Just to clarify, of those 1500 delegates still available, about 400 are superdelegates, so there’s about 1150 competitive delegates still to go. Up until March 4, there’s about 500 in play, so barring any major number of declarations by supers, it’s probably at most going to be about 1500-1350 either way after that point.
And of course, the supers are free to change their minds at any point.
Possible but increasingly improbable. 444 delegates up for grabs on March 4. He is currently up119 pledged delegates by CNN’s tally and 125 by RealClearPolitics’. Clinton’s team expects to lose both Hawaii (20 total) and WI (74 total) so they may be working on that assumption of maybe another 25 to 35 down. Figure that is going into March 4 150 behind. She’d need more than 2/3 of the count of the day to make it up and doing that seems highly unlikely even with double digit leads.
They are shooting to just win both at all and be close enough with pledged delegates that they feel they can arm twist the supers along.
In addition to what Shayna said, I’m not sure people realize how far away those contests are. Two weeks. By comparison, Super Tuesday was 9 days ago. :eek: Clearly, there’s an eternity of campaign time between now and then.
Printed today, here is an interesting analysis on whether or not Clinton can regain the lead.
I didn’t say it was going to be easy for her. But to say, as Shayna does, that there is no way it could happen is just not consistent with the facts. Out of 1550 or so remaining, she would have to beat Obama approximately 840-710 to regain the lead of elected delegates. Can you really, honestly say that that is IMPOSSIBLE, that there’s no way that could happen?
As you point out, two weeks is an eternity, but it’s an eternity for both camps. Anything could happen, including a slowdown of the Obama momentum; Newton, after all, was right. If Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, the talk the day after that will be about how she’s staging a comeback. The headlines in the papers and on the news sites the next day won’t be “Clinton Only Catches Up by 63 Delegates,” it will be “Clinton Wins Ohio and Texas.” That will be the emphasis of the headlines and that will be what most people notice; Clinton Won Two Big States. If she then wins PA, it’ll be Clinton Is On A Roll. Superdelegates will move closer to the Clinton side; as Phil’s post points out, that would mean that Clinton won every big state in the Union except Obama’s home state. Such a victory would firmly plant her right back into the race and give her campaign the distinct, optimistic smell of a comeback. If I may use a baseball metaphor - hey, I am who I am - it sure helps to be in first place in July, but you still have to play all them games in August and September.
If I absolutely had to bet $10 on one or the other, I’d put it on Obama, just because he’s in the lead and has more money. I WANT Obama to win, because there’s no doubt in my mind McCain can beat Clinton but cannot beat Obama, and in the specific case of the superdelegates trumping the elected delegates the bad PR will result in a McCain landslide.
But to suggest the race is over and that she cannot catch up in pledged delegates is just insane. She has to go 840-710 to win in pledged delegates, and doesn’t even have to quite do that to win the nomination by convincing superdelegates. That’s quite possible.
That’s just not so. First of all, as far as I can tell, there haven’t been any recent polls in Texas, certainly none since the last set of primaries and caucuses. Secondly, see my post here and read the analysis in the link to see why it will be really hard for Hillary to pull significantly ahead in delegate count in Texas, based on their method of proportional voting, coupled with the fact that they hold caucuses at the end of polling day, where Obama has traditionally done much better than Clinton. Even her own team is saying she’d have to win HUGE, and that’s just not likely.
As for Ohio, see my analysis here – it’s still not enough.
And don’t forget that, while she may gain some delegates over him in those states, he’ll still be gaining delegates on her in the remaining ones, potentially negating any gains Clinton gets in TX, PA & OH.
The one “state” no one seems to be talking about, and that could have a much bigger impact than even Texas, Pennsylvania or Ohio is Puerto Rico. Why? Well, it seems they don’t always recognize the concept of “proportional” allocation, so the 63 delegates that come from PR could conceivably all go to one candidate or the other. Puerto Rico’s Governor has endorsed Barack Obama. But other leading members of government are said to be “leaning” Hillary.
For a point of reference, the spread in California was 42; New York, 40; Illinois, 52.
The line that Hillary wins more big states, at this point in time, is just partisan spin. They’ve both won a single contested Big Ten state (or two, if you count IL and NY). We’ll see what happens with the remaining big ten: OH, PA, TX, and NC. But I guarantee that at least one of those will go to Obama.
Folks, you’re borrowing trouble. Your fretting and setting out battle lines for a conflict that likely won’t even happen. Unity, people, unity. Only thing that counts.
Dont much like Hillary, and so what. There is no way on God’s green Earth that I will consent to another Republican administration. If its Hillary, by fair means or foul, I will vote for her and every other blessed creature with a “D”. Period. Perhaps once we get through this Godforsaken shit swamp, perhaps then I will see if my communion dress still fits. Right now, its brass knuckles and numchucks.
