Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Some of you don't get it. Hillary HAD to SWEEP after Wisconsin...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:49 PM
Original message
Some of you don't get it. Hillary HAD to SWEEP after Wisconsin...
... in order to have any legitimate reason to stay in the race. She also had to sweep with HUGE margins of victory. Instead she eeked out two victories and has now lost 3 of the last 5.


All Clinton is now is a McCain endorsing spoiler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Am I wrong? If not, can she please drop out now so we can focus on her best friend?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. No, you're right
And every state she loses further decreases her ability to ever hope to catch up.

She's running out of states, the margins needed to win by keep increasing.

She's out, she just wont admit it yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
46. you are wrong
she had to win by near landslide amounts - winning by itself would not do it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you. What does the delegate math look like now for Hillary with this latest loss?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It is not even that hard to envison.
Before she had to win big in every state to the convention.

Now she has to win even higher.

The biggest losses here are the fact that Clinton can no longer Just "win" she has to win big from now on in multiple states that will favor Obama greatly.

A person did a topic with some assumed victories for Obama and did the math. The wins Clinton needs to counter those and move on are almost silly to even think about.

Clinton really is the spoiler now and you can expect that after Mississippi if she does not win by a HUGE margin there will be hell to pay politically for her campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. She's going to need to win Puerto Rico by 275% at this rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
64. And when she doesn't, her supporters will say percentages and statistics are "sexist".
The fact there is only 100 percent will be a tool of the patriarchy or some BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. Some current numbers later in the thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VolcanoJen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #25
77. Go, Reds!!!
:hi: MindMatter :hi:

Still digging out of our late-winter blizzard? I posted a photo here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. She now needs 63% of all remaining pledged delegates to take the lead.
And even that 63% would give her a lead of ONE DELEGATE in pledged totals. She needs more like 65-70% for a convincing margin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. She needs 798 to his 659
Using MSNBC's numbers http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

There are 539 uncommitted SDs http://www.politico.com/superdelegates /

And 549 committed primary/caucus delegates http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter /

If she takes 60% of all remaining contests, that gives her 329. She would need 469 of 539 supers (87%) to win this.

Listing of uncommitted supers (Gore, Carter, Pelosi -- lots of heavy hitters here...) http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
51. You can play with the numbers
I've been throwing out different scenarios all night.

If Obama won Miss, NC, SD, Montana, and Oregon with 55% of the vote, and Hillary won Penn, Guam, KY, Indiana, PR, and West Virginia with 75% of the vote, and the superdelegates split evenly, she'd still be 4 delegates short.


http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/27/obama-clinton-election...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thanks
for being a voice of reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bingo. I cannot imagine the 'party elders' are allowing this to
continue just to pacify her. You think they knew she would not go without a fight? And thus the perpetration of the "she won texas" bullshit and their silence and the going along with the media's obvious blackout/denigration of Obama?

this makes my fucking head hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. This should destroy the media fueled illusion of Clinton's "momentum"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
9. Your candidate is not likely to win the needed
delegates unless and until Sen. Clinton retires from the race and promises to commit her delegates to Sen. Obama.

As much as you Obamacans hate her, you still need her.

It must drive you crazy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Superdelegates will do the trick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. I hope the Superdelegates will do their job!
Their job is to protect the will of Democrats voting against the Democratic candidate that "repukes" cross over in large enough numbers to nominate for the Democrats.

Admit or not, Obama's base consists of "repukes" crossing over. And I just don't trust their motives. And neither will the Superdelegates.

The Superdelegates are the "failsafe" that were meant to thwart the events that we have been witness to since the Iowa Caucus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. RVOP
Republicans Voted On Purpose

Love your tinfoil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Chew on this tinfoil..............
Bush-Cheney strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Hillary, marketing newcomer Obama, an "independent" ticket, and maybe even martial law...

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/20 ...

Article link courtesy DUer BeatleBoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. your link is dead, but I admire you dedication to sounding like a fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. That's the title of the article, nit-wit.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #28
66. They like your candidate cause she IS EASIER TO BEAT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION...
But I guess you don't see that... clue: being the target of the Repugs means she is the weaker candidate becuase she has such HIGH NEGATIVES.

