MSNBC's Fineman: Clinton aides admit it's nearly impossible to win via pledged delegates now

[Unsane]

Their goal is to keep it as close as possible, and hope to win via superdelegates with as little outcry as possible.

Their hope is to only be down by about 35-40 pledged delegates, and win the undemocratic way.

[seafan]

1. Fineman also said that if Senator Clinton is behind in pledged delegates and tries

to finagle the superdelegates to take the nomination away from Obama, it will unleash a firestorm in the Democratic Party.


Fineman is correct on this.

I truly hope this does not happen.

[Unsane]

2. She will be despised if she does this.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. For asking people for their votes? I would think the Supers would be more responsible than her.

She says, hey, support me.

And they do, or they don't.

If they do, blame them... they're not robots.

[Abacus]

9. I'll blame both, how's that?

If the situation were the other way around, I'd expect Barack to concede.

[JimGinPA]

12. Sure...

Like there wouldn't be any arm twisting & "promises" involved. It's the lowest kind of politics - disenfranchising the VOTERS for personal gain. Sell that to the electorate.

:mad:

[CreekDog]

23. If that happens, 1st black president (Bill Clinton) my a**

that will be the end of that.

[sandnsea]

5. In the country

HUGE mistake. I highly recommend nobody let her do this if there's even one pledged delegate lead. I don't even want to think about the fallout. Foolish thing for her to even contemplate.

[Raydawg1234]

4. if she wins via superdelegates, i dont think we stand a chance in GE

it will kill the turnout we have been having

[jackson_dem]

6. What Fineman didn't say is it is impossible for anyone to win without the SD's now

Even if Obama wins EVERY state left by 55/45 he would be at less than 1,800 delegates.

[chascarrillo]

7. In case you haven't noticed....

Obama's been winning 65/35.

[jackson_dem]

8. Where he wins

You think he is going to win every remaining state? Right now he has gotten 51.9% of pledged delegates with 46.9% going to Hillary. He is hardly winning in a landslide.

[blitzen]

11. No, the point is that she can't catch up in pledged delegates....

and must reply on the supers going against the leader of the pledged....That does not apply to Obama, who will be leading the pledged.

Of course Obama needs the supers--but he will not need them to overturn the elected results, but rather to ratify those results.

[jackson_dem]

20. That isn't accurate

Hillary is 104 pledged delegates down right now with many delegates still on the table. Puerto Rico alone could help her take 59 delegates off his lead.

[blitzen]

26. realistic projections, based on the way delegates are apportioned....

Obama will rack up some more before March 4. So even if Hillary wins the big 3 (OH, TX, PA) by, say, 55-45%, she won't catch up. And last I heard, Obama is looking very strong in Puerto Rico.

But don't just take my word for it--pretty much all the hardcore delegate number crunchers are saying the same.

[Araxen]

10. If Obama has a 50-100 delegate lead

and the nomination is taken away from him via Super's. I'm afraid to see the shitstorm that will happen. This is exactly what the repubs want.

[joshcryer]

17. It would never happen that way.

[Alhena]

13. That is a huge admission, glad to hear it

[TexasObserver]

14. Fineman knows that the DNC cannot allow Hillary to steal it.

And they don't want to, since she's poison on the ticket.

[joshcryer]

15. She won't keep fighting if she doesn't have a close margin in delegates after TX and OH.

She'll give it up.

She needs it to be very close the whole way to the convention, or with a significant lead.

[Barack_America]

16. Ohh, I don't think that the outcry would be "little"...

And it pisses me the hell off that they would even consider that option.

Howsabout you just give it up, in that case, Hill?

[joshcryer]

18. Because there's still the highly unlikely possiblity she could take a PD lead.

[Barack_America]

21. That's why I said "in that case"...

I wouldn't expect her to consider dropping out unless she couldn't win both Ohio and Texas. I'm familiar with the math.

She really needed PA with our closed primary to come before those two states. It really hurts her that it occurs afterwards. She would win PA right now and then use the momentum for Ohio and Texas. The way that it's set up now though really isn't favorable for her.

[JeanGrey]

19. Look if Hillary REALLY cared about this country and less about

her own ambition she would be ready to concede and fade out.

[high density]

22. Would the "Democratic" superdelegates really override the voice of the voters?

After what happened in 2004... After 2000... Would they really do something like that to force a candidate that didn't win the votes of the people on us?

I'm hoping she would bow out before something like this would take place. Although I also thought she'd never run to begin with, so I am not good at predicting her actions. I guess we'll have to see in March.

[TeamJordan23]

24. WOW. Did he really say that? nm

[tandem5]

25. At this point its looking like the only way for *either* to win...

the nomination is through super delegates.

If you're concerned about one getting fewer pledged delegates, but winning with super delegates consider that fairness might not be as clear cut as persuading super delegates to vote with "the will of the people":

Shall we go off the overall popular votes for all the states? Under that scenario one candidate might have more votes, but fewer delegates. Shall we do the opposite in which case the overall popular vote is ignored. Shall we have the super delegates for a given state go with how that state voted? In that case its possible the candidate that won the larger states would get the most super delegates.