HELLOOOOOOOO... It's NOT over and she DOESN'T need 65%

[FlyingSquirrel]

I don't know who pulled that number out of which bodily orifice but it just ain't true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4693160&mesg_id=4693160

If Hillary does well on March 4, anything can still happen. This upcoming debate will probably help her since she does better in a debate format than Obama does (I think most would agree).

If, on March 4, she won by these approximate numbers: OH 58%, TX 56%, RI 54%, VT 53% - she's still in it with her superdelegate lead. Even if she just won a plurality in all four states she could argue that she should not have to exit the race. Most likely, only Obamites would be pressuring her to do so.

There are a couple of small states after that which Obama is expected to win, but she can withstand that. The next big one (PA) is not till April 22. As anyone who watches politics knows, 7 weeks is an eternity. She could parlay her victories in the March 4 states into a big victory in PA (perhaps with a couple more debates under her belt and a misstep or two by the Obama campaign). She has plenty of time to regain her footing here. Time is on her side after March 4. After that she would only need to get an average of 50% in the remaining states combined, to be within 30 delegates of Obama including Superdelegates (assuming she could maintain a lead of at least 60). With smaller victories in March 4 states she might need around 52%.

In that scenario, even WITHOUT MI and FL she could claim that the contest was a virtual tie and argue that the remaining Superdelegates should vote their conscience. If she could get either state seated (or new primaries held) there's a good chance she could make it an ACTUAL tie. At this point anything could happen.

I know I'm a lone Obama supporter crying in the wilderness here, but I really think all the hubris is WAY premature and I'm really tired of hearing this "65% in all remaining states" number thrown out there 'cause it just isn't true.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. This is getting interesting

I remember when Bill Clinton was our candidate, he appeared to be the underdog around this point as well, but he pulled it off in the final stretch. Looks like the Clinton campaign may be trying to do this one more time.

[babylonsister]

2. I think the talking heads pulled out that number-Chuck Todd, James Carville, etc. nt

[beachmom]

16. It was Chuck Todd who said it. He made a "conservative" estimate

of which states Obama would win and then calculated delegates that Clinton would need to win: she needs to win 65% of DELEGATES in Ohio, Texas, and Pa. Not popular vote, DELEGATES. (And Todd figured her in to win places like Rhode Island and Kentucky -- so this was a conservative estimate). That is impossible, since TX alone has a weird system.

If the superdelegates blow off the pledged delegate count, there will be hell to pay -- I do not see the supers overall doing this.

This is not hubris. This is ... the math and the politics. Hillary Clinton can only win this thing now by stealing it. Stealing it by having supers override the voters, and by seating FL and MI. Michigan is TOTALLY stealing since Obama wasn't on the ballot, and Florida is illegitimate, since it was not contested. I suppose Clinton could walk away with the nomination, but it will amount to Florida 2000, if she does.

The only other way she can win is if Obama makes a fatal error so horrible or something comes out about him so scandalous that it would be akin to dropping out. Could happen, but I doubt it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

28. His "conservative estimate" and mine differ greatly then.

It's all about momentum and catching up. She could begin to do so with a big March 4. That would allow her to compete in states that Chuck Todd is probably handing to Obama at percentages as high as his previous states.

[beachmom]

40. No offense, but I am going to go with the paid journalist who has a staff

that is also paid to figure this all out. Nothing wrong with not assuming things that haven't happened yet, but Chuck Todd also came out with a number not figuring Obama winning ANY MORE STATES: 55% of delegates that Hillary has to win in the big three states. Sorry, I don't see her even doing that, especially with Texas and how it hands out delegates.

Look, the pressure is on Obama to win cleanly here. But I think Todd has the numbers right. The worst case scenario is that Obama comes out only ahead by a small number of delegates at the end of the entire primary season. He'll still be ahead, unless she wins by huge margins in the delegate count in the big 3 states.

[FlyingSquirrel]

46. None taken.

I really do agree that Obama has the best chance and will really need to have some serious bad luck at this point. I just think 65% is too high. The longer Hillary stays in it the more chance there is for things to break her way. Can you really say that if she won all 4 states on March 4 by only 55% that it would then be over and she would be pressured to drop out? Or do so on her own?

[paperbag_ princess]

31. following the rules is not stealing

Whether you like it or not...or whether you think it is fair or not...the superdelegates were designed to make their own choice based on their own reasoning.

[beachmom]

34. If the supers override the will of the people, it is stealing, and amounts

to a "smoke filled room". Following the rules, maybe. Following the spirit of what the primary system was supposed to mean: NO WAY.

