The Democratic Primary

[Fern]

The Democratic primary campaign is essentially now being waged by Hillary at the super delegate level, IMO.

Her campaign is only for voters in an indirect way at best.

Fact: Neither candidate can win the majority of elected delegates at this point.

(No matter what, it's in the hands of the super delegates now.)

Fact: Hillary can't even get much within 100 elected delegates of Obama, much less win or tie. The "experts" have often said a 50 pledged delegate lead was too large to be overturned by the super delegates, would split teh Dem party. She doesn't care.

(Every analyst predicts that Hillary will at best get within 100 or so elected delegates of Obama under the best of circumstances.)

Fact: Obama leads Hillary in head-to-head gainst McCain.

Fact: Hillary trails Obama by +1 million votes, and won't be able to close the gap.

Fact: So, Hilary can only get the nomination with super delegate votes, and they must overrule the popular vote (both gross votes and elected delegates) to do so.

My Guess: The only "fig leaf" Hillary can offer the super delegates in oveturning the popular vote is if she beats McCain in head-to-head pols and obama loses to McCain in such polls.

Many believe the party will be badly damaged if the Dems ignore their voters and chose her. If the super delegates thought they would lose the general anyway with Obama, they just might take a chance on Hillary.

How she does this: Run her primary campaign like a general election one - "Scorched Earth" all the way.

She's gonna run against Obama like she thinks McCain outta do (maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't). No matter if her tactics would work against her in the general. No matter if Obama would end up being so weakened in the general he would lose if nominated.

In fact, that's exactly what she's gonna try to do: Damage Obama so thoroughly he can't win the general. She's gotta make Obama look bad against McCain. Make Obama lose to McCain in upcoming head-to-head polls. She can't beat Obama, it's mathematically impossible. She needs to make Obama lose to McCain cuz she can't make Obama lose to her.

Her 3:00 AM White House telephone call commercial is better suited for McCain, not her. Its an archtypical Republican commerial aginst a Dem. Everybody thinks it will come back to haunt the Dem candidate in the genral election against McCain, no matter the candidate.

Check this recent remark by Hillary:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

She's attacking Obama while the same time "endorsing" McCain's experience. If she loses to Obama, would Mcain use this in the general election against him? H3ll, he could use against her. And she did it purposefully.

She's now campaigning against Obama on McCain's behalf. She's not really campaigning for herself. She's lost you Dems and knows it. She's gotta destroy your candidate and scare the supers into making her the nominee.

Can anybody stop her?

Fern

 

[Sinsear]

You also have to wonder if she is going to push for the Florida/Michigan delegates as well. While they are not supposed to be seated, is she going to make a run at it or not, remains a big question.

 

[Farang]

I've said before, and again--Clinton is nothing more than McCain's temporary running mate at this point. Quite effective, too, because she gets more press than a McCain VP would.

 

[Ldir]

This is why I will vote against Hillary if she is nominated. She is almost as bad as Dub.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Originally posted by: Ldir
This is why I will vote against Hillary if she is nominated. She is almost as bad as Dub.

For sure. I will happily vote for McCain over her.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Ldir
This is why I will vote against Hillary if she is nominated. She is almost as bad as Dub.

For sure. I will happily vote for McCain over her.

exactly!

My preferences... Obama > McCain > Huckabee > Ron Paul > Hillary.

I sincerely hope your predictions are wrong Fern, but something tells me you're not...

However, since today is my birthday, and all I'm asking America for is Hillary's sound defeat in TX and OH...

😀

 

[yowolabi]

I can't really argue against your logic. She will not win on pledged delegate numbers, and her only hope to win is to convince the superdelegates that Obama can't win against McCain. From now until the convention in August, she and McCain are on the same team.

 

[jonks]

By my count there's 1454 pledged delegates still to be awarded. How is it a fact that she can't catch up? Or by "fact" do you mean "really unlikely" which I accept. But mathematically impossible? I don't believe that's correct.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
By my count there's 1454 pledged delegates still to be awarded. How is it a fact that she can't catch up? Or by "fact" do you mean "really unlikely" which I accept. But mathematically impossible? I don't believe that's correct.

We already know that there's not going to be a big delegate swing after tonights 370 delegates are awarded. I don't trust polls enought to say who will win, but i trust them enough to say it will be close.


If you dispute even that, let's just pick this conversation up tomorrow.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: sirjonk
By my count there's 1454 pledged delegates still to be awarded. How is it a fact that she can't catch up? Or by "fact" do you mean "really unlikely" which I accept. But mathematically impossible? I don't believe that's correct.

We already know that there's not going to be a big delegate swing after tonights 370 delegates are awarded. I don't trust polls enought to say who will win, but i trust them enough to say it will be close.


If you dispute even that, let's just pick this conversation up tomorrow.

I only wrote 2 lines, so you shouldn't have been able to miss where I asked Fern to differentiate between a hard fact and a solid prediction, which even you should be able to admit are 2 different things. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Your assertion about what "we already know there won't be a delegate swing" after today doesn't take into account scandals, new information, or other events which can sink a campaign overnight.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Sinsear
You also have to wonder if she is going to push for the Florida/Michigan delegates as well. While they are not supposed to be seated, is she going to make a run at it or not, remains a big question.

Personally, I don't wonder IF she will.

She and campaign are quite brazen about the fact that they WILL.

While I'd like to see some "expert" analysis, judging by the way things have been going under the proportional system I don't see those two state as being all that determinative. So maybe Hillary picks some elected delegates, maybe not. It'll still be the super delegates who decide, IMO.

I think if she keeps on, and I expect her to, they'll re-schedule new primary elections (thus rewarding those states for breaking the rules). I think the DNC should pay for the do-over elections. Why should the FL's Repub taxpayers wanna pay that bill?

Fern

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
By my count there's 1454 pledged delegates still to be awarded. How is it a fact that she can't catch up? Or by "fact" do you mean "really unlikely" which I accept. But mathematically impossible? I don't believe that's correct.

It isn't that simple. By my calculation she would need about 60% of those 1454 to catch up and come ahead by 1 delegate. The problem is when Obama wins, it tends to be a landslide, and he still has quite a few landslides left. Mississippi and Wyoming come to mind. When you get a state that is supposedly a Clinton stronghold, she manages to win by only 1-6%, and basically break even with delegates. So even with Pennsylvania, which she would be very fortunate to get 60% in alone, there is no way she would also come into Obama strongholds and get that same percentage.

Barring a complete breakdown, of course. But it would have to be a complete breakdown. When you throw in a Florida re-vote it looks a bit better but is still a tough road, and so far the actual groundwork has not been laid for a re-vote.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: sirjonk
By my count there's 1454 pledged delegates still to be awarded. How is it a fact that she can't catch up? Or by "fact" do you mean "really unlikely" which I accept. But mathematically impossible? I don't believe that's correct.

It isn't that simple. By my calculation she would need about 60% of those 1454 to catch up and come ahead by 1 delegate. The problem is when Obama wins, it tends to be a landslide, and he still has quite a few landslides left. Mississippi and Wyoming come to mind. When you get a state that is supposedly a Clinton stronghold, she manages to win by only 1-6%, and basically break even with delegates. So even with Pennsylvania, which she would be very fortunate to get 60% in alone, there is no way she would also come into Obama strongholds and get that same percentage.

Barring a complete breakdown, of course. But it would have to be a complete breakdown. When you throw in a Florida re-vote it looks a bit better but is still a tough road, and so far the actual groundwork has not been laid for a re-vote.

Fine, so is 60% of remaining delegates now equals a mathematical impossibility? I understand her catching up is more than unlikely, but resorting to speaking in absolutes about politics, where we likely have months left of campaigning and chances for slipups and reversals, is well, absolutely foolish. Worse, it demeans the argument by labeling predictions "facts." In NH I guarantee some people said "Hillary is going to lose by 10 points today, and that's a fact." No, it was a prediction, let's not confuse the two.

 

[nageov3t]

I think the head to head polls are meaningless at this point, and Obama has a much lower bottom.

there's a plethora of things that McCain can spend all summer hammering away at Obama about, while Hillary's remained a lot more centrist/nuanced about things like Iraq.

 

[Farang]

I understand what you're saying, but if we're going to have a discussion on predictions, you eventually have to make a prediction. In my view, if the polls today hold within 5% more or less, it would take a complete breakdown of Obama for a Clinton comeback. He would have to have a massive scandal, I'm talking sexual harassment of teenage male congressional pages massive. So dealing in absolutes is accurate, because when we make these predictions it is always barring unforeseeable, extreme events. Its like saying somebody is an foolish for betting on JFK getting re-elected in 1964.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Farang
I understand what you're saying, but if we're going to have a discussion on predictions, you eventually have to make a prediction. In my view, if the polls today hold within 5% more or less, it would take a complete breakdown of Obama for a Clinton comeback. He would have to have a massive scandal, I'm talking sexual harassment of teenage male congressional pages massive. So dealing in absolutes is accurate, because when we make these predictions it is always barring unforeseeable, extreme events. Its like saying somebody is an foolish for betting on JFK getting re-elected in 1964.

Said Hillary's people in December, no? There is a difference between prediction and mathematical impossibility, between opinion and fact. Arguing otherwise is sophistry.

 

[Farang]

Since I didn't seem to break any ground with you on the prediction argument, I'll just say that there was a lot more breathing space in December than there is now. I don't think that comparison is meaningful here.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Fine, so is 60% of remaining delegates now equals a mathematical impossibility? I understand her catching up is more than unlikely, but resorting to speaking in absolutes about politics, where we likely have months left of campaigning and chances for slipups and reversals, is well, absolutely foolish. Worse, it demeans the argument by labeling predictions "facts." In NH I guarantee some people said "Hillary is going to lose by 10 points today, and that's a fact." No, it was a prediction, let's not confuse the two.

You're going against every "election expert" on TV, Dem or Repub.

Be aware that even if she got 60% of the vote (beating Obama +20% points in a landslide) it doesn't necessarily translate into 60% of the delegates.

The Dems have some pretty complicated and wierd rules in some states.

There's another thread around here today with a link to an article. Bottom line - even under very rosy assumtions Hillary can't get closer than 100 pledged delegates to Obama at best.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Farang
Since I didn't seem to break any ground with you on the prediction argument, I'll just say that there was a lot more breathing space in December than there is now. I don't think that comparison is meaningful here.

And I apparently can't get you to admit apples are red. 🙂

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Fine, so is 60% of remaining delegates now equals a mathematical impossibility? I understand her catching up is more than unlikely, but resorting to speaking in absolutes about politics, where we likely have months left of campaigning and chances for slipups and reversals, is well, absolutely foolish. Worse, it demeans the argument by labeling predictions "facts." In NH I guarantee some people said "Hillary is going to lose by 10 points today, and that's a fact." No, it was a prediction, let's not confuse the two.

I'm not even going to comment on this thread because you've said all that needs to be said. Most of the supposed "facts" cited by the OP are not facts at all.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Farang
I understand what you're saying, but if we're going to have a discussion on predictions, you eventually have to make a prediction. In my view, if the polls today hold within 5% more or less, it would take a complete breakdown of Obama for a Clinton comeback. He would have to have a massive scandal, I'm talking sexual harassment of teenage male congressional pages massive. So dealing in absolutes is accurate, because when we make these predictions it is always barring unforeseeable, extreme events. Its like saying somebody is an foolish for betting on JFK getting re-elected in 1964.

Right, because he's singing :music:Free ride.... take it easy...:music:

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g

Originally posted by: Ldir
This is why I will vote against Hillary if she is nominated. She is almost as bad as Dub.

For sure. I will happily vote for McCain over her.

LOL If she did somehow get the nod, she'd just have to get B.O. for her VP and the Obama followers would get back in line. There are probably more of us on the other side of the party that would refuse to vote for B.O., even if he had Clinton for his VP.

 

[Fern]

Hillary?s Math Problem
Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.
Mar 4, 2008 | Updated: 11:23 a.m. ET Mar 4, 2008

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate?s Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi?where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary?she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania?and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. (Unfortunately the Slate calculator isn't helping me here.)

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.

The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

LINK

Yet she continues on.....

Oddly enough, seems a lot of Dem voters want her to? Why?

Do the Dems like a fight so much that they don't care if it's only among themselves?

Is there any downside for the Dem Party recognized to continuing this thing?

Is over-confidence involved?

Which candidates supporters seem REALLY invested in "hope".

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

if Hill really does win 16 straight states -- unlikely as that is -- I think she'd have a clear argument to make to the super delegates to swing them over.

but it's too early to discuss this right now... for all we know, Obama could be on the verge of taking both Ohio and Texas by +30 points.

 

[Fern]

^ I suppose I shouldv'e underlined this section of his article:

Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.