If Obama were behind but gaining and the SDs did to him what they are doing to HRC

[jasmine621]

there would be blood in the streets. Since Hillary has been gaining, some SDs want to shut the primary down and switch from Hillary to Obama instead of letting the races play out. This, to me, is unconscionable and if Obama were in Hillary's position the SDs now switching would be deionized in the media. It makes no sense to me that the SDs would want to knee-cap Hillary but they have done so. All the ones who were HRC SDs and switched to Obama will be remembered and they should be ashamed of themselves. And no one is calling for Obama SDs who are from states that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary to switch their vote according to the will of their constituencies. I just don't get it. Obama does not deserve nor has he earned this fawning and crowning. Sorry, but that is how I see it. He's played the race card when it was to his advantage and falseley accused the Clintons of doing it and the media has agreed and helped him with this myth. He skillfully stays away from down in the trench blacks as he pretends their is no race issue in this country. He knowingly lied about his knowledge of who and what Rev Wright was all about and kicked him to the curb because of his outspoken contempt for system we all honestly feel the same way about.

I hope the Dems get what they want from this election instead of what they deserve.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. If Obama supporters were 3/5 a person, Clinton would be winning.

It's so unfair.

[Aloha Spirit]

8. +1

[iamthebandfanman]

14. boohoo

she lost.

deal with it.

[YDogg]

25. this

[NYCGirl]

2. And if Obama had lost 11 states in a row and his campaign was in debt,

he would've dropped out.

"Down in the trench blacks"? Huh?

[rocktivity]

48. DING DING DING! NYCGirl, you're our grand prize winner!

(I)f Obama had lost 11 states in a row and his campaign was in debt, he would've dropped out.

Putting himself in a perfect position to run again in 2012 or to be the perfect 2008 VP candidate.

But seriously folks, this HAS been over since the first Super Tuesday: Hillary did so badly that the only way to catch up was to get 60% of all the votes on the second Super Tuesday!

:headbang:
rocknation

[ClassWarrior]

3. Now "gaining" is the criterion, even though it is mathematically impossible...

...for Tonya to win?

NGU.

[sandnsea]

7. There was only one primary in April

How the hell can you be "gaining" when you win one primary.

That's how powerful the media is.

[LisaM]

20. OK, the combined populations of Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, South Carolina,

Nevada, and Hawaii are four million LESS than Pennsylvania.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

31. So, they don't count as much?

Talk about disenfranchisement.

[LisaM]

42. I didn't say that.

I just don't think it's right to demean the numbers of people in Pennsylvania who turned out to vote for Hillary.

OTOH, I think that it's true that some of those states have disproportionate influence through the Electoral college.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

52. Who's demeaning PA?

Hillary won. She was ahead in the polls and she won. Nobody's trying to demean PA or take that victory away from her. But none of that matters. Obama is ahead in the delegate count -- which is what primaries are all about -- and the only way Hillary can catch up is landslide victories in the remaining states, some of which are as small or smaller than the ones you listed.

[sandnsea]

43. That's why PA has more delegates

Of which Hillary got a whopping ten point lead. We're electing delegates. She can't catch up. She lost.

[scheming daemons]

4. Call the Waaaahmbulance......

The SD's know that Clinton is unelectable.

[sandnsea]

5. She was ahead 30 points, she's losing

For the love of god - she lost IA, she tied NH, she lost NV, she lost SC, she lost Super Tuesday, she lost Texas, she lost Jan, Feb, Mar.

There was only ONE primary in April. ARe you telling me she is gaining because she won ten delegates in ONE FUCKING PRIMARY.

SHE LOST.

[rocktivity]

49. She was ahead by 96 superdelegates

She's ahead by 16 now.



:headbang:
rocknation

[bunnies]

6. there would be blood in the streets

drama factor: 10
truth factor: 0

carry on.

[Cheap_Trick]

9. what are the sd's supposedly "doing" to hillary?

choosing Obama instead of her? the bastards. Hillary's going to get what she deserves. She's going to LOSE. She made the choice to run a Rovian campaign, and it cost her. Too bad.

[kenny blankenship]

36. In any case she has no room to whine since she wants them to do the same to Obama-only worse.

It would be worse since there's no way that he won't be the candidate in the lead at the end of the primaries.
There is no way for her to catch up and hasn't been since Wisconsin. Her continued campaign has been premised 100% on the repellent "hope" that SDs will be setting aside the results of the primaries and simply GIFTing Bill Clinton's wife with the nomination.

I can't believe there are people so shameless as to log onto DU and defend her - and some of them are actually Democrats, or once were.

[Cheap_Trick]

51. DINO's now, sadly

[Aloha Spirit]

10. Which day in the election was Clinton actually leading in pledged delegates? I forget.

[Poll_Blind]

12. I'm pretty sure it was last Neverday.

:)

PB

[Aloha Spirit]

16. That was the day she won the state

of denial?