[paperbag_ princess]

57. the system isn't great

but it is the system we have...and the rules were designed to choose the best candidate...that was the spirit in which they were written....

Both candidates will need the superdelagates to reach the majority....as far as I am concerned, if this is a squeaker then why should the few pledged delegates that Obama has over Hillary force the mass of superdelagates to his side? That would make those few pledged delegates too powerful.

Everyone should just quit whining and complaining and fight it out in the system as it was designed....

[yellerpup]

63. A lot of people are tired of politicians not listening to the will of the people

and doing what they "think is best." George Bush does it all the time. Hillary used her own reasoning when voting in favor of the Kyle amendment. That is, in part, why she is behind in votes and delegates right now.

Edit for grammar

[paperbag_ princess]

65. maybe so..

but that is still the way the system was set up...

I agree it sucks...but I also think that the caucus system sucks....and so do open primaries...

and I want to know what kind of idiot thought that that it makes total sense to allow Iowa and New Hampshire so much power every single election cycle....and why in heaven's sake did they think that disenfranchising Fl and Mi voters was the right decision...


and to note: If a politician always does the will of the people they are accused of licking their finger and sticking it in the wind.

[yellerpup]

67. I don't know why the system is set up the way it is

Maybe someone who knows its genesis can explain the reasoning behind it. I have admired politicians in the past (Lyndon Johnson, for instance, who stood up against practically the entire Democratic Party to pass civil rights legislation) who have voted on principle and not caved into the ravening rabble; however, these days too many follow the Bush example. I like and admire HRC. She is one of my senators and I write to her regularly to express my views because I consider that my responsibility as a citizen. I will support her if he wins the nomination, but I am disenchanted by her replies to my concerns and disappointed that she has enabled the Bush administration to erode our rights as citizens and to continue to slaughter innocent people in Iraq who had nothing to do with 9/11. I want the war stopped and the soldiers brought home and she has never promised to do that, so I am supporting another great candidate for president this year. Welcome to DU.

[sandnsea]

39. It's based on the states that will go for Obama

which the OP doesn't include, or dismisses as "small states" the way the Clintons do. The delegates add up, especially when you take them with 70-80% of the vote. The numbers are accurate, short of a major gaffe by Obama. She needs huge numbers to win.

[GumboYaYa]

3. Money, money, money...and she doesn't have enough.

She doesn't have the cash to sustain her campaign until PA. She needs something drastic in the next week or so to have any hope of making it 6-7 more weeks.

[BOSSHOG]

4. I thought it was 140%

Obama supporters think that the only right and rightious and correct thing for her to do is drop out of the race now. Nothing else will do since there is no way she can win another delegate. Come on Obama supporters pile on me, its what you do best.

I'm still a General Clark supporter and will vote for the Dem party candidate.

[Abacus]

9. I don't think she should drop out

yet. As much as I would like Obama to win, she has a little time to turn it around.

[Independent-Voter]

47. I agree. Watching her drive the DLC into the ground is awesome. Good riddance.

[SteppingRazor]

10. One comment I will make on that...

ordinarily, I agree that Obama tends to be treated with kid gloves by the media far more than Hillary. But there is one exception -- if Hillary had won the last 11 contests running instead of Obama, Obama would have as much relevance as Huckabee. There would be calls all over the place for him to get out of the race. So, I can certainly understand Obama supporters saying that about Hillary now -- were the situation reversed, the calls for Obama to drop out would be louder and come from even more quarters, up to and including most of the media that is currently treating him so gently.

[BOSSHOG]

14. IF

Clinton had won the last eleven and the delegate count was the same between those two as it is now (just switched,) the Huckabee comparison is moot. I do not believe anyone should drop out at least for the next three weeks. Maybe by then, the writing will be on the wall, so to speak, but it isn't now. And, if she picks up more delegates she will be able to wield a little more power at the convention. That might be a bad thing, but she'll be in a better position to barter for whatever if she is not the nominee.

[SteppingRazor]

17. I agree with you. I think no one should drop out at this point.

I'm saying that, if the situation were reversed though, the calls for Obama to drop out would be even louder and more vociferous than current calls for Hillary to abandon the campaign. My opinion, of course, but I think it's a pretty solid one.

[BOSSHOG]

26. OR

Big Dog doing some strongarming behind the scenes. Slightly off topic but I saw an article in Buzzflash about Hillary Clinton for a Supreme Court Seat. That might be an awesome incentive to dangle before her.

[FlyingSquirrel]

30. Dude that totally deserves its own thread... What a concept.

The RW would go ABSOLUTELY APESHIT.

[BOSSHOG]

35. Nothing makes me happier

then pissing off a conservative because if I am I must be doing something right and good for our country and Patriotic.