You can try to ignore that, but if your candidate wins the nomination, Dems will lose in November, as people will turn out in DROVES to vote AGAINST HILLARY.

Hillary supporters need to understand - she galvanizes people against her. We don't need her hubris and arrogance to give us eight more years of Republican shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Hillary lead in the repug vote in Texas. Maybe that shouldn't count for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GarbagemanLB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. Kind of like the Repukes voting for Hillary and causing her to win Texas, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #35
67. oh! More data you aren't supposed to notice!
"Sexist!"

Its funny how they haven't responded to your facts. ~~~siiigh~~~

I just want this to be over so we can get on with having Obama kick McCain's ass in Nov.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #19
50. The SDs will respect the will of the People represented by Pledged delegates
You cannot blame this on Repukes. Most of Obama's victories have been by huge margins.
This wasn't doen by Repukes. It was done by Democrats.

Your argument that the SDs should overrule the wills of all these Democrats gets weaker by the day.

Are you a Democrat first or a Hillarite?
That is the question you must ask yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wileedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
52. Oh please...
Just lose with some dignity at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #52
68. Have to have respect and dignity first, dude. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #19
62. This is not scientific by any means but I believe it to be true. I have gotten
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 09:31 AM by joeprogressive
more than 20 republicans to admit that they were either going to vote for Obama or were seriously considering him because they can't get excited about McCain and they truly like Obama. I have yet to hear that sentiment ever from someone switching to HRC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #62
69. Apocryphal stories aren't DATA. Get a clue.
If someone told you the same thing, but substituted "Hillary" - which is more likely since RUSH LIMBAUGH told his lisners/minions to go vote for her to make Obama lose in Texas, as she is easier to beat in November (they already have ammo and crazy-shit to sling at her, and they are worried that they can't use it if she is outta the race) you wouldn't believe apocryphal data.

Only spout crap that if the other camp said it with the names replaced, you'd believe it. That is how you get past bias.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
49. nobody needs a loser
we just ask her to stop being a stumbling block.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #49
70. Her supporters don't see she is a loser...
... mebbe there is something Freudian or Jungian there.

Hmmmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
65. Like other supporters of YOUR candidate, you are either IGNORANT or BLIND
to the TRUTH.

It must drive you crazy your shouts of "sexism" and "momentum" by the M$M aren't helping her win the day... it must also drive you crazy that Obama has REAL ground support and grass-roots workers while Hillary has RISING NEGATIVES.

Your post shows which camp is REALLY crazy - and your shouts don't change the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
84. Wow....
...just like your snarky candidate....you put the best interests of the country and party first...NOT!

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crooked Moon Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. actually you don't get it.
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:07 PM by Crooked Moon
the superdelegates are bound by nothing but conviction. the pledged delegates are relegated to a barometer now.

history is being rewritten before our eyes and are there are few in the way of any precedents for what we're seeing.

i know this hurts if you're an obama supporter because there's a great deal of comfort in being ahead by 4 in the fourth quarter. you can count on a win if you hold the other team to a field goal and all you want to do is run out the clock.

but the rules, such as they are, offer none of the watertight process of a football game.

hang on tight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. What makes you think that Superdelegates would go against the will of the people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crooked Moon Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. define the will of the people
does it mean john kerry and ted kennedy would jump to clinton?

does it mean kucinich would ignore clinton's win in ohio should obama meet his demands?

do you measure it by popular vote?

do you measure it by number of states?

do you measure it by pledged delegates overall, drawn from myriad processes and distributed via a variety of different methods?

how exactly is the will of the people measured?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caligirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #14
42. it means a ticket to denver for the enforcement of the largest share of pledged delegates, lots
of folks are that riled up at this and will act to enforce the will of the people. It is a part of the Constitution American voters are responsible for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. That's why the Superdelegates were created.........
Edited on Sat Mar-08-08 09:23 PM by TheDebbieDee
to go against the will of the "repuke" people that cross over in large enough numbers to pick the Democratic candidate. Admit or not, Obama's base consists of "repukes" crossing over. And I just don't trust their motives.

