Clinton Campaign Now Officially Delusional. They Think Superdelegates Will Give Them The Nomination

[KittyWampus]

There is ZERO chance of this happening. If Obama has a majority of pledged delegates, there is no way superdelegates will go against that majority. Some may stick with Hillary, in that case. But the vast majority will honor the candidate holding the majority of pledged delegates.

Especially since he's bringing enthusiastic voters to the polls, including moderates and independents. He's got a greater chance of helping downticket in purple states where Hillary would be poison.

There is something seriously fucked up with Clinton's campaign to be pushing this narrative. She will lose votes over this.

Please send this to people you talk politics to. People need to know this is her campaign's official, pathetic and bogus Plan B.

Not only has Clinton run a horrific campaign by not putting resources into "small" states and having no VALID Plan B and wasting huge amounts of money... they are now willing to go where no respectful Democratic nominee should go.

............................................................

THE COMING FIGHT
From The Globe ...

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html
"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

[Thrill]

1. Don't underestimate the Clinton Political Machine

They'll call in the favors.

[KittyWampus]

3. It is NOT going to happen. This is a bogus scenario created by mediawhores and Clintons

[niceypoo]

12. This bogus scenario is created by people like you who react to it

It is hypothetical, it isnt real, why people even show it the light of day is beyond me.

[nomorewhopper]

39. this "scenario" is coming straight from the mouth of the Clinton campaign! n/t

[milkyway]

29. It made me barf watching CNN dope John King discuss the delegate count about an hour ago, and what

could happen in the coming weeks, yet he made no mention whatsoever that the CNN count includes superdelegates who have indicated that they will vote for Clinton. The supers have not voted yet, they have only indicated to various media outlets who they are supporting. They, of course, will change their position, yet John King made no mention of the fact that the CNN count contains delegates who have not yet been earned.

The Dem party keeps no tabulation of supers because they don't count yet, so why does the media persist in perpetuating the notion that these are the same as delegates won through votes by the electorate? It is a media fantasy that Clinton has been the leader. She's been losing since Day 1 in Iowa.

[Alhena]

14. That machine is nothing compared to the nationwide Obama movement

the party knows that the Clinton machine is turning off voters while the Obama movement is inspiring them.

All the Clintons had was the myth of their inevitability - that has been shattered with eight straight blowout losses and now it's painfully apparent that the Obama movement dwarfs the Clinton campaign.

A lot of the Clinton superdelegates don't even like the Clintons- they just thought they were inevitable so they got on board early, or else they had favors to repay.

[ShortnFiery]

17. No way. There's even effective methods to keep track so no candidate usurps THE PEOPLE.

Such as the thread madfloridan started introducing:

The Superdelegate Transparency Project

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4582347

[CreekDog]

33. they can't call in my favor in November

if she gets the nomination through "favors" that's all she will get. november will be a loss for her.

disgraceful.

and i've voted, volunteered for or contributed to: Clinton 92, Clinton 96, Gore 2000, Kerry 2004.

if she wins it fairly it will be Hillary in 2008, but if she wins by favors, forget it.

[RamboLiberal]

41. I'm with you - I've decided if Hillary and Bill armtwist the supers

and that's the way they get the nomination. No vote from me in November. And I know I'm not alone in this.

[NJSecularist]

2. As I thought, she plans on taking the party down with her if she doesn't win the nomination

[HooptieWagon]

20. True that

she's more than willing to divide the Democratic Party down the middle if it gets her the nom...

[gravity]

While uniting the republican party

[milkyway]

30. Hillary is willing to destroy the party in order to save it.

[TexasObserver]

4. Agreed. The party elders are sick of the Clintons dragging the party down. It's over.

The superDs are going to go with Obama, and will be glad to send the Clintons into exile.

[joshcryer]

5. I assure you that if the pledged delegate spread is too big she wouldn't continue it.

They're just holding out for a small spread which would allow them to broker the convention.

[KittyWampus]

8. Josh, the Clinton campaign pushing this narrative is INSANE. It makes no sense. It turns voters off.

It's as if they're saying "FUCK YOU to voters, we'll just ignore you and rely on our cronies".

Hell, they've already told caucus states fuck you, along with states that have black voters.

[niceypoo]

6. Why do people go on and on and on about this hypothetical?

Oh yeah, and one more thing, when does this 'Hope' we hear so much about begin, or is that just smoke and mirrors?

[Jane Austin]

13. We get it.

You're immune to hope and don't want any.

[niceypoo]

22. When does this hope begin?

All we ever hear are attacks from Obama supporters, like the one you just made on me.

[Jane Austin]

44. If that's all you hear, then you aren't getting off your computer

much, are you?

Go listen to Obama and look at his many substantive positions on his website.

If you don't feel more hopeful about the US, then I think you are, well, hopeless.

[RummyTheDummy]

7. Let them hang themselves with it

Strong arming the nomination away from the candidate who is getting the most votes and delegates is a sure way to turn off voters in Texas and Ohio. I hope they keep talking about their super delegates and how they plan to use them to subvert democracy.

[KittyWampus]

10. that is what I"m saying! It Makes. NO. Sense. It's like they're saying FUCK YOU to voters

[jillan]

9. The super-delegates are suppose to go with the candidate their state elected.

Thom Hartmann, Randi, others are saying people are making a big deal about this, and it won't be.

It's no different than any other election in the past.

If the superdelegates don't go with the candidate that their state choose, than they risk the chance of not getting re-elected by their constituents.

[Jane Austin]

16. That's only 485 of the superdelegates.

There are several hundred more who are elected by no one.