Okay, actually making my wife happy makes me happier then pissing off conservatives.

[tsuki]

43. You're a very good man. nt

[Abacus]

5. I agree

I was actually a little relieved to see Hillary back up in the Gallup poll; Obamans need to stay on their toes. Let's see what happens on March 4.

[BOSSHOG]

7. Forget March 4th

March 11th is the most important date in democratic politics in the past 50 years. Its the date of the Mississippi State Primary.

[SteppingRazor]

6. Hell, I'm not even sure those couple states between March 4 and Penn. are definitely Obama's.

Mississippi, certainly, but I haven't seen any polls from Wyoming, and a closed primary (as opposed to, say, a closed caucus, an open primary, or any other permutation) seems to favor Clinton.

[Araxen]

8. Anybody who thinks Hilary doesn't have a chance

is a fool. Obama surely isn't letting up any and neither should anyone on this board or anywhere. It isn't over till it's over.

[DinahMoeHum]

12. Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

You're absolutely right - the Obama camp will still campaign as though THEY are the ones who need to catch up; and they're doing it with boots on the ground, vote by vote, precinct by precinct, etc.

:kick:

[beachmom]

23. Obama wants an outright "clean" victory. The reality is Clinton has no chance

of winning legitimately, as I have laid out upthread. She DOES need to win 65% of DELEGATES in TX, OH, and PA; otherwise she will be behind in pledged delegates. This is math, not hubris.

What would work the best is if Obama could poach ONE Hillary state. Then the Clintons won't try to steal it (per Bill Clinton).

[not_too_L8]

11. She's losing her super delegates and...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4692935

Latest GALLUP US OBAMA+5, Pollster OHIO,TEXAS, US

Rasmussen Daily tracking now has Obama at 46% and Clinton at 41%

Rasmussen Markets Show 18.0% Chance of Clinton as Democratic Nominee.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/ele ...

[grantcart]

18. yup 65% won't work anymore

[rinsd]

44. Psssst Superdelegate lead means nothing.

They switched from Hillary but they could just as easily switch back if she gets some momentum going.

Especially in the scenario offered in the OP that the pledged delegates are tied or very close to it.

It may not sway superdelegates but she still has a shot.

[grantcart]

59. I understand why you would feel that way. I look forward to being on the

same team with you shortly

[rinsd]

66. Same team will be nice.

We're gonna need everyone to work on debunking rw bs once the nominee is decided.

[tekisui]

13. On important figure, she is in the red $7.6 million, at the end of Jan.

Obama was up $10 million, with $32 million raised in Feb.

This is why she is depending on 527's. She can't buy ads like Obama can. In MI, Obama's response ad played more than 2 to 1 against her attack ad.

[FlyingSquirrel]

33. That's important. But if she wins all 4, or 3 of 4 with TX and OH, her funding

all of a sudden gets a big boost again and she has till April 22. That's a lot of time.

[TheZug]

15. VT? Don't think so

Not positive, but I don't think she's expected to win Vermont. Of course, if it works out as rosily as you would like, then maybe she'll just win them all.

[FlyingSquirrel]

21. I actually don't want the rosy scenario. I'm hoping for Obama.

I just am so tired of hearing people constantly trot out factually incorrect numbers like 65% and prematurely declaring victory. Pride goeth before a fall.

[beachmom]

32. Chuck Todd of NBC is the one who came out with that number. I don't see

why he would "trot out a factually incorrect number". Personally, I believe him. I think he has it about right. The only question left now is politics. I would like the politics to be clearer by seeing Obama poach a state, like TX. But even if she wins the states she is expected to win, she needs to get 65% of the DELEGATES of the three big states. That's from NBC.

[FlyingSquirrel]

38. Did you follow my link in the OP? I laid my reasoning out very clearly

And I've been pretty close in the past. NBC has been known to be wrong. All the major news outlets have been known to be wrong. I could be wrong. But I have just as much chance of being right as they do because I'm looking at the exact same data and reading the same general information.

It's all rosy scenarios, but rosy scenarios CAN come true given the right circumstances. That's all I'm saying. And that the projections they base the 65% number on could be faulty. If they said 60%, I would probably say they could be right.

[Alamom]

19. kick

[book_worm]

20. It's not over, that's true. But I think all of those states will be closer than that

and Obama may actually win Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.

[FlyingSquirrel]

25. If he does, then she'll have a hard time arguing she should remain in the race

and the Party leaders will start pressuring her to bow out. She still has almost 2 weeks to pull this off (how many debates? one or two?) If she wins 3 of 4 and two of them are TX and OH, you can bet she won't be ending anything.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. The Kuebler-Ross Model, applied to 2008 primaries.

