming and Nebraska. Everything else should be up for grabs.

[Oleladylib]

4. She'll win because she is the only candidate capable of winning.

[jlake]

9. You do realize she is only behind by 100 delegates - right?

[wileedog]

18. You do realize

That without crushing victories she can't pick up much more than 5-10 delegates per state, right?

She has won one state by the margin she needs to to pull this off - Arkansas. And now she is going to run the table on the rest by that margin?

[jlake]

28. You do realize that with FL & MI seated she has a strong chance to take the lead in short order...

even if she loses TX.

[wileedog]

39. They are not seating FL or MI.

Especially not MI where Obama's name was not even on the ballot.

And if she loses TX Florida starts to become irrelevant too.

If she wins because of two elections that she agreed ahead of time shouldn't count, that will destroy the party just as surely as will a super delegate coup. MILLIONS of Obama voters will desert in droves over that crap.

[quantass]

56. You do Realize they WONT seat FL & MI

The best that can happen for FL & MI is that they split the delegates 50/50 which in essense means the same thing as not having them.

[jlake]

69. FL will be seated, and MI will have a do-over. WATCH FOR IT!

[totodeinhere]

79. If Florida is seated,

which it probably won't be, Clinton will only get a net gain of 26 delegates. That won't be nearly enough to catch Obama.

[dchill]

82. " with FL & MI seated "

The old "anything to win" strategy. That dog won't hunt.

[earthlover]

22. In pledged delegates, Obama leads 1187 to Hillary's 1035

That's a 152 delegate lead among pledged delegates. If you assume Hillary wins TX AND OH AND PA by 55%-45%, which all in all is pretty doubtful she would do so well in each, but lets give her that amount. Then go to the remaining primaries left....she won't wind up gaining much on the 152 total! She might...might....be able to whittle it down to a 100 pledged delegate deficit. The remaining super delegates will be under enourmous pressure to vote for the candidate who got the most pledged delegates and popular vote totals. Unless Hillary does better than described above, she won't swing that. She needs 65% in ALL the remaining states, and Obama will probably win some of the states hands down.

You have blind faith in Hillary. I know, you have seen celestial choirs in the heavens and all that, but they ain't gonna be enough to gie Hillary a lead in pledged delegates this time around.

[cali]

52. She's behind by 155 pledged delegatea and she now

only has 48 more SDs. That will continue to shrink. And on Tues he'll pick up more pledged delegates. The gap will widen. The fat lady is singing. it's done.

[tekisui]

75. 150 Pledged Delegates is his lead, probably be nearer to 175 after Tues.

SuperD's are leaving her, and can at anytime.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. It's 70% to WIN

Obama is unlikely to get 2025 delegates before the convention, either.

Although the odds are against Hillary, she will still be able to stay in the race as long as Obama can't get 2025 delegates.

As for the media giving "the Clintons" a free pass, that can't be the American media. Pilot studies by Columbia (Annenberg) and other media researchers have been showing tremendous discrepancies in favorable treatment, and Hillary is the red-haired stepdaughter in this race. Even McCain is getting better coverage than she is. The media's hatred for the Clintons is longstanding and well-supported by evidence. Before Obama's rise to rock-star status, we could even talk about that bias.

As goes the frequent assertion that Hillary will split the party, the message is clear: if Obama doesn't get the nomination, under any scenario, his supporters will bolt and blame Hillary, knowing the MSM will support them.

The race against John McCain, on the other hand, will provide no such advantage to BHO.

--p!

[FogerRox]

15. Last I heard it was 58% of all remaining delegates for HIllary to go up by one delegate

and IIRC Hillary is polling below that in all states. Though I agree, it is likely Hillary has blocked Obama from getting to 2025.

[Political Heretic]

23. It's not 70% to win - other poster is right, its 58% of all remaining contests

in order for Hillary to up by 1 delegate.

[ORDem]

45. Yes, but there are some states she just won't win, so it' closer to 70%

in the states she has a chance to win. :kick:

[quantass]

58. 58%??!? That is IMPOSSIBLE for her to do -- look at her past performance and weep

[MannyGoldstein]

12. By Destroying Obama, She'll Win in 2012

At least that's what the Clintons are thinking.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. And you can read the Clintons' minds, how?