[grantcart]

11. They dug their grave when they said that they had to win TX Ohio and PA

they will drop atleast one and that will be it

[Cha]

15. Then nothing's changed from

day one of their campaign..the proof is in the pudding.

<snip>
"Such arrogance led directly to the idea that Clinton could simply project an air of inevitability and be assured her party’s nomination. If she wins—as she very well might—it will be in spite of her original approach. As one former Clinton staffer put it to me last spring: “There was an assumption that if you were a major donor and wanted to be an ambassador, go to state dinners with the queen—unless you were an outright fool, you were going to go with Hillary, whether you liked her or not. The attitude was ‘Where else are they going to go?’”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4568468

[HooptieWagon]

18. Heillary will leave no earth unscorched

Gee, you wonder why Bill's been keeping a low profile? You can bet he's burning up the phone lines to get the SDs to vote against the majority of rank and file Dems. Little quid pro quo, perhaps? Count on it - from the war-mongering corporatist far right wing of the Democratic Party.

[Barack_America]

19. This could be the solution to all of our voting issues!

Replace the popular vote with superdelegates who are better qualified to speak for us anyhow!

Take that Diebold! You can't threaten our democracy if we kill it first!

[Political Heretic]

21. If this happens it may be my break with the party.

If hillary wins popularly then I would vote for her as the nominee as much as I would vote for Obama if he wins popularly.

But if superdelegates veto the will of the people and deny their voice, then I no longer have a party that stands for me.

[Cha]

26. Ah

Ye-ah!

[milkyway]

31. It won't be you breaking from the party--the party will break, permanently. That's why

there is no chance of it happening. With the chance for an historic redrawing of the electoral map, the party leaders are not going to let the Clintons destroy the party instead. The 500 uncommitted supers will see to that.

If Obama has a pledged delegate lead of about 100 or more after March 4, the Clintons will be told the campaign for the nomination is over.

[CreekDog]

34. I agree with you and I hope it doesn't come to that

The nominee should be fairly chosen by the voters.

[gravity]

23. This would destroy the democratic party

Most superdelegates will vote for the pledged winner if they care about the state of the party.

[milkyway]

24. Zero chance is right. 500 supers remain uncommitted; they're waiting for a clear frontrunner,

and then they will commit.

Like Nixon being told he won't have the votes to avoid impeachment, on March 5th Dem leaders will let the Clinton campaign know they won't have the votes of the supers. She will be told the voters have spoken and she no longer has a path to the nomination. For the good of the party she will be asked to end her candidacy rather than make the nominee spend a month and a half of time and resources in Pennsylvania rather than fundraising and preparing for the contest against McCain.

Hillary will anounce her decision on March 6, after having won less delegates than Obama on March 4.

btw, on no single day has Hillary ever won more pledged delegates than Obama. Obama has been the leader in pledged delegates from Day 1 in Iowa, and he has never netted less delegates on any day of voting. See here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4562660&mesg_id=4562660

[hedda_foil]

25. What's remarkable is her campaign is telling the press that they're trying to do this.

Seems to me that the only audience the Clinton team is interested in talking to is their big money donors who want to know how the hell they expect to make good on their promises if they're this deep in the hole. The news that they're strongarming superdelegates and pushing to get MI and FL delegates certified might reassure the deep pocketed ones but it's a total turnoff to the vast majority of voters. They have a total disconnect with the very people they're spending all that money to vote for them.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Perhaps The Clintons are taking a page out of Karl Rove's handbook ...

and doing what Bush did - CHEAT and roll over the M$M? After all the ONLY THING that truly matters to those "addicted to power" is WINNING. :shrug:

[KittyWampus]

28. It makes no sense for them to do this publicly. It writes it's own negative ad for Obama or MoveOn

I think you may be right about them trying to keep Bid Money Donors from freaking out.

[ShadowLiberal]

32. This is outrageous, but why are they telling the press this?

This is outrageous, and I've worried for a while now that Hillary would rather see the democrats lose in 2008 then see another democrat elected to the white house.

But still, this doesn't make sense, why would the Clinton campaign tell the media this? Obvious it could only backfire in their face, I mean do they expect anyone to go "gee I was going to support Obama, but if Hillary is going to force her way to the top of the ticket then I guess I have to vote for her".

Plus a few days ago there was a news story about some of Clinton's super delegates privately telling reporters anonymously that if Hillary doesn't do well in Texas and Ohio (sounded like they they wanted to see a big win from her there) that they're abandoning her.

[rodeodance]

35. Parania has officially set in with many Obamacampers.

[CreekDog]

36. I'm not paranoid, I said IF she does what her campaign says she will do

I've said what I will do.

Paranoia is irrational fear. Being afraid Hillary will do what Wolfson says she will do is not paranoid, it's called "paying attention".

[rodeodance]

38. my comment should not have been directed at you specifically--but more

generally at the all the posters. Paying attention is good--but seems to me too many assumptions and jumping to conclusions are stated in many of the posts.

best,
rd

[CreekDog]

40. okay, thanks for the clarification

:hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Heheh

the author of that piece was a good friend of mine in college.

[angie_love]

42. I am beyond pissed. please tell me i'm being irrational and the following wont happen

Let me get this straight. If Obama is ahead in delegates even after OH and TX by about 100, she will not concede thereby going to a brokered convention and severely damaging the party. This is what it seems like to me. If she doesn't get the nomination, she seems determined to torpedo Obama's chance of winning the GE, so she can run again in 4 years when McCain wins. If she does this, she is a fucking selfish bitch who I'll never forgive. EVER.

[KittyWampus]

43. it's not going to happen and it makes little sense for camp Clinton to publicize this.