1. Denial: "Obama's too inexperienced, it'll be over by Super Tuesday"

2. Anger: "ZOMG! Cults! Plagiarism! Blow jobs!"

3. Bargaining: "Maybe if all the superdelegates ignore the pledged delegates then we can squeak out a tie and thus a victory."

4. Depression: "Oh it's all over, I just won't vote any more."

5. Acceptance: "Yes We Can!"

[cali]

24. I'm a Vermonter and there is NO way

that she'll get over 35% here. This is the most anti-war state in the country and she's only been able to raise $47,000 dollars here. Vermonters do NOT like Clinton and they'll make sure she knows it. And she has very little chance of getting those numbers in the other 3 states.

But I agree that the 65% number is nonsense and that Obama supporters are being too hubristic.

[TheZug]

37. I think

the 65% comes from the assumption that Obama will win MS, VT, NC and some others.

[cali]

42. That actually makes sense

and welcome to DU.

:hi:

[TheZug]

51. Thanks!

[JimGinPA]

27. As Much As I'd Like Her To Drop Out Now...

I kind of want her to stay in until the day after Pennsylvania primary, so I could feel like it was my vote that pushed Barack over the top.


:headbang:

[FlyingSquirrel]

41. Good one.

:)

[goclark]

60. I understand how you feel

:patriot:

[rodeodance]

29. That 65% figure has been slapped in my face so aften!!

[grantcart]

36. What you don't understand is how delegates are divided up

Its not divided up by results in a state - in fact in Texas there isn't even a bonus for winning the state as there is in some states

If you win a 2 delegate congressional district you would have to get 70% to get both delegates 51 or 69% are still going to mean a split

IN a 3 delegate district you if somebody gets 51 or 70% you would still split 2-1

In a 4 delegate district at 65% you get a 3-1 split

and so on and that's why they say you really have to get 65% in a congressional district to make up big numbers

and I don't know the exact percentages but you get the point. That is why once it gets to two person race and one person is ahead it is almost impossible for anyone to catch up.

In the meantime the superdelegates are going against Hillary


And this means she has to do even better than before


And finally in Texas (which is 1/3 caucus, 1/2 primary) the congressional districts get bonuses for how many democratic votes in the last election. Those districts that have high African American turn out for example are going to get a much higher percentage of delegates than a Hispanic district because they supported the democratic nominee while the Hispanic districts were more for Bush.

For these reasons many people say that the numbers mean that Hillary cannot win and do not understand why people want to push the campaign beyond the point of no return.

Clinton supporters on the other hand look at the numbers and see that it seems like a small difference and anything can happen.

I hate to bear bad news for you but I think that the above explanation will help you atleast understand why Obama supporters now feel that it is a foregone conclusion.

Good luck to Hillary supporters. Anything can happen. I hope that we can be reconciled on the same team in a few weeks.

[LostInAnomie]

45. Those are some gigantic "ifs"...

... especially for Vermont where she'll struggle to get even 40%.

Let's be honest here for a second. Hillary has been crushed in the last 11 contests. She hasn't been anywhere near 50% in any of them. Any state where Obama has the opportunity to canvas the state and make speeches, Clinton watches her name recognition leads evaporate and then is beaten handily. Given that Obama still has nearly two more weeks to campaign in all these states, are we to honestly believe that the same thing won't happen again?

If Hillary loses one of her "firewall" states (and she's already tied in TX) she is toast.

[FlyingSquirrel]

48. I agree with you there. If she loses either TX or OH it is probably over. nt

[Araxen]

49. Hillary's only chance

is for a huge screw up from the Obama camp. She almost got it with Michelle's "proud" line. She'll be fishing for it tonight and on next tuesday's debate.

[Independent-Voter]

50. People who put their money where their mouth is disagree

Check out Intrade.com and see who's lost 50% of their value in the last month. It sure as hell ain't Obama.

[FlyingSquirrel]

54. Ya got me there. I wouldn't be puttin money on it. Doesn't mean it can't happen tho

under the right circumstances. These two debates will really help Hillary. It's do or die time for her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. They don't disagree. They just think the odds are strongly against Clinton

But the reason why she isn't a 100 to 1 shot now is because there are plenty of people willing to step forward and plunk down their hard cash on her with the odds the way they are. Hillary can still win, it is not a near impossible feat, just a very difficult one and yes the odds are against her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. Thank you Flying Squirrel. And thank you to all Obama supporters who understand

that pushing an "inevitability" mantra about Obama now is about as tacky as an "inevitability" mantra about Clinton once was to many. If Hillary does poorly on March 4th I do think the race will be over. If she loses both Ohio and Texas, in the clearest case of that, her chances are dead as a door nail - and that might happen. Obama may be close to putting this one away but we aren't talking about horseshoes or hand grenades, until he closes the deal it still is open.