The Superdelegates are the "failsafe" that were meant to thwart the events that we have been witness to since the Iowa Caucus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. "Admit or not, Obama's base consists of "repukes" crossing over."
His base? that is broad statement. 55 million dollars his based raised last month, that is A LOT of repukes donating to Obama. :beer:

Make no bones about it, both sides have benefited from R and I' voting in the states that have allowed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. 55 Million dollars he raised in February......
And the repuke coffers are so empty that repuke Cong. John Boehner is crying about it.

Sen. Obama my have a million donors but who says they're all small donors. Repuke organizations have been donating big dollars to this empty suit from Illinois to keep his campaign afloat in order to fight Hillary.

Anyday now, these repukes will have to give their money to other repukes running for office and Obama's resources will mysteriously dry up and the repukes will find money to run their pathetic single-issue campaigns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. "Obama is ahead because of Republicans"... is that all you got?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Isn't it enough?!?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JAbuchan08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #34
63. I guess you didn't catch were 'pubs voted for Clinton in Ohio and Texas
because Rush told them to continue the race.

At least some of the 'pubs who voted for Obama seem sincere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
85. Ummmmm.....
...no.

Got any other questions I can clear up for you?

If not, why don't you do something constructive like sending your loser candidate a plea to step aside so the Dems can unite and beat that POS McCain this coming November.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verges Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
39. And Clinton's aren't?
The Repubs WANT to run against her!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #16
71. Careful who you call "repuke" when your candidate SOUNDS LIKE ONE,
saying McCAIN is a BETTER CHOICE FOR PREZ that Obama... among other policies and actions she has taken during her tenure in the Senate.

And the SDs aren't there to do your bidding - as much as you in the Hillary camp want that to be so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. so all this is for a close your eyes and throw.... hail mary, and let football land where it may?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DerekJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
27. Since you are speaking about the rules, do you think MI, & FL should be seated as is?
seems to recall the rule sonly when it comes to the SDs, and forget about them when it comes to MI & FL. Just want to know where do you stand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
verges Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
38. Do you really think
that the SD's would support somebody who was so foolish as to say something that could easily be construed as supporting the Republican candidate? Yeah. that's just who we want to work with other Heads of State.

And the numbers really are against her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. It's still too close.
Clinton needs to net only 50 or so delegates to have a shot at the nomination at the convention. If Obama's lead is less than 100 pledged delegates, she could reasonably persuade the super delegates to throw the nomination to her.

My guess is that if things continue along current trends, she will be lucky to net 25 pledged delegates.

Even so, she still won't drop out because she has a reasonable shot at persuading pledged delegates to switch. That tactic would be rather rancorous, but I don't think she will care.

Then there are Florida and Michigan. Unless there is a redo, Clinton could pick up enough to put her solidly in super delegate decision land.

As much as some would like her to, Clinton will not go away. I expect increasingly ugly fighting until the lights go out at the convention. She will, of course, insist on getting the nomination with Obama as Veep, regardless of what the final pledged delegate count is. I think the final firewall for her is the Veep slot. And she will use the threat of throwing the nomination to herself as the means to get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. That is complete fantasy. Let's look at the numbers
Using the RealClearPolitics tally, she has 1223 pledged. That isn't completely up to date with the TX counts, so it actually overstates Clinton's position, but let's be conservative. Using current polling numbers most to her advantage for MS, PA, and NC, she would get 14, 90, and 53 respectively from those contests. Assuming she has a 10-point victory in all the rest of the states, she would get 2, 40, 15, 29, 28, 30, 9, 8 from Guam, IN, WV, OR, KY, PR, MT, and SD. That is giving her a huge benefit of the doubt because she will not win all of these and may not win any of them by 10 points. But let's just say so to give her the fullest benefit of any doubt.

Realclearpolitics says she has 242 superduper delegates on her side. I don't think they have recorded the latest defections, but that's OK. Let's give her every advantage.

With all of that, the best she can do is 1783 delegates, leaving her 242 short.

Using the realclearpolitics superduper numbers, there are only 343 superdupers not yet committed, so she would have to win with the above spreads AND also convince 71% of the remaining superdupers to come to her side. That is not just unlikely. It is absolutely impossible, considering that she hasn't drawn a SINGLE superdelegate in a month. She has been LOSING ground on supers in the past month, and the majority of those not yet committed are waiting to see how comes out ahead in the pledged delegates.