Also of note as it pertains specifically to Bricker’s OP, it’s not just us plebes who’re upset about the concept that the superdelegates could hand Hillary the nomination in spite of an Obama popular vote/pledged delegate win. One superdelegate, Donna Brazile, said “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this.”
Just imagine if one of them wins 2,025 delegates to 2,024. Won’t that be fun!
God knows Donna Brazile carries a lot of weight in this regard, because if she didn’t quit after that shamefully inept campaign she ran for Kerry, I can’t imagine what would make her quit. 
But that’s part of the problem – not everyone supporting Obama a) feels that way, or b) is a DEMOCRAT! The Independents, Libertarians, Green Party, Unaffiliated, Declined to State and disenchanted Republicans cannot be counted on to toe the Democratic party ticket no matter who’s on it. And right now it appears as though Obama holds a significant lead over Clinton amongst that set of voters. That’s why polls show him beating McCain, whereas she doesn’t, and why there’s so much concern about the party leaders picking our candidate based on favors owed or Clinton loyalty.
Actually, I agree with you. Personally, I can’t stand the woman. But it does answer the OP, so I figured it was relevant to post.
Because we hadn’t just had a President get elected twice with accusations from the other side that he stole the election. And because Mondale lost. And because there have been years worth of accusations that the Democrats are no different than the Republicans; this would feed right into that.
And 24 years isn’t really “not that long ago”, especially in politics.
Let me ensure we’re clear on this; you are actually defending the position that there is **no way ** Clinton can catch up and win the nomination? Bwecause that’s what I’m challenging, Shayna; you din’t say it was unlikely, you said there was “No way” she could catch up. You’re saying it is simply not possible that she could win, out of about 1550 remaining delegates, 840 of them?
Well, then, if you think it’s impossible, I’ll tell you what; you should have no problem making a bet on it and giving me twenty-to-one odds. Obama wins, I’ll send you a check for $20; Clinton wins, you send me $400. (U.S. dollars.) If there’s no way Clinton can win - no possible event that could happen that would cause her to win big in any of the remaining primaries - you should be happy to make that bet and take an automatic $20.
All of which I concur, all factors which make him the better candidate. All factors which will make him the more likely nominee. The Dem leadership does lean towards Hillary, but they are not going to join a suicide pact. Their first loyalty is to themselves and thence to the party, Hillary is a distant third. At best.
Their loyalty to Hillary does not extend to self-sacrifice.
Ya know something, before I turn in tonight I’ll say this: Obama has a very real chance of winning fair and square, he has finally taken to task the idea of fighting back with some neg ads himself, and giving some substance to his speeches. Hillary can still pull it off narrowly, but she can. Obama however, is in the famed catbird seat, and if he plays his cards smart will take the dem nod. I truly hope he does.
I would laugh.
And keep laughing for the next 4-8 years of the Second Clinton Administration? 
As I’ve posted before, I intend to vote for Obama - the first time I will ever vote for a Democratic candidate in any election, ever. If Hillary takes the nomination via such folks as 21-year-old “super delegates”, I would either not vote or else throw it away on whatever libertarian candidate is running (whoever they are.)
RickJay, I think you are being a bit too literal. Let’s put it this way - if this was a football game Hillary would have the ball, down by 7, second down on her own 6 yard line with 37 seconds to go. Wisconsin will be down two, maybe she’ll pick up a few yards, maybe get pushed back to her own 3. Unlikely to be a safety and even less likely to score. Texas and Ohio are downs three and four. It is possible to do it. Two big plays and she can put the game in overtime. But fans are going to try to beat the crowds out of the lot anyway. Many would use the phrase “there is no way our team can win.” And let’s face it, she’s more of a Rex Grossman than an Eli Manning.
I have to say this … I actually agree with HRCs portrayal of the obligation of the superdelegates: their job is to look after the good of the party. In this case it is clear that the good of the party is best served by nominating the candidate with the most pledged delegates, the most popular support, and who has shown an ability to grow the tent while energizing core supporters and the previously apathetic. The problem is that she is disingenuous in making the argument. She doesn’t want them looking out for the party’s best interests, she wants them acting out of obligation to her and her husband. They won’t because it would be against their own and the party’s self-interest.
The first ones to jump ship are the ones whose districts voted overwhelmingly against her, and yes, the first ones are Black. You’d have to very secure of your popularity to go against the wishes of your electorate on this one. More will follow. I wouldn’t be surprised if the superdelegate count has pulled even by March 4th.