I understand that you may want Obama to win, but "mind-reading" in order to confirm your point of view is usually not a wise thing to do -- especially since it is not likely to be true.

--p!

[dchill]

83. "...read the Clintons' minds, how?"

Easy - previous performance.

[Recursion]

16. I don't buy it

A plan for 2012? This team can't seem to get their act together for 2008; I don't see them looking forward that much.

[Blondiegrrl]

64. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

... er, loser? Regardless, Hillary is doing a smashing job of ripping apart the Democratic Party.

[workinclasszero]

66. I agree

If the leaders off the dem party can't see what the Clinton's are doing to their party, they must be blind.

This constant setting of firewalls that Obama burns down and then Hillary moves the goalpost, again and again.

She want to bleed the party dry. Drain millions of dollars that should be spent in the GE against her good friend McCain.

If she can't win she would rather see McCain win so she can have a shot at 2012.

After the 4th the party and the super delegates better put an end to the Clinton's scam or they will be in danger of losing the GE and a historic shift to the dem party.

[jmg257]

78. Yep - keep your eye on THE PRIZE. "If not now when"? (2012)

I am listening her rip up Obama right now on CNN - sad, very sad.

She will "go toe to toe with John McCain". She figures all her vast experience and judgement will carry the day - or something...

[totodeinhere]

80. It's just what they did to Kerry in 2004...

so that Mrs. Clinton could run in 2008.

[Hutzpa]

17. My guess is they are planning

to steal the election.....:evilgrin:

[jlake]

26. And how is Obama going to get to 2025 delegates?

[Blondiegrrl]

65. As long as he leads in pledged delegates,

the superdelegates will agree with the consensus of the American people. That's a safe assumption, based on comments from many of the superdelegates themselves.

Hillary, however, thinks she can somehow sway the superdelegates to appoint her president and go against the popular vote/pledged delegates. Which, BTW, would assure a McCain win in the GE.

P.S. -- Before someone counters with "but ... but ... it's the superdelegates' JOB to pick the leader!" Well, yes, it is. But, barring some heinous reveal that would make Obama unelectable in the GE (for example, he's found to be a child molester or serial killer), they are morally and ethically obligated to vote the will of the people. If they don't, there will be mass rioting and the Democratic Party will be destroyed.

P.P.S. -- For the record, should Clinton manage to pull off a bunch of miraculous landslide wins that put her ahead in pledged delegates, I believe the superdelegates should be obligated to approve her nomination. I'll hate it, as I despise her and her cronies, but it would be the RIGHT thing to do.

[Captain_Nemo]

19. The rezko trial - when we will see the "friends" obama has had for 17 years......

http://i.abcnews.com/Blotter/story?id=4365942&page=1

"We have a sick political culture," said Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, "and that's the environment that Barack Obama came from."

Stewart says he does not understand why Obama has lectured others about corruption in Washington and Kenya but "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign.

The trial Monday involves federal charges of bribery and extortion against Tony Rezko, a real estate developer who became known in Illinois politics as a behind-the-scenes operator and fixer.

While Obama is not considered a target of the Rezko investigation, Stewart says it will shed light on a man who was pivotal to Obama's political career.

"This wasn't just some guy who wrote a check once for Barack Obama, it's someone who was an early supporter and had a personal relationship with Sen. Obama for quite some time," Stewart said.

Indeed, even after he was elected to the United States Senate, Obama involved Rezko in a land deal that enabled the senator to buy his current home on Chicago's South Side.

Obama has since called his decision to involve Rezko "a bone-headed mistake."

"Tony Rezko is all that is wrong with the old kind of politics or any kind of politics," said the Better Government Association's Stewart.

[BeatleBoot]

20. March 3rd - Opening Arguments - Patrick Fitzgerald the U.S. Prosecutor

[Captain_Nemo]

21. Look up Auchi and Rezko and Obama. A frightening story. The republicans can't wait for Obama.

[earthlover]

25. Obama is not even on the witness list....why would you think this woudl be a good thing?

You Swift Boaters are just hoping you can find something in the mud you sling to stick. This one won't. THere is no there there.