It is over. There is no mathematical way she can pull this off. Her choice to run a divisive campaign in the face of certain defeat is truly outrageous.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #24
44. You had better check your math.
Obama currently leads by 155 delegates, not counting supers.

A 55/45 split of delegates in the remaining states yields

18, 87, 63, 2, 40, 15, 29, 28, 30, 9, 8 delegates for Clinton

or net yields against Obama of

+3, +16, +11, +0, +8, +2, +6, +5, +5, +2, +1 = +59

thereby reducing Obama's lead to just 96 delegates.

If Clinton narrows that margin to less than 100, she has an argument to pull the supers to her side.

What is worse is nothing binds the regular delegates. The nomination can be stolen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. If Clinton narrows to under 100?
Is that some kind of joke?

What superdelagate who has not committed already would swing to Clinton if she trails by 99 delegates when they would not do so when she trails by 140? That makes no sense whatsoever. It is beyond wishful thinking. It is malicious destruction of our best chance to unseat the neocons and undo some of the damage they have visited on this country for 30 years.

None of that means much to Hillary and Bill because they have already shown us that they were willing to go along with most of that in order to advance their own ambitions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #45
58. It's not a joke.
There are 795 uncommitted supers. If she narrows the gap to less than 100, that easily puts her over 2025 for the nomination. Then she doesn't have to go in for shenanigans with the regular delegates who could still switch their votes.

If fewer than 100 delegates separate Obama and Clinton, Hillary will claim that it is a essentially a tie. And that her "momentum" of recent wins shows the real will and intent of the people.

She would be right about the tie, bullshitting about the momentum because the only way to pull this scenario off is a few big wins -- or seating Florida without a redo.

I've read a couple of sources that say that 100 delegates is the magic number. Over a hundred and a candidate has an excellent argument that her delegates represent the popular vote. Under a 100, and it's considered a tie.

I'm guessing that, at this point, Hillary is angling for the Veep slot. She will use the threat of a deadlock or worse in an attempt to secure it.

If she somehow persuades the uncommitted to go with her, she would pretty much be forced to give Obama the veep slot.

The bottom line? It's still a long, long road to the nomination.

Personally, I think that I'd rather see Obama pull off a clear win so Hillary cannot go there. I'm afraid that she will go in for extreme, back-room hardball regardless.

My advice to Obama fans is: Don't believe your own spin and relax. It's not over until it's over.

Keep the faith. Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. Uhhh. No
There are not 785 uncommitted superdelegates.

Only 347 according to:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-...

And that's the problem. The math is impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #60
92. Oops! Right ... only 795 total.
:dunce:

I don't think Obama is out of the woods yet. It's going to be a long road ahead. This is no time to declare victory. There's the FL delegates for example. I still think Hillary is going for the ugly fight. Or at least will threaten to do so if she doesn't get the VP slot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
54. According to my calculations
the vote tallies in that scenario would put her at 1,788 and Obama at 1,860.

She'd then have to get 69% of the superdelegates, while Obama would need a comparatively scant 48%.

All this assumes that Obama's not going to kick her up and down the field in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftrightwingnut Donating Member (434 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. Let's hope that Obama kicks her ass in a massive, unprecedented sweep.
But he won't. And Clinton will still be hanging in there.

My only point in this and other posts is that the nomination fight has a good chance of turning very ugly.

This is no time to relax. It isn't over until it's over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. It is only one-way ugly
Obama's people can do the math. Their leaked early February email shows they already had the math almost 100% correct back then. Obama is able to stay positive because he knows he has it wrapped up. No need to get into the mud pit with the swine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. No she didn't. The magic number is still 2025. First one there wins. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. She'll win ONE of the next 10.
That's it.

But if she can destroy Obama's chances in the GE, then she THINKS she'll be a frontrunner for 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny Potpie Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
37. All she's doing now
is destroying her future viability. Hr current actions and words are making long-time Democrats sick to their stomachs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
33. The margins in OH and RI were 10% and 18%. That's eeking 'em out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PseudoIntellect Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. No, but they do happen to be closer than any of Obama's 11 straight victories, except WI by 1%. Heh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. When she needed to win by 20-25 points EVERYWHERE
Yep, she eeked out 2 wins by selling her democratic soul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
86. Considering what she needed to beat out Obama,
yes, that is VERY thin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarbonDate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
41. She can still win....
...if she wins every remaining state with between 60% - 65% of the vote. Barring that, she can still tie it up if she wins Pennsylvania by a 50 point margin.

