You said that she leads the popular vote and that more people have cast their votes for Obama. I’m not sure how that’s possible.
I have no doubt she could defeat McCain if he weren’t on the Michigan ballot as well.
Of course, you’re trying to count the states that disqualified themselves from having any say in this nomination again. The Hillbots are going to be flogging that dead horse for a LONG time, I suppose.
So how is it that Clinton and her advisers were all absolutely fine with not counting Florida or Michigan when they moved their dates up? Harold Ickes, who is now one of Clinton’s campaign advisers, was on the committee that voted to strip them of their delegates! Terry McAuliffe, when he was the chair of the DNC, actually got into a shouting match with Senator Carl Levin of Michigan over Levin’s desire to move Michigan’s primary up in 2004, and called Levin’s bluff over disqualifying delegates. Now moving primaries up is just hunky-dory for him.
Hypocrisy and lies are what the Clinton campaign are made of. I don’t want that in the White House. We’ve already had 16 years of it.
I know it’s been said many times, but you Clinton supporters who think that a one-candidate election should count as part of the totals absolutely destroy your credibility and do nothing to win people to your side.
Oh, come on. Are you seriously trying to make a case that Hillary should now receive votes when (a) she agreed with the rules to exclude states that didn’t follow them, and (b) Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in one of those states? I expect to hear this kind of illogic on the streets of Scranton, but not on the Dope. Wow. Seriously.
Curious how you want to stick by the rules when it benefits Hillary, but if the rules exclude Michigan and Florida, you hand wave them away.
Besides, if we count the uncommitted votes in Michigan as votes for Obama, Hillary’s “lead” evaporates. Obama is still ahead in the popular vote.
This may or may not be true. Just because she said it, doesn’t mean she’ll do it.
I suspect she will bow out if she loses Indiana and North Carolina.
Will the Clinton candidacy be in its “death throes” longer than the Iraqi insurgency? That is, right up until it succeeds?
9th, how about a virtual bet?
I am confident that Hillary will drop out before the convention and that Obama will then ask for Florida and Michigan to be seated as is. You believe that this go to the convention.
Here’s the bet: I’m right and you post with the sig that say’s “DSeid called it: Go Obama!” for one month and I’ll do a month of “9thFloor knew the score: Clinton Rocks!”
What say you?
Meantime, the forks keep denting and bouncing off, and the Clinton campaign continues to sit up in its coffin, fangs dripping and red eyes glaring.
More stakes at once!!
Hillary is STILL not finally forked?? lol.
No way Hillary is quitting before the convention. This will go down to the wire.
-XT
I’m willing to make a similar wager with you, as DSeid made above. I don’t believe the party leaders will allow her to take it all the way to the convention. Nor, for that matter, will many of her supporters, who are also getting sick of her tactics. . .
“Get OUT!”
Not Supers, but still considered and, IMO important endorsements.
Video: Nobel Laureate Economists Stiglitz and Phelps Endorse Obama
Edited to note: Stiglitz was a member of the former Clinton administration, and Phelps actually calls him President Obama at the end of the video. Nice.
Well, I have no dog in this fight so I’m uninterested in a tag line saying Hillary rulez. 
But sure, details aside I’m willing to do a gentlemans bet with you that Hillary won’t back out before the convention. I’m pretty sure she will take this thing all the way to the wire…baring some change in the supers making it crystal clear that she has zero chance.
-XT
That’s not a fact at all. Why would the desired “rule” be that the nominee must win over 60% of the pledged delegates to be legitimate? It would have happened if the once-viable candidates dropped out when it became clear they couldn’t win. Then Obama would have scooped up the delegates from remaining states and would won the needed 2025 delegates.
But when you have the formerly inevitable establishment candidate who had every resource available refusing to quit? Somehow the desired “rules” become that he should have captured over 60% of the pledged delegates and otherwise he didn’t really win? That’s definitely not a fact, it’s just new nonsense.
It’s not really a big deal as long as one of the candidates won by every other measure. The super delegates have to play a role this time. But he won more states, he won more pledged delegates, and he absolutely won the popular vote. So as long as they go along with it, let’s not pretend it’s so awful. There’s no indication that Hillary is going to be successful at convincing them to switch to her by the overwhelming majority she would need. In fact, all evidence since Super Duper Tuesday has been that she’s been unable to pick up super delegates.
I guess you might have a point if it were true that she was leading in the popular vote. But she’s losing that too. She lost more states, she lost more pledged delegates, and she lost the popular vote.
And to be absolutely clear, Obama supporters absolutely do not point out that she would have to win 67% of the remaining states to win the delegates needed to clinch the nomination. That’s what she would need to be in the lead. All Obama needs to do is not lose every remaining state to her by 33%. Then he’ll still be in the lead in pledged delegates. Nobody talks about what Obama needs to clinch the nomination without super delegate votes because when you’ve won the popular vote, won more states, and won more pledged delegates, you’re doing pretty well even without some silly new “rule” that has recently been declared the desirable one.
Again, it’s an interesting scenario but it’s not an accurate reflection of reality. Obama is winning in the popular vote AND in pledged delegates.
Ok.
The popular vote is a virtual tie. There is no “one true count”, such a thing does not exist. Thus, depending on how you count it, Obama is at best 2% ahead, and on the other extreme, Clinton is ahead by .4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Popular Vote Total 14,418,691 49.2% 13,917,393 47.5% Obama +501,298 +1.7%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 14,752,775 49.3% 14,141,255 47.2% Obama +611,520 +2.1%
Popular Vote (w/FL) 14,994,905 48.3% 14,788,379 47.6% Obama +206,526 +0.7%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,328,989 48.4% 15,012,241 47.4% Obama +316,748 +1.0%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)** 14,994,905 47.4% 15,116,688 47.8% Clinton +121,783 +0.4%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 15,328,989 47.5% 15,340,550 47.5% Clinton +11,561 +0.03%.
That out of the way- it is interesting how Obama supporters keep moving the goalposts as to what is really important- is it “Pledged delegates”? Total delegates? Popular vote? Most states won? It was “Pledged Delegates” and SuperDelegates were Eviil and undemocratic :rolleyes: - until Obam started raking them in. Then it was “the will of the people”, aka Popular vote- until *that *became a virtual tie.
But none of that matters, nor does “who has the most delegates”. It’s only “who has 2,024 Delegates”. Until you have 2,024 you ain’t the winner. Obama ain’t got 2,024 and he can NOT possibly win enough “pledged delegates” to get 2,024.
Thus, unless one of them badly stumbles or unless a Deal is made, it goes to Denver. Exactly how it is supposed to. There, there will be a First Ballot. After that, all bets are off. Obama is a *very *charismatic speaker, he might get the floor so fired up he wins on the first ballot. But since Fla & Mich likely won’t have any votes, it’s going to be very hard.
But if he doesn’t, then it becomes “wheelin & dealin” time, where dudes are promised Postmaster General in return for their votes. 
And, Clinton is hwaaaay better at that.
Neither will be “disregarding the will of the people”. The people have spoken and it’s a dead heat. If you don’t walk into Denver with 2,024 Delegates, then there is no “will of the people”. 2,024 delegate is “the will of the people”.
Of course, some of the Obama camp might decide to vote for McCain out of spite. But that cuts both ways, the Clinton camp can do that too. That’d be suicidedal not only for the party, but for the nation. As personally honest as McCain is, we simply can’t afford another 8 years of this war.
Is it 2,024 votes, if Florida and Michigan aren’t counted? I’d think that it’d be 2,024 minus Florida and Michigan’s delegate count in some proportion.
If you include Michigan in any tally of the popular vote you are wrong. If you think that Michigan should be seated you are wrong. If you think this is in any way about the popular vote instead of delegates, you are wrong.
Just ask Hillary’s campaign staff, but not now. Ask them earlier in this race- before she did not perform as well as she should have according to the measures that allegedly mattered.
One day McAullife and Wolfson and Ickes will have a chuckling sit-down about the crazy shit they had to say to collect their paychecks in this campaign.
It’s not “moving the goal posts” to point out that one candidate is ahead by every measure that makes any sense and that there’s no reasonable indication that it will change.