Never mind then. My bad for skipping down the thread and jumping in without knowing what I was talking about.
Let me wipe that bit of froth off your mouth for ya.
Hillary is working pretty adeptly within the space permitted by the rules. Unfortunately for her, the HRC campaign is not so adept. But perhaps that will change.
And indeed her wins last night were very slight. In fact, the Obama campaign has calculated that they expect to have picked up more pledged delegates in Texas than Hillary Clinton. So she may have technically “won”, but where it counts, he still may have pulled ahead of her. At the moment, CBS has them tied in Texas with 81 delegates each (page refreshes every minute, information subject to change).
By calcs, if Hillary wins big in PA, meaning 60% of the delegates and they split the rest of the elected delgates, which is about the best case I can think of, she would still need about 75% of the superdelegates to win.
Well, let’s see: there’s the states that have already had primaries or caucuses that counted. They can’t make the Democratic Party count a do-over.
Then there’s the ones that haven’t had their primaries yet. Why would they want to move theirs?
Yep, that’s what I’m saying too. You make it sound like this is a criticism of my position, but I don’t see how.
How would a Florida do over with a sizable Clinton win effect that calculation?
The real reason I’m pissed, and probably most other Obama people is that SHE is the one who is getting treated with kid gloves throughout the entire process.
The whole goddamned party has been so Clinton-centric for the past 16 years that they feel that they owe her. This is the reason why nobody cries foul when she has tried her stupid rules lawyering bullshit. I mean, Michigan and Florida? Who the fuck would get away with that? When she left her name on the ballot she got a pass because she said, “Well we all know those won’t count anyway” Then she turns around after she wins and says, “Well I think the votes should count!” We sure as hell wouldn’t put up with that garbage.
I think Howard Dean is right. Sometime after PA they are going to have to sit down and have a talk about who has the numbers to win and who doesn’t. I really think that Bill Clinton’s fairy-tale narrative is very useful here. Her chances go something like this…
Win PA by a big margin. But you know what I heard the Governor of PA saying today?! He said that a lead of 100 delegates isn’t big enough for a superdelegate overturn to be a big deal.
What
The
Fuck?
Why is it that the rules are always changing in her favor? I’m so fucking sick of this… Each and every time we think we have her knocked out, she comes along and says, “But wait, I can still…” and she outlines a scenario that is totally against the spirit of the process. She listed Michigan as a win last night! MICHIGAN! Seriously, is there any way for Hillary to win without changing the rules?
And the fucking press last night. Acting like it was such a huge victory! How is it a victory? She might get 10 delegates out of it if she’s lucky. The rules when we started this game depended on delegates. i don’t see how that will change. I just hope that Barack Obama can get the superdelegates he needs lined up sooner rather than later because the fucking rules-lawyering zombie Clintons are really pissing me off to no end.
He said nothing of the sort. Stop putting words like that in his mouth.
A PARTY gets to choose who represents it in the general election. In the first days of parties, this was decided by a very few men. Slowly, more men became part of the process. Eventually, someone decided it might make sense to poll the party’s members to see who THEY thought the better candidate was. Eventually, that method got used (either by primary or caucus) in every state. The result, for the Democrats, was abuse at the polls in several elections during the late 60s, the 70s and the early 80s.
Now, the Democrats weren’t stupid. They decided that, in a close race between two or three candidates who had roughly equal popularity among the rank and file, the choice should be based at least in part upon the feelings of those who are somewhat more “in tune” with the political process. Thus, the superdelegates. I’m not supporting the idea, but it has some merit.
But regardless of how smart the idea is, to assert that it treats the common party members as “morons” is a gross misrepresentation of the idea. Indeed, the idea that the party nominee selection process should somehow be completely “democratic” seems to me quite absurd. After all, as I started this with, it is the PARTY that is selecting its candidate, not the PEOPLE of the country.
Else, let’s do away with the whole stupid process and proceed directly to campaigning for the Presidency during the whole year. No nominees, just anyone who wants tosses their hat in the ring, spends the year speechifying, and we all go to the polls in November and decide who we want. After all, THAT’s the “democratic” way.
Obama officially wins delegate count in Texas
Thank you. This is not over by a long shot!
Try coming back to us with news, not predictions from the Obama camp. :dubious:
You know, with, like, actual delegate counts, based on complete returns. 
Astutely put.
Not only that, Pennsylvania is right next to New York, which as we know is a Hillary stronghold. I’d say she has the nomination all wrapped up. In fact, continuing that roll on to the east it’s not unlikely that she’ll be the next British P.M. 
Some guy from Huffington Post seems to think that there will be violence if Hillary tries to steal it…
I wouldn’t be surprised. Maybe these young people are tired of getting their hearts broken by assholes with no class.
They’re gonna party like it’s 1968!
CNN’s delegate calculator is fun to play with.
For example, giving Hillary a 94 to 64 blow-out in Pennsylvania and 50/50 on the rest, results in her needing the remaining supers to break for her by a margin of 283 to 75 to get over the top, whereas Obama would need a relatively modest 213 to 145 remaining super advantage in that scenario.
Alternatively, if she wins Pennsylvania by a narrower margin, say 87 to 71, and Obama does modestly well in states like North Carolina (53 to 62), Mississippi (19 to 14), Indiana (38 to 34), W. Virginia (15 to 13), and split the rest, then she’d need them to break 298 to 60 to take her over the top and he’d need them to break 198 to 160.
Of course supers can change their minds and those who say they are for someone now can switch. But if those alleged 50 supers do announce over the next several days then the math gets more daunting to overcome. Let’s face it, my modest Clinton win in Pennsylvania and modest Obama wins in several others is a fairly likely prospect. With 50 more in his pocket then he just needs less than 50% of the rest to win whereas she’d need to take 298 of 308 remaining to do it.
I honestly don’t see any legit way for Clinton to win the nomination at this point. I wish she’d just read the proverbial writing on the wall, instead of dragging everything to the bitter end as she is apparently determined to do, which in no way has the slightest chance of a happy ending for either her or the Democratic Party.
I saw it’s time Obama took off the kid gloves. He ought to bring up every fucking sordid thing the Clintons have been involved in since day one and remind the public about all of this crap. See how she likes the old “kitchen sink” strategy. Why exactly was it she had to chose to run for Senate from New York, instead of her home state of Illinois or Arkansas? Where was she a resident before that? She’s gotten the “nice-guy” treatment from Obama thusfar because it hasn’t affected him, but I say it’s time to drive the wooden steak through the beast.
As my favorite political columnist Matt Tiabbi mentioned, it’s like in Predator where Arnold says, “If it bleeds, we can kill it”
Also, he needs to attack her on this “tested” and “vetted” meme because it’s what’s killing him. The brilliant part about this is, this is exactly what McCain is waiting to do, because HRC doesn’t hold a candle to him in that regard. Everyone knows what resume padding looks like.
Certainly she can. She is behind now by 109 delegates.1573 to 1464. 2025 needed to win. Obama needs 452, HRC needs 561.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...gate_count.html
There are 346 unpledged Superdelegates.
There are like 611 delegates left to elect.
Penn(158) is the biggest state left, and Hillary has a large lead there: 46% to 37%. OTOH, Obama should win S.Carolina (115) by about the same amount. That puts HRC behind Obama by under 100, say 1642 Obama to 1560HRC. Let us say the next 338 are split more or less evenly, Obama then has 1811, HRC will then have 1729.
Obama would need 214 of the 364 SuperDelgates, HRC would need 296.
Neither can win at the polls. Both will need those SuperDelgates. If SuperDelegates are “cheating” then no one can win without cheating, barring a miracle.
For those that claim the SuperDelegates are bypassing the “will of the people” and that the election should just go to whoever gets the most votes, that’s fine too. As of today, the total Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* 13,566,066 Obama 13,602,469 Clinton. That’s right, nearly 40,000 (that’s a tiny edge mind you) more Democrats want HRC than Obama.
Now, it’s true that HRC is angling to get the FL & MI delegates seated. I think that’s what DtC means by “cheating”
It’s not cheating if the Convention as a whole votes them in. In fact, it’s more democratic that way than a small group of party leaders deciding to exclude them.
The Fla legislature is Republican. They moved the Primary up on purpose so that the Dems would have to disqualify them, so that the voters of Fla (where Dems have a small majority) would get anagry at the Dems and vote GoP in the general election.
True, the Fla Dem party doesn’t have to do what the Fla legislature wants, but they can’t really throw an election without the $$ and machinery.
So, if the Obama block decides to vote “NO” on seating them, Obama may cost Hillary the Nomination but may give the General election to McCain. It’s a tough decision, either way. It’s not “cheating” it’s a vote to seat members, that’s exactly what the Convention does. In fact, they voted to not seat me and my co-delegates when I was a delegate for Henry Scoop Jackson. It happens, it’s not cheating.
Best is likely a Clinton/Obama ticket, with HRC agreeing to serve only one term, then Obama gets the Prez, then HRC then Obama again. If their luck holds. The other chance is a compromise cand like Gore.
If the fight gets into the Convention, it could cost the Dems the election. The Obama-ites will win at the cost of pissing off Fla, which is a critical state. HRC can win by wheeling/dealing but some Obama-ites may stay home in Nov in disgust, again costing the Dems the election.
I know and Clinton is favored. Obama has seven weeks to fight for Pennsylvania and needs to fight. He can win PA with the right strategy and message or at least make it a narrow win for Clinton. The entire election is his to lose. He has had a winning streak until yesterday. He doesn’t have Clinton’s baggage. He is a truly gifted orator. He is not perceived as a Washington insider. Lets go Obama! Take it home.
Maybe you’re a little behind in the news, but Obama’s winning.
Why would he change a strategy that has worked?
But it reflects on Hillary’s ethics to renege on an agreement with the DNC.