She's not mathematically eliminated, but she's going to need some of this to come back:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-08-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. What is a 50 point margin?
I don't get it.

You mean like 70% to 20%?

I don't see that happening.

Her experience really doesn't allow it.

Have you seen the comparison in experience between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #41
55. She'd close the gap with a victory of 85% in Pennsylvania
Even then, she'd have to get 54% of all the remaining votes, including the superdelegates, in order to win it.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/27/obama-clinton-election...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #55
72. Don't think that is even possible...
Yeah, PA is two blue blotches (Philly and Pittsburgh) in a sea of red...but in those blue blotches - especially Philly, there are a whole lot of strongly committed Obama supporters.

While the red areas may see a lot of cross-overs who vote for Hillary, there is no way she can get more than 61% of the vote in the state - if all the people got out and voted - because of the urban areas.

Remember, Hillary is big among rural whites - and there may be more of them in terms of geographic area, but they are fewer in actual number than the population of the cities, which are strongly democrat, largely Black areas. Philly is used to having strong Black leaders, and they really want Obama as Prez. Hillary doesn't have that kind of grass-roots support, as much as she cries "momentum"... it's just all a case of "fake it till you make it" with her campaign now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:38 AM
Response to Original message
47. You miss the point that she intends to damage Obama politically ...
... and compel the superdelegates to seat her as our savior candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #47
73. Talk about Pyrrhic Victories!
Only someone who is selfish and filled with hubris would destroy the Democratic Party just to win a nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. As others have said, she appears Liebermannish.
I'm perplexed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. ~~sigh~~ yeah...
And I share your perplexedness - is that even a word? 'Cause it's all I can use to describe some of my mental state at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #83
88. It's a word if it gets the point across. No grammah police, here.
Perhaps we're experiencing ... Befuddlement? Bewilderment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:39 AM
Response to Original message
48. Obama could lose every state with 47%
and as long as he also got 47% of the SD's, he'd be our nominee.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/27/obama-clinton-election...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
istopforcookies Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!
Make Shillery quit! Whaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!

Nope.

Try again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Did you mean to respond to me?
:shrug:

I'm not calling for her to quit, I'm saying she's got a steep, steep road ahead of her if she wants to close the gap before the convention. Obama's road, on the other hand, looks a lot easier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #56
76. Xema, that's the standard response to rational logic and data
from their camp. It's really sad, eh?

I enjoy reading your posts, though. You always state your case nicely and logically. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #76
80. Thanks!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. You're welcome!
Edited on Sun Mar-09-08 12:24 PM by skater314159
:hi:

:hug:

PS - I've always wanted to ask... can you explain me your siggy line/banner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. My sig line?
It's sort of a joke from the environment/energy forum... virtually every article in there quotes some climate scientist saying "this is happening faster than expected."

The birds are red-legged kittiwakes, and they're pretty much totally unrelated to the "faster than expected" part, unless you count the fact that I've seen 2 red-legged kittiwakes "faster than expected" given that I've never birded in Alaska. :P

I've been digging your sigline for a while. Chairman Meow, no? :shrug: :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. Yeah!
It's Chairman Meow!



Ah, thanks for explaining!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #53
74. You'd much rather destroy the party and have Hill win, eh?
As long as YOU and YOUR CANDIDATE WIN... fuck the rest of us, huh?

Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUyellow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #53
78. this coming from a person with the user name i stop for cookies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #53
87. Nice imitation of you candidate.
Congratulations for sounding just like her.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
57. HMS Hillary is down by the bow.
Rearrange the deck chairs as you will, Hillfans, but you'd better start lowering the lifeboats now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skater314159 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #57
75. True dat.


REPUKE SHARKS LOOKING TO HMS HILLARY FOR VICTORY IN NOV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
79. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Revelator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
90. Now people are saying that Hillary's loss in WY was actually good for her?
Some of you are living in an entirely different world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC