And here’s how she does it - Liagra!
So, 10%, but only six delegates. She’s going to stay in… but that’s not much of a pickup.
True enough. But it is a double digit win, not a squeaker and she’s not trying to accumulate more delegates than him. That’s impossible and since he can’t accumulate enough to win the nomination outright either, now beside the point.
She is, as everyone knows, showing (again) that he can’t win big states. None. (Except his own, Illinois). He can’t win over enough of the demo that will be key to victory. That’s her whole superdelegate argument.
You can agree or disagree (golly, I wonder how most folks on here feel? lol) but that is her argument and her strategy from here on in and it has been for a bit now.
Obama camp and a lot of the media are fond of saying she can’t win she should drop out. Well, he can’t win either. That’s pretty much a fact in both directions.
Since neither can win outright, it’s now an argument of who’s more electable.
Obama argues that the big states will go his way anyway regardless; the other side claims that it will be a close election without those lunchbox Dems and that there is a higher percentage of Clinton voters that have said they will vote McCain if Obama is the nominee than the other way around.
I don’t think it’s self-evident anymore that traditional states like Cali will go for the Dem. and making that kind of argument strikes me as rather (dangerously) cavalier. Sort of like Obama.
At this point, they’re both so wounded that national polls put McCain in competitive numbers to both of them (which should not be the case at all given the current economy, Iraq, etc.) give or take a few.
That doesn’t bode well for either candidate. But I think HRC does better under pressure and with things going badly. She’s been there in her personal life; there is something to be said for having lived longer besides wisecracks. Obama gets testy under fire and tries to seize the moral high ground and shame the questioner(s). That works pretty well to some extent, but methinks at the end of the day he’s got too much baggage now that came out too late – as opposed to things known over 16 years – and he doesn’t handle them well, he simply calls them ‘distractions’ and tries to deflect them that way.
Why am I thinking the next POTUS will be someone none of us are seriously considering? LOL
I just don’t get this argument. Is she seriously suggesting that primary outcomes in large states is in any way a predictor of the outcome in the general election? It is a specious argument that may fly with the average voter, but I doubt that savvy superdelegates will buy it and vote for someone who came in second in the popular vote, second in the pledged delegate count and second in the number of states won. It is a vain hope, but I guess if that’s all you have, you run with it. But nobody seriously believes that McCain is going to win in New York and California against Obama.
**Fear ** is right. Besides, Texas is pretty big and Obama won there.
I’m just glad she’ll stop calling me!
I voted yesterday and our polling booth had touch screens to vote with. I was stunned at how many people were having trouble figuring them out.
Yes, yes, I write software for a living, so I am used to such things. But the screens were not crowed in anyway, the directions were in a huge font and the buttons were large. Just read the screen!
(high jack over.)
First of all - where have you been?
As for who the media saying she can’t win they were not talking about the next several primaries, they were talking about not being able to win at the convention. Where the best guess is she cannot win because the superdelegates will not risk going against the will of the people. By the time the convention gets going he will have won waaaay more states than she, more delegates, and have the popular vote - that is what the media et al are saying. They are not talking about an inability to win 2025 delegates they are talking about winning the nomination. And there is no way in hell barring a major ef-up by Barack that Clinton will take the nod.
All month people here have been talking about 10% and under in PA Clinton essentially get’s nothing, 11%-15% people begin to turn their heads a little - [and in people I’m talking about donors] - 16%-25% and there is wind in her sails.
But Obama is projected to win the next several big states. Effectively nullifying a PA win by Clinton.
I cannot understand how people continue to make this argument. Surely you realize the argument is not that she can’t win outright and should quit?
To win “outright” a candidate would need to win 62% of the 3253 pledged delegates. That’s quite a hurdle in a proportional system. Luckily nobody in Obama’s camp says Clinton should drop out because she can’t do that. What I have heard, on the other hand, is that she’s lost the pledged delegate vote, she’s lost the popular vote, she’s lost more states, and since Super Duper Tuesday she’s gained extremely few super delegates compared to Obama’s steady stream of them. In other words, to win the nomination she needs to win 67% in every remaining state and/or convince every remaining super delegate to side overwhelmingly with her, in spite of the fact that she has been unable to make any real progress toward either goal.
The argument is not that Hillary didn’t manage to take the super majority of pledged delegates required to negate the super delegates’ role and should quit. It’s silly and off point to respond that Obama didn’t do that either. Totally different definitions of “can’t win”. The argument is that there is no realistic scenario where Hillary can win the nomination over all, in the end, by whatever mechanism.
But on a visceral level, don’t you just feel ridiculous to claim that neither of them can win? When people say she has no realistic path to the nomination, and the reply is that Obama can’t win either, what do you imagine happening? Does Dean take the stage and say “I told you guys to get your shit together, but I guess we’re not fielding a candidate this year. In the end, neither candidate could win…”
Meanwhile, as I point out here, the New York Times appears to be having buyer’s remorse about their previous endorsement of Hillary.
I just ran the numbers on Slate. According to their calculator, and [del]ridiculously[/del] generously assuming 50-50 splits in North Carolina and Oregon, she’d need SIXTY point wins (yes, that’s 80-20), just to bring the current delegate count to tied.
Reading the blogs and such it is clear this is the worst possible resulr for the Democrats. Large enought to keep Hillary’s ego in the race, but small enough that it doesn’t really change the dynamics of the race.
Of course this means another round of massive fundraising for both. I am concerned that this drawn out primary is going to dry up funds that people would normally give for the general election or as importantly for congressional elections.
Fuzzy Dunlop: (I never thought I’d see the day when a tennis ball with a microphone in it could post on the Internet)
That would be awesome.
On another forum, I did a brief chart regarding Obama/Clinton vs. McCain matchups in states with 15+ Electoral Votes. I used the data from Electoral-Vote.com for my wins/loses and called any 1% margins (44-45, etc) a tie. I’m sure people can find a dozen things wrong with my methodology and polls are getting long in the tooth but I only have what I have to work with. Here’s the chart:
State EVs Win Tie Lose
=================================================
California 55 C/O
New York 31 C/O
Texas 34 O C
Florida 27 C O
Illinois 21 C/O
Pennsylvania 21 C/O
Ohio 20 C O
Michigan 17 O C
Georgia 15 C/O
New Jersey 15 O C
North Carolina 15 O C
According to that, we have:
Clinton wins 148 EVs and ties for 42
Obama wins 160 EVs and ties for 49
The “large state” arguement is a pretty silly one. Obama has as much chance of losing New York or California as Clinton has of losing Illinois. Clinton would be better off concentrating on Ohio & Florida.
Hillary’s win, technically, was under 10% [
](http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clintons_doubledigit_win_not_e.html) But of course she’s going to play it up as a “BIG” win, when in reality it was anything but, considering it wasn’t actually the “double digit” win she was touting, and the fact that not only was Obama never expected to win Pennsylvania, but he managed to close the gap from a 25+ point advantage Hillary held just a few weeks ago, down to a single digit win.
And then of course there’s the fact that even with this win in her column this morning, Obama’s the one who lines up yet another superdelegate endorsement; Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry.
I respect your dissent, but you are wrong on nearly every issue.
Clinton won by 9.4%. It takes a special kind of person to round 9.4 to 10. This does not make it a “double digit win” nor a “squeaker”. It makes it noise.
Regardless of my personal feelings, this argument is illogical and abuses the principles of inference. Obama definitely did not win big states in February, but these results are not generalizable to today nor to the general election. If the election were held today, would the outcome be the same? Probably not. It is simply wrong to infer it either way.
And how one infers this separates those who know anything about induction and those who don’t.
This is not fact-based.
Given the close split in two previous general elections, it really should be no surprise that the race is close. It is a miracle that either democratic candidate is doing as well against McCain as he/she is given the bloodbath.
I am still considering Al Gore. If only.
It’s no suprise that McCain is experiencing a mild spring. I am not particularly concerned that this will continue into the fall. Once the focus passes to him and he has to debate (for example) I think we’ll see the numbers shake out a bit in the Dem’s favor. Hillary can hardly do more damage to the collective Democratic cause than she is doing currently, and things are still fairly even. Even if it all comes down to tepid support or a no-show by Hillary between August and November, Obama has a great shot.
Nice! Who is that narrating? I hear that voice over a lot???
Well, assuming time travel exists, she’s got a real shot! :smack:
Spanking new Supers for Obama today:
Audra Ostergard - Nebraska, which gives Obama all 6 Nebraska Super delegates.