Hillary's "Strategery"

[redstate_democrat]

Hillary Clinton claims that because she wins "the big states" or "the states that matter", that she should be anointed (because she can't be nominated if she doesn't have the delegates, so an anointing by the Superdelegates is the only path).

What I don't understand about this logic is that she seems to simply discount all of the REST of the states she would need to win that have gone to Obama. She also doesn't take into account that she is winning these "big states" by slim margins. She also doesn't take into account that the "big state" of Texas, ain't going BLUE in November. She also doesn't take into account the fact that MOST of the "big states" she has won are traditionally BLUE anyway, regardless of WHO the Democratic nominee is.

So, is she trying to say that a Democrat that isn't her can't win the "big states" that are basically guaranteed to the Democratic nominee? Is she trying to say she can EASILY win the states that Obama has picked off? Couldn't Obama make the same argument she makes? That HE is the only person who can win the "big states" like Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, Illinois, etc and steal some purple and red states? Is this "big state" strategy of hers even logical?

Is she saying that the Super Delegates should basically IGNORE the will of the MAJORITY of voters ... and expect to win? He has won the most votes (popular), delegates, states, and has raised the most money and garnered the MOST excitement. She wants us to ignore ALLLLLLL of that because she won California, Texas and New York where Obama gave her a run for her money? If by some long shot, New York and California go to McCain because Clinton wasn't on the ticket, then we had no chance from the beginning.

What kind of logic is she using?

[tekisui]

1. What kind of logic? Entitlement.

[redstate_democrat]

3. Oh I forgot

So it's totally illogical and irrational. Her "plan" is not based on anything more than her belief that "it's my turrnnnnn". Okay. Thanks.

[tekisui]

4. That's the only thing I can figure.

[C_U_L8R]

2. There is no logic to the argument

and there is no historical precedent to her claim.
None.

[redstate_democrat]

9. There IS an utter lack of

logic to her campaign. Has been that way from the start.

[joshcryer]

5. What are you talking about? Neither candidate can be nominated without the supers.

This is a fucking fact.

[redstate_democrat]

6. Super Delegates

That overturn the majority of voters aren't actually nominating anyone, they are overturning the will of the voters and anointing someone whom the VOTERS did not want. Now, if you take the Super Delegates out of the picture, then clearly the person with the most ELECTED delegates, wins. Shouldn't THAT person be the nominee? Ya know, the person people actually voted for? How can you expect the person the MAJORITY of people DID NOT vote for to actually WIN the GENERAL ELECTION?

[jlpohio69]

7. Ohio super delegates must support Hillary....

the people of Ohio voted overwhelmingly for Hillary, so the supers must follow the will of the people.

[redstate_democrat]

8. How about we do a proportional allocation

of Super Delegates by state?

Who comes out on top in this scenario? I mean, it's only fair, right? Since she didn't win the state 100-0, I hardly think she should get 100% of the state's super delegates.

In this wholly Democratic, representational allocation of Super Delegates, who wins?

Yeah.

[redstate_democrat]

10. So

Can anyone explain Hillary's "strategery" for me?