FlyingSquirrel, thank you for taking on the new game of trying to raise the bar on Hillary so high that no matter how well she wins she loses, because that is all it is - a political game being played. If Clinton comes back now, in the face of the wide spread expectations being expressed by many of how "unstoppable" Obama is now, the reaction to her winning Texas and Ohio will be as dramatic as the reaction to her losing 11 contests before it. Every reaction has an equal and opposite counter reaction. Hillary somehow defeating Obama in the upcoming big contests with all the momentum Obama now has, with most of the talking heads saying they can't see how Obama can lose a primary now, or how Hillary can even hope to turn it around, would rock the political world. By no means would that give her the nomination instead, but the race for the nomination from that point forward would very much still be in play. If that happened, and then if Hillary won Pennsylvania and then Puerto Rico, neither candidate is likely to go into the convention with a strong lead in pledged delegates. Certainly Hillary can still win, and still would deserve to win if ENOUGH of these things happened:

What if Super Delegates take into account who gets the most popular votes in all the contests combined - and Clinton ends up ahead there? What if she by far wins the most registered Democratic voters in the Democratic Primaries and caucuses? What if she does better than Obama in the contests when results are tabulated by secret ballots at polling stations that are open for a full 12 to 14 hours on Election day ? What if some stuff comes out in the news from future reporting that tarnishes Obama in some way between now and the end of the primaries? What if Clinton pulls ahead in the national polling again and keeps building on that lead heading into the convention? What if some super delegates think they should at least take into consideration the wishes of the disenfranchised voters of FL and MI? What if neither candidate comes close to winning enough pledged delegates and all the final momentum belongs to Clinton?

If enough of those things happened, as unlikely as some might feel that would be, I don't think Obama limping into the convention, even with a very slim lead in pledged delegates, would or should automatically guarantee him the Democratic nomination. We will all know more in a few weeks. Hell, we may all know a lot more in a few hours after the next debate.

[ORDem]

53. Good luck with all that. She is bleeding cash and SDs daily. n/t

[RunningFromCongress]

56. She needs 65% to retake the pledged delegate lead

[FlyingSquirrel]

58. 65% of March 4 states plus 65% of PA. -- NOT -- 65% of ALL remaining states.

And as stated before, she doesn't need to make the entire difference up - just needs to come close and have the momentum at the right time and be able to sway enough remaining superdelegates. Also MI and FL could still come into play in a variety of ways, and she could make up some delegates there also.

But now I see exactly where the 65% number came from, so thanks for that. She would indeed need to take 65% of the March 4 states plus PA to retake the delegate lead and that will not happen. However, she doesn't NEED to retake the pledged delegate lead all at once (or even by Apr 22) in order to stay in it and possibly win it.

[grantcart]

64. plus $ a million a day in contributions good luck with that

[Dogmudgeon]

61. Perspective on "65%"

I believe that it's the number required to win the nomination with pledged delegates. Obama also has a similar problem, though it is smaller.

Neither of them are likely to get to 2025 before the convention. I'd say it's 3:1 against Obama and 5:1 against Clinton -- that's a rough guesstimate, and feel free to dispute it. It's a tight primary season, and although Hillary has been on the ropes for most of the month, this is not the time for Team Obama to do the victory dance. Hillary does well under pressure. The question now is: how well?

Chuck Todd is an excellent "handicapper", but it's easy to spin the stats. We could use some more comparison statistics, like the percentage of delegate wins that Obama needs vs. Hillary.

If we could only see the future! But what fun would that be?

--p!

[totodeinhere]

62. There are a lot of "ifs" in your analysis.

"If, on March 4, she won by these approximate numbers: OH 58%, TX 56%, RI 54%, VT 53%" is the biggest "if" of them all. She has lost ten straight contests and now suddenly out of nowhere she wins those four states by those percentages? Any reasonable observer would have to say that the chances of that happening are about slim to none. And why would tonight's debate make such a big difference when none of the previous 18 debates have stopped Obama's momentum? It's just not probable.

After all, the pattern has been that the longer Obama has to campaign in a state and introduce himself to that state's voters, the better he does. And he has two full weeks to campaign in Ohio and Texas. And polls are already showing that he has growing strength in both of those states. Yet somehow Clinton is going to still take Ohio with 58% and Texas with 56%? That just doesn't add up.