[RainDog]

11. I'm sorry, but the election is over.

Currently Obama is credited with 1737 delegates (pledged and super) and Clinton is credited with 1598 delegates. Of the 795 Super Delegates only 272 haven't indicated for whom they intend to vote.

As such, assuming the remaining pledged delegates break 50/50 -- which given our system of proportional allocation is nearly certain to be at least roughly accurate -- then Clinton would need to win 206 of the remaining 272 Super Delegates to win. In other words, she would need to convince 75.7% of the remaining undecided Super Delegates. This would require her to gain more than 3 of the undecided for every one that Obama picks up. This is essentially impossible and this is why the race is really over. The only thing Hillary Clinton can do at this point is continue to damage Obama by (1) attacking his qualifications to serve ("he's not ready" "he's not fit to be Comander and Chief"), (2) providing opposition research to the Republicans (see today's article in HuffPost), (3) making Obama waste campaign cash fighting Clinton instead of McCain, and (4) spliting the Dem and dragging the race out where her followers won't be willing to vote for Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5774402

Even more fascinating is what's going on with the Republicans.

Their pundits are masterfully claiming that Hillary is the stronger candidate for multiple reasons.

1) Most obviously, they want to primary to go to the convention. They know there will be almost no time for the party to heal after August.

2) They want to increase doubt and fear within the Dem party and the Dem party leadership. "Oh no, what if Barack Obama is MORE unpopular and unelectable than Hillary Clinton!" It's ridiculous but people buy it - despite the fact that people like and trust Obama more.

3) This is the key rationale. The Republicans are pumping up Hillary so they can siphon off votes when Barack's nomination is official. Believe it or not, the Republican party is positioning themselves to become to the party devoted to disenfranchised women. They already know that their scare tactics and race baiting will work on the many uneducated Americans. But what they need is to convince women that the Democratic party has somehow betrayed them.

Will they succeed? I hope not.


The super delegates are getting behind Obama because those who are elected officials think she will hurt their re-election chances if she is on the ticket. That's the way the game is played. It's a party, not just one person.

[Ashy Larry]

13. She is not really gaining.

The Clinton campaign has acknowledged from the beginning that this is a race for delegates. Obama's delegate lead is insurmountable.

[CakeGrrl]

15. Poooooor Hillary

The only reason she's gaining is because the media is propping her up and driving down Obama's polls with nothing but Wright-elitist-Wright-Wright-Wright-elitist-elitist-Wright bullcrap peddled to the gullible electorate who isn't thinking beyond what they see on MSNBC and Fox.

Thankfully the SDs see what's really going on and know what kind of game is being played. I'm disappointed they aren't acting more quickly to stop more damage from being done to the Democrat's chances in the GE.

[iamthebandfanman]

17. we 'deserve'

someone who will bring actual change to politics...
not someone whos been involved in the very politics that got us to this point for the last 20 years.

the only 'experience' she has is how to be a corrupt politician, and she does it nicely.
the gas tax is a fine example of her pandering.
its sad.

sorry, but mrs clinton lost.

how about we start slandering mccain now instead of our nominee?

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Whoa! Lookit those goalpoasts move!

Why, just a few weeks ago, according to camp Hillary, the supers were the "grownups" who were going to save the party from itself; i.e. nominating Obama.

Guess that isn't workin' out so well.

[Cant trust em]

24. Must be some voodoo. NT

[SoCalDem]

19. MANY of her SDs (of the original 200 or so), signed on

because SHE WAS THE PRESUMPTIVE WINNER...before any campaigning was ever done... No doubt, they were "lined up, and ready to board the Goodie Express before she ever announced.. It's no secret that she's been "running" for 7.5 years, so why NOT join her team... It would all be over by Feb 5..remember????

Of course some are bailing out... They have had ample time to OBSERVE how she really runs a campaign (piss-poorly), how she raises money (even worse than piss-poorly), and the depths to which she is willing to stoop..

It's not surprising to me at ALL that they would start bailing out...

[wowimthere]

21. but you're wrong... he's Earned it. And... this race isn't close. Stop this...

He has all of the categories sewed up. Fl and MI... her people were responsible for drafting the rules. SDs know this. Popular vote? It's disproportionate state to state. It's about the elected delegates.

I see you whining about the Popular vote. Even if you count Fl and MI she still loses. Why? You guys want to count only primary wins but guess what... CAUCUSES count toward the popular vote too. What did you think? Caucuses don't count. He won nearly all of them and by that metric if you count the caucus and the primaries Obama "obliterates" her. This whole thing is a side show. Delegates are the only thing that matters. He has an insurmountable lead so stop! We deserve change! We are going to get Change! Obama is that Change!

[Cant trust em]

22. If Obama were behind after losing 11 contests and facing an insurmountable climb

then he would have dropped out and quit tearing the party apart in the process.

As long as we're living in hypothetical-land, I figured I throw that out there.

[dana_b]

23. I thought that the SD were free to do as they please?

so which is it? Should they stick by their pledges or be able to change as they want to?

[wowimthere]

39. What would you say if Clinton had won 11 in a row and SDs went to Obama against the wishes of the

voters. Just didn't care how many elected delegates Clinton got. Would you think it was fair that all of this campaigning went on and SDs decided so what? You're arguing for her now but what happens when the GOP undermine the vote. Accept that Obama has won and that the SDs should consider elected delegates as the metric.

[dana_b]

45. oh no, I think you misunderstood me or I said it wrong.

I was asking the OP if it was okay for the SDs to change or not because that is one of the Clinton supporters big arguments. That if the "tide is changing", then the SDs should be able to change their minds and go to Hillary.It's like they want it both ways - whatever is convenient. The SDs can change their minds, as long as they don't go against her. I'm with you! I think the candidate with the most delegates, support, etc. should get the majority of the SDs votes.

[JanErikFl]

26. A new Super for Hillary: Texas DNC member, Jaime A. Gonzalez Jr., is coming out for Clinton

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/A_Texas_super_for_Hillary.html

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I am convinced that she is the best choice for President, said Gonzalez. She has shown the leadership qualities that we need to win the presidency in the general election and give Democrats a victory in November.

[mod mom]

27. OBAMA HAS RUN A FAIR CAMPAIGN! Big difference! I don't recall robo call attempting

to disenfrachise Hillary supporters!


from NPR:

Group with Clinton Ties Behind Dubious Robocalls

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90114863

[gcomeau]

28. Remind me how many SDs endorsed Clinton before ANYONE voted?

Just help me out there while you're expressing your outrage that they're endorsing Obama now when he's ahead after over 40 states and Clinton catching up is effectively mathematically impossible. I'm sure you were outraged that they tried to hand the race to Clinton on a silver platter by giving her a massive delegate lead and pumping up that inevitability image without a single vote ever being cast anywhere in the nation.

[LSK]

29. gaining because she won a state by 9 that she was supposed to win by 20??

:shrug:

[Upton]

30. You want a tissue?

[wowimthere]

32. If obama had lost that many contests I would implore him to get out. Clinton is suggesting something

and she likes to cloak it in "I'm fighting". She is by all accounts a racist because she knows she's lost and wants to steal the election when she didn't win it. Obama did an end run around her and she didn't see him coming. She needs to stop this because people are looking at her as if she is undermining our chances of winning. She thinks she can run in 2012? No one will vote for her. Especially Minorities and YOUNG people who feel disenfranchised. Blood on the convention floor in Denver? People won't forget that for some 20 years and Democrats will be viewed as Republicans and that's fine with Republicans because then they will have won the politics of destruction against politics of Hope argument.

[RainDog]

37. exactly. If Obama were in Hillary's situation

I think he would have already GRACEFULLY conceded. What's happening now is just a way to suppress democratic votes for the nominee.

[wowimthere]

41. You're right. Hillary is actually undermining the Dems by staying in... and Dems are letting her.

[RainDog]

47. I think the situation has reached critical mass

and will be resolved this week.

[onenote]

33. If I could make any sense out of the OP, I'd respond.

But I can't.

Oh, I can with respect to one point: the notion that "no one is calling for Obama SDs who are from states that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary to switch their vote according to the will of their constituencies."

In fact, I've seen quite a few posts here at DU doing exactly that. And, moreover, there hasn't been that much "switching" -- mostly its been announcments by previously undeclared SDs. Joe Edwards is a notable example and in his case he didn't do it response to, or in defiance of, the will of the people of Indiana (and he's not an elected official their anyway) -- he did it before the primary.

[txaslftist]

34. Hillary's only gaining in your imagination.

She was 20 points up in PA 3 weeks before that primary, and only won by 9.

She was the "presumed nominee" last summer, and she's behind in delegates, popular vote and now supers.

I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but she's not gaining, she's slipping still.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Wait a minute, is Rev. Wright bad or good now?

Can you Hillbots ever keep your story straight?

[Binka]

38. Are You Gonna Stomp Your Feet And Do This.....

(Another BRAT having a melt down)

[Indenturedebtor]

40. Your run on paragraph makes my brain bleed

But I'm not in the streets...

She can't win without the SD's "gaining" or not after a state she was always expected to win (but by higher margins). The SD's are saying "enough, go home HRC." The only debate worth having is whether or not that home is NY, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Puerto Rico.

[ecstatic]

44. No there would not be blood on the street

If Obama were losing like Hillary is, he would have been forced out the race a long time ago. And Obama would have gracefully complied for the good of the party.

[rateyes]

46. This just isn't true:

"And no one is calling for Obama SDs who are from states that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary to switch their vote according to the will of their constituencies."

[ORDem]

50. And if Obama were behind (he's not) and IF the SDs were doing this to him, then

you wouldn't have posted this transparent plug for Hillary.

:dem: