They always run hit pieces against who-ever is the front-runner. Obama is the front-runner.
The polls right now seem to say Hilary has the better chance, and no one has any doubt she would do better in Fla. Not even Obama is claiming differently. (of course, if the elections were decided in the polls, right now we’d be in the last months of Prez. Gore’s 2nd term, and it’d be a little cooler, too)
No, they are not stupid. Why hit Hillary when Obama has a significant lead?
Obama has the most delegates. But simply not lifting a finger, he can make the DNC continue their ruling against Fla. He could have the DNC recognize Fla tomorrow if he really wanted. Everyone knows this.
Even assuming for the moment that you’re right and he could lean on the DNC…“just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” Florida and Michigan didn’t play by the rules. Deal with it.
Right- the Republican Legislature of Fla decided to go against the rules of the DNC, thus pissing off the Dem voters who will now stay home rather than vote Dem. Go figure. :rolleyes: Can you say “Karl Rove”? Sure of course you can. (Yes, many Dem state legislature members went along with the GoP, what can I say, they are dumber than a bag of hammers)
And, the rules can be changed, they can be appealed to the Rules committee. In fact the rules are almost always changed, at least a little. What is critical is that if the rules aren’t changed, Obama will lose in November. Damned if you do, loser if you don’t.
Hide this in little text if you want, but you’re trying to skate around their blame. The Democrats fucked up. If they had voted against the measure, it would have been a show of good faith and the case for Florida would be much stronger than it is now.
No, the entire legislature of FL went against the rules of the DNC. Not even “many Dem state legislatures” – almost 100% of them.
There’s no reason to give the poor Dems a pass on this one. they had their chance to fight it and instead went skipping arm-in-arm with the Republicans.
Only if you give him Indiana (and the evidence of yesterday doesn’t point to that happening, does it?). Otherwise, he has only a *minority * of the EV’s - not a good definition of “winning”, huh? Or are you using the Pennsylvania definition, where losing by only 10 points *is * “winning”?
*Do * please try to understand what you’re replying to, and do try to have an actual basis for it when you do, okay? :dubious: bosstone, you too would convince a lot more people, including the casual readers of this forum, by presenting an actual argument of your own.
Well Elvis Obama may not have won Indiana, but a barely 1% loss is certainly closer to a tie than anything else, no? That coupled with a BIG win in NC makes me think all the polling places and MSM touting Clinton’s comeback were blowing hot air…VERY HOT air.
Now in light of last evening, if Clinton can stand up and back Obama - to the tune of uniting with him, then the democrats will mount a machine easily capable of winning in November and that is ultimately what democrats want to do. All the superdelegates watched what happened last night, and all of them know a united front will win it for them in November.
An honorable thing to do would be to thicken our demcratic skin together and win this thing come November.
Is there any evidence that the DNC will seat delegates from Florida or Michigan at this point? Not speculation, not “If they do” or “They have to, dang it!”, but actual factual evidence that it will happen?
I don’t think those delegates will sit unless they don’t make a difference in the outcome. If there are enough supers to overcome the gains that Hillary would make by seating the delegations as current, then of course they will be magnanimously seated. If they will cause trouble in terms of the certainty of the victory, then they will be left to twist.
It’s Obama’s now, the rest is PR maneuvering by all sides. The Dems need to allow Hillary, the once and future party superstar, to save face and resolve her financial situation. They need to figure out a way to reach out to Florida and Michigan. They need to make their nomminee appear legitimate. So I’m thinking they let Clinton stay in, she will massively reduce her spending but hopefully continue to fundraise even at a limited level, she will contest the remaining primaries so that Obama doesn’t look bad for losing big in WV and maybe PR to someone who has already dropped out. After the last primary, she will concede. If she doesn’t, the supers will move en masse to Obama so that FL and MI may be seated.
This election season is democrats against democrats. Does it extrapolate into the general election where everybody is in play? Will Obama have to lure crossover votes to offset the prejudice vote. ? Who will win the independents and how? What impact will the economy and war have? If he becomes the nominee I will be very interested in the first national poll.
Elite opinion on the Democratic race has congealed around the idea that it is over. Clinton has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination now. There is a minority of analysts out there - maybe 5%, maybe even less - who see her path to the nomination as much narrower than it was four days ago, but who still see a path.
I’m with the minority on this one. I think she is nearly finished, but not quite yet.
As Oxendine says in his analysis of Indiana and North Carolina: “Appalachia didn’t budge [on Tuesday]. She is going to absolutely blow him out of the water in West VA and KY.”
So, here’s my question. What happens to “It’s Over” if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky? If these states turn out in the same margins that states since March 4th have averaged, that would imply a net of about 290,000 votes for Clinton. That puts her within striking distance of a reasonable popular vote victory. “Over” will be over as we turn our attention to Puerto Rico.
There are good reasons not to take Puerto Rico lightly, even though the press has continued to do exactly that. I would note: (a) Puerto Ricans vote in large numbers (2 million in the last gubernatorial election); (b) Puerto Ricans have never had this important a role in United States presidential politics; (c) Puerto Rico’s politics is focused at least partially on how (if at all) to adjust its relationship with the United States; (d) …
The inference I draw is that Puerto Ricans could turn out in huge numbers. If they do, and they swing for Clinton in a sizeable way, the popular vote lead could swing, too. Add 290,000 votes from West Virginia and Kentucky to 250,000 votes from Puerto Rico, account for expected losses in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, and you get Clinton leading in many popular vote counts, some of which are really quite valid. If she has one of those leads when the final votes are counted on June 3rd, the race will go on to the convention.
Am I predicting that all of this will happen? No. That would be quite presumptuous. The problem is not that any of these incidents is individually unlikely. It is not unlikely that Clinton will get a huge victory in Kentucky, West Virginia, or Puerto Rico. Theoretically, I would wager at least one of the three will happen. The problem is that she has to do all three. What’s more, she has to keep it competitive in Oregon (just how competitive depends on her margins in the other states). That’s a tall order - four big things to do with no margin for error. I’d never predict that she could do all four. I may be a contrarian, but I am not an idiot! *
Interesting. But I am doubtful she will get all 3; maybe 2 of 3. Still, I don’t want her to drop out yet.
Obama/Clinton would be a compromise, and it’s not impossible. :eek:
I don’t think that scenario is unlikely at all. She will most likely with KY, WV, and PR in blow-outs. It’s just that most of think that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t, as the article suggests, put her in striking distance of the popular vote. And, more importantly, it doesn’t close the massive gap in delegates.
The better scenario is one in which she does all of that AND also somehow gets FL and MI seated AND wins the remaining superdelegates in a lopsided way. That could give her the win, and that is the scenario everyone sees as nigh impossible.
Obama just picked up 9 superdelegates today, including one Clinton defection.
If you put those 9 all in Obama’s column and take one away from Hillary – that is, start the WV primary with the score +9 to -1 and then apportion 39 delegates according to the WV rules – then he can lose by over 20 points and this week is still a win for him in the metric that matters. That’s assuming no further supers jump to his side or defect.
Of course, Hillary gets a nice headline on Wednesday, but remember last Tuesday: Indiana was the big story, even though North Carolina was the blowout. I suspect she gets a barely-surprised media to cede the front page for Wednesday, but Obama gets above-the-fold on Thursday and Friday for other “it’s almost over” stories.
Of course you don’t. In the self-proclaimed “rational” world you and Phl inhabit, where close losses are actually wins, it certainly *figures * that huge, unrationalizable losses don’t matter.
But to the supers who *will * decide the nomination in a resprise of the smoke-filled-room days (that hasn’t changed), don’t you think both demographics and momentum will factor into the consideration of who can actually beat McCain?
Yes, superdelegates are looking at who can beat McCain - and they clearly see Obama has come out on top for the majority of 40+ contests. He’s ahead in all the mesures that are being measured - plain and simple Obama played the primary game better than Clinton did. As evidenced by his record and the recent surge of supers and defections going to Obama. That would not be happening if Obama was about to lose.
As for the smoke filled back rooms, I think they are still just as smoky as any election year, but now instead of them deciding who will be the nominee, they are strategizing how Obama will beat McCain.
I think Obama will have a tougher time beating McCain than Clinton. McCain will be able to attack Obama now without being shackled by any feelings of dread that the AA vote will not go to him - it will not anyway. Clinton was constrained in her criticisms because in every turn she is being accused of racism. McCain will have no problem with that and besides, the media bias that Obama enjoys will not play so well with Fox backing McCain to the hilt. Clinton got a fairer shake with Fox, but that doesn’t really have much of an impact in a Democratic base especially when every other news org is for Obama.
In the initial tussles between Obama and McCain, it seems to me that McCain has been able to dismiss Obama as the greenhorn that he is. I don’t think Obama can really damage McCain that much - but McCain certainly can damage Obama. There’s too much material out there that it’s easy to play with it. The fact that McCain has much more experience, was a war veteran, is older and generally held with some esteem by a lot of Democrats will make it difficult for Obama to attack him.
Already, McCain is wise to Obama’s tactics (hypocritical message of making the campaign clean but engaging in the worst attacks) and Obama won’t get away this time with McCain having a platform to himself (Fox).
Greenhorn’s have won the Presidency before. Obama has many things going for him that McCain does not. The biggest IMHO, is McCain will represent to many, many Democrats and independents another Bush - and that is simply too much for people to bear. People will vote Obama because he is intelligent, able to work with many different people in Washignton, and will represent the change this country needs away from the bush years. I can’t wait to see the first debate between McBush and Obama. McCain had his chance at the presidency, his time has come to pass, and this country does not need another 4 years of Bush like politics. I will all but guarantee McCain flip-flops on his stance for the war…he will have to if he doesn’t want this to be a landslide.