Your time would be better spent telling us why Hillary is a better candidate....as in...to dream the impossible dream.....

[BeatleBoot]

31. I am a Democrat trying to save us from a November Loss - And the "there" IS "there"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

Mansion 'mistake' piles the pressure on Barack Obama

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.
The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

<more at link>

[Egnever]

32. Really?

Thats it? a guy he took campaign donations fromk is connected to a british millionair? As if rezco couldnt afford the property he bought with obama without the loan from the millionaire?

That dog aint gonna hunt my friend.

[BeatleBoot]

71. Rove et al Turned A War Hero into a Traitor in 2004

What do you think these guys are going to do to BHO?

Or have I been asleep and magically the pukes play nice now.

Please.

[anigbrowl]

76. March 3rd = jury selection.

Sorry to puncture your bubble. It's already been pointed out to you taht the other liunk isn't true either (with readsons), but you still keep posting it.

Guess you guys just can't handle the fact Barack Obama made a lot of money off his book, and that his tax returns lay it open for all the world to see.

[Political Heretic]

24. There's nothing there.

[BeatleBoot]

30. Here it comes....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

Mansion 'mistake' piles the pressure on Barack Obama

A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.

The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.

A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.

Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city's South Side while Mr Rezko's wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.

Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.

Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.

<much more at link>

[Egnever]

33. Like he said nothing

[Political Heretic]

35. There. Is. Nothing. There.

Myth #1: Obama did legal work for Rezko

Claim: Hillary Clinton during a debate denounced Obama for "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

The truth: According to Factcheck.org, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was ‘representing ... Rezko.’ That's untrue."

Myth #2: Obama knew Rezko was a slumlord

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in 1997, Rezko’s company failed to turn the heat back on in one of his buildings, while giving $1,000 to Obama’s campaign fund.

The truth: There’s no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko’s buildings. A state senator doesn’t deal with tenant complaints, and the Chicago newspapers never reported on Rezko’s problems as a landlord until after he was indicted. According to the Chicago Tribune, "in the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets." http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It’s the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn’t offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It’s not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that’s been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very many millionaires (it’s not Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast). Therefore, a pricey mansion is very difficult to sell, while a $300,000 townhouse is very common.

Myth #4: Rezko’s lot was a front (yard) deal

Claim: One blogger declared it was "a $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator" because "the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land."

The truth: It’s insane to think that Obama arranged for Rezko to buy the lot as his front yard, and never intended for anyone to develop it. If Obama had arranged such a deal, it would be crazy for him to spend $104,500 to buy part of the land from Rezko. There is not even the slightest evidence to support this notion.

Myth #5: Obama underpaid (or overpaid) for the slice of Rezko’s lot

Claim: John Kass declared: "Obama’s appraiser told him the fair market value of that slice was $40,500. Since that’s one-sixth of the Rezko side, it means Rezko paid $625,000 for property that was actually worth $243,000. That would make Rezko a complete fool. But he’s no fool." Fox News Channel incorrectly reported that Rezko "sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value."

The truth: The appraiser was clearly wrong (probably basing the low value on the fact that 1/6th of the lot was too small for any house, which would dramatically reduce its value standing alone). That’s why Obama decided to buy 1/6th of Rezko’s lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it ($104,500). A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000, resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

Myth #6: Obama hasn’t returned all the money linked to Rezko’s donations

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times accused Obama of downplaying the $50,000–$60,000 in donations he received from Rezko (Rezko, before his legal troubles started, had cohosted a fundraiser for Obama). The newspaper claimed the actual amount was $168,000.

The truth: The Sun Times came up with that figure by counting every donation to Obama from anyone ever associated with Rezko, even if there was no evidence Rezko prompted the donation. Obama donated additional money to charity, but he’s under no obligation (legal or even moral) to return every dollar ever linked to Rezko. If you play a game of "six degrees of separation" with Rezko, he’s linked to almost every politician in Chicago.

Myth #7: Rezko had a special relationship with Obama

Claim: The Clinton campaign denounces "Sen. Obama's 17-year relationship with the indicted influence peddler."

The truth: Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians. Rezko donated money to every major Democratic politician in Illinois, then helped organize a $3.5 million fundraiser for President George W. Bush in 2003. After giving large campaign donations to Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Rezko arranged to have his buddies appointed by Blagojevich to state boards such as the Teachers’ Retirement System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. With his friend Stuart Levine, Rezko threatened to hold up a $220 million deal to invest teachers’ pension fund money unless $2 million was paid to Levine or $1.5 million was donated to Blagojevich’s campaign. Rezko and Levine also demanded a $1 million cut from a developer to build a hospital. Rezko was indicted for pretending to sell his Papa John’s pizza restaurants while secretly maintaining control of them, and fraudulently using the transaction to get $10 million in loans. It is Blagojevich, not Obama, who did favors for Rezko. Rezko’s eye for scouting political talent was amazing, but he did not capitalize on Obama’s influence. Obama said he had known Rezko for twenty years and "he had never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him."

Myth #8: Obama did favors for Rezko

Claim: Chicago Sun-Times revealed that in 1998, Obama wrote a letter endorsing a low-income housing development for which Rezko was a codeveloper. As the Sun-Times put it, "NOT A FAVOR? As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer’s deal." Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote, "No favors? When you transcend politics and walk on water, I guess it all depends on what your definition of favor is."

The truth: The common definition of a favor in this context is a political action done in exchange for donations. Rezko’s lawyer reported that Rezko had not asked Obama to write the letter. Instead, Obama (along with a local state representative and an alderman) endorsed the project because it had widespread community support. It’s difficult to imagine any politician on the south side of Chicago who wouldn’t have a routine letter written to endorse government funding for affordable housing and social services for low-income senior citizens in that area. When it came to political influence, Obama didn’t do any favors for Rezko. The Chicago Tribune reported, "when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it."

Myth #9: Obama should have known about Rezko’s sleazy background

Claim: The Chicago Tribune, although endorsing Obama, wrote: "His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004."

The truth: At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko’s problems. When Obama bought a small strip of Rezko’s land in 2006, rumors were swirling around Chicago that the federal government was investigating Rezko, but he wasn’t indicted until October 2006. The Tribune stories before 2006 reveal that Rezko was a tightly connected political player, but the evidence of criminal misconduct wasn’t proven.

Myth #10: Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about his mistakes with Rezko

Claim: The Chicago Tribune editorialized, "Obama has been too self-exculpatory."

The truth: Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him. Obama declared, "I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern. I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship." Obama’s mistake was in allowing the appearance of impropriety. He never actually did anything wrong. And that’s the key issue here.

Despite all of these rumors about Obama and Rezko, none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing. Conservative Republican Tom Bevan called the evidence against Obama "pretty darn weak." Conor Clarke of the New Republic reported that Obama’s real estate deal with Rezko was a "nonscandal." According to Clarke, "journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense."

[mtnsnake]

27. You'll find out how after she wins. Until then, try not to worry so much.

[Ravy]

29. Option 4. Superdelegates go with who wins the popular vote.

Option 5 Superdelegates go with who wins the most democratic votes
Option 6 Superdelegates go with who wins the most "blue" states
Option 7 Superdelegates go with whoever they think has the best chance of winning and the media is critical of Obama by then.

Lots of options.

[Johnny__Motown]

36. any Viable options?

[Ravy]

38. All are viable. It will be up to the Superdelegates. That they

will vote the same as whoever gets the most pledged delegates is spin by the Obama campaign only. There are more superdelegates in blue states than there are in red states. Hillary wins most of the big blue states which have the lions share of superdelegates. If Superdelegates go with how their states vote, then who knows.

They get to make up the criteria for casting their vote, just like you and I. If things even out for the rest of the primaries, Hillary should have a good lead in votes from self-described Democrats, and be essentially tied in popular vote (it is fairly close now, and even the Obama camp says he gets all the independents and republicans voting in the Democratic primary.

And Obama could certainly stumble, or the media could stop idolizing him. Lots of things can happen. Probably won't. But can.

[wileedog]

41. And meanwhile

Millions and millions of dollars and political capitol is burned every day pitting two Dems against each other while McCain stays on the outside taking potshots unopposed.

At some point soon this has to get wrapped up, not just let go indefinitely because something "might happen"

[Ravy]

44. I don't see any problem with letting all the states vote.

I kind of thought that was the idea of a democracy.

[ORDem]

46. Huh? You have heard of states cancelling their elections? That's funny.

[Ravy]

51. Oh, you like the kind where only one person in the race.

I like the other kind of elections. To each, his own.

[wileedog]

47. Its also

A great way to lose a general election.

Stick your head in the sand all you want, Hillary faces massively long odds of pulling this out. At what point is letting her extremely faint hope of winning worth more than the damage she is doing to the eventual and by-far-probable nominee in Obama? How many more attack ads do we suffer from her that play into the Republicans hands? How much more money should be conceded in a futile contest that could be better spent against McCain? How long does her ego need to be stroked before someone recognizes that the party ended a while ago?

Again, she needs to carry utterly historic victories in all of the states that are left to win this, barring FL and MI shennanigans which will also do immense harm. If she can't win DECISIVELY in TX and OH on Tuesday, what is the point of dragging this mess out?

[Ravy]

50. Depends on which math you use. If you pre-suppose that

Superdelegates are going to vote for the criteria that Obama supporters say should be used, the yes, the math is bad for Clinton. But there are other theories of how Superdelegates will vote, and some of them favor Clinton.

[wileedog]

54. If the super delegates vote against the pledged delegates

The Democratic party is over. Period.

Don't forget a huge portion of Obama's base is younger voters, who have no real tie or anchor to the party as of yet. If they get shafted by super delegates they are gone.

Doesn't matter. The party leadership is not going to let an increasingly nasty campaign linger until Denver doing the candidates more harm than good. Math and super delegates be damned, if Clinton doesn't absolutely clean house on Tuesday they need to finish it. She cannot get more pledged delegates at that point without massively controversial decisions over MI/FL or SDs, and they would far rather sacrifice Hillary Clinton than the entire Democratic Party with those moves.

[Ravy]

59. The national pledged delegates, or the pledged delegates

from their constituency?

I disagree that they should vote based on national pledged delegates. If I was a Superdelegate, and I wanted to look at national totals to cast my vote (not just my constituency) I would look at national popular vote or national popular vote of voters who call themselves Democrats.

[wileedog]

60. You are forgetting

The absolute worst possible outcome - in either direction - for the Democratic party is for the election to be decided by super delegates.

If Obama walks into the convention with the most pledged delegates nationally and doesn't walk out with the nomination there will be an incredible uproar. There will be MASSIVE party defections. There will be an entire generation of disillusioned young voters who will feel cast aside by the system.

No one is going to look at each individual SD and examine why they voted what they did, fair or not. The national perception will be that the party picked a candidate in a "smoke-filled back room" deal with the Clintons. That Bill and Hillary twisted enough arms to screw over the people. It will not be pretty.

The party leadership knows that. Most of the SDs know that. They are not going to let that happen.

Doesn't matter, it won't get to Denver anyway.

[Ravy]

61. Again, I think it is Obama dreaming to say that SDs will go with

national pledged delegates. They do not have national constituencies for one thing. Some will perhaps.

It is almost assured that one or the other of them will go to the convention with more pledged delegates than the other. It is far more likely to be Obama. But to say that whoever does should be the nominee is just an opionion, and an opinion that neuters the idea of Superdelegates entirely. People don't like to be neutered. Particularly if they have the popular vote on their side, or the most Democratic votes.

I agree that it will probably be over by then, but if it is not, you should not count it in the bag.

[wileedog]

62. Its not an opinion

Its a public relations disaster waiting to happen.

The super delegates were a dumb ass idea when someone came up with them. If they decide the election, they could destroy the ENTIRE PARTY.

Again, whatever their individual rationale, if Obama goes into the convention with the most delegates (or Hillary for that matter) and the SD's pick a different candidate than the people did - or in this case the pledged delegates - the fallout is going to be ENORMOUS. The MSM will have an absolute FIELD DAY with the party picking over the will of the people. The Republicans will be absolutely laughing their asses off.

The SDs are not stupid. They know this. And even if they don't know this, the party leadership will remind them of this over and over.

The winner will be the candidate that walks into Denver with the most pledged candidates. Period. Anything else is political suicide.

[Ravy]

63. Again, you are equating pledged delegates with the "people's choice"

where actual VOTES is a more accurate reflection of people's choice, or even the actual votes of Democrats being the Democrat's choice.

You can argue that pledged delegate selection is the "rules of the game", but then, so are Superdelegates, aren't they?

If the statistics are mixed, as they may well be, there is going to be a considerable number of people pissed off. If I was a superdelegate, I would rather piss off the people in states that have a large Republican majority. The electoral college limits how much they can help you in November. But that is just me.

[ORDem]

48. Thank you comrade for support of the SD system. There will be a special

place in the "Party" for you in the future.

:kick:

[Ravy]

53. Superdelegates are a reality.

And *YOU* seem to be the one favoring the Russian type of election where there is only one candidate running in the race.

Just sayin'

[Johnny__Motown]

49. If they want to be voted out of office next time then yes, but they need votes too (most of them)

[Ravy]

57. Few are nationally elected.

So using the "national" delegate count probably doesn't appeal to them. If they don't vote their conscience, they will most likely vote with their constituents, and I haven't seen those numbers.. but realize that Hillary has the big states, and they have the lion's share of Superdelegates. Winning a red congressional district, where Obama has really shined, doesn't affect any Superdelegate.

I am not trying to say that voters in red congressional districts do not count, I am just saying there are other viable ways for Superdelegates who want to vote by some "vote total" formula to cast their vote to Clinton. I think very few of them would subscribe to the Obama camp's theory that they all should vote for who gets the most pledged delegates nationally. Using that theory, there is absolutely no need for Superdelegates at all. Many of these Superdelegates are politicians, and the thuoght that they aren't needed probably doesn't appeal to them.

[BenDavid]

37. two things next week Weather underground and rezko...

[cali]

55. sorry, wishful thinking won't work, dear

if it did than my wish that Giustra and Gupta and Hsu and the black panthers and bill's pardoning of weather underground figures would have knocked Hill out. there's no there there and Hill is done.

[Eurobabe]

42. But, but there is STILL Rhode Island....

:shrug:

And don't forget Puerto Rico!

[VolcanoJen]

43. You asked an honest question about Hillary's path to the nomination...

... and you got a whole lotta "ZOMG LOok over here ReZko ZOMG!"

Anyone want to tell an Ohioan how she's gonna pull this off, when I have yet to find a single human being (besides the people that canvassed me) who is going to vote for her on Tuesday?

[JTFrog]

67. It's obvious that his winning the last 11 contests by double digits means only she can win in Nov.

Welcome to Hillaryland.

[BeatleBoot]

74. Guaranteed the Republicans didn't vote for her in the Primaries

No, Obama got all of THOSE votes...

http://republicansforobama.org/?q=node/359


E-mail to send to Texas Republicans


Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

[anigbrowl]

77. Exit polls show Hillary got about 40% of the GOP crossover votes.

Are you a professional liar, or do you just play one on DU?

[BeatleBoot]

81. I, so love personal attacks by BHO supporters...their character is on display.....link here....

<snip>

With John McCain well ahead in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and because Texans can vote in either party's primary, Republicans have been voting in the Democratic race, University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray said.

Most are voting for Obama because they want to keep Clinton out of the White House, he said.

"We've always had our quota, plus some, of Hillary haters. T hey think they can drive a stake through her presidential heart, and they are hammering away with gusto," Murray said.

<more>


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN292296...

[Perry Logan]

68. When Obama supporters, the media, and Republicans work together, nothing can stop them.

[BigDaddy44]

70. The Puerto Rico firewall

[sueragingroz]

72. Hillary survives March 4, NAFTA grows legs... She dominates in PA...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. By Getting Like 2025 Delegates Or Whatever. Duh.

:crazy: