But Hillary has only won in AZ, AR, CA, FL, MA, MI, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, RI, TN, TX.

[Apollo11]

So it kind of makes sense for folks to say that she should quit, no? :eyes:

[jgraz]

1. She won't catch him in pledged delegates, states won or popular vote

...even allowing for the fact that the popular vote can't possibly account for the numerous caucuses (cauci?) that Obama has won.


Tell me: what exactly IS her plan to win the nomination?

[Ravy]

17. I bet she takes the popular vote, and for sure the popular vote of

Democrats (not counting independents and republicans).

[jgraz]

22. Keep moving those goalposts

How will you measure the votes of people who participated in caucuses? Will they just not count toward Hillary's mad lurch to the finish?

[Ravy]

31. No goalposts to move. You want to count only national pledged delegatges

because they were chosen by the "rules" I suppose.

[jgraz]

35. Yes, like every other primary for the past 40 years

Why does Queen Hillary get special dispensation in this area?

[Ravy]

44. The rules that award pledged delegates also allow superdelegates to

use whatever criteria they want to determine who they vote for.

If you support following the rules, then you should accept that.

[jgraz]

46. So when the supers break for Obama, you'll accept that Hillary should drop out?

[Ravy]

51. Absolutely. When he gets enough to get the majority of

delegates (pledged and super) it is over.


I will support whoever gets to that goal post, but that is the only one that is relevant.

[jgraz]

56. Good. I can't see the SuperDs voting against a pledged delegate winner

They never have in the past, and I don't expect this time will be any different.

[Amimnoch]

112. How about focusing on how the General election is likely to go?

Instead of focusing on the popular or even the delagate vote, how about which states make/break the general elections? After all it's how the electoral college falls that 100% determines who is going to be president. Using the data from the 2004, 2000, 1996, and 1992 elections

Starting with the wins of Senator Obama:
Alabama - 9 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Alaska - 3 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Colorado - 9 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate since the 1992 election.
Connecticut - 7 electoral votes - solid Democrat support for the last 16 years
Delaware - 3 Electoral votes - solid democrat support for the last 16 years
DC - 3 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for the last 16 years
Georgia - 15 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate since 1992 election.
Hawaii - 4 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for the last 16 years
Idaho - 4 electoral votes - has not supported a democrat candidate for the last 16 years.
Illinois - 21 electoral votes - solid democrat support and is Senator Obama's home turf.
Iowa - 7 electoral votes - Mostly Democrat, did support Republican for the 2004 election...
Kansas - 6 electoral votes - All republican for the last 16 years
Louisiana - 9 electoral votes - 50/50 voted bush both times, voted President Clinton both times.
Maine - 4 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years
Maryland - 10 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.
Minnesota - 10 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.
Missouri - 11 electoral votes - 50/50 voted bush both times, voted President Clinton both times.
Nebraska - 5 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
North Dakota - 3 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
South Carolina - 3 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Utah - 5 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Vermont - 3 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years
Virginia - 13 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Washington - 11 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.
Wisconsin - 11 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.

States that had a majority of Senator Clinton support:
Arizona - 10 electoral votes - Only supported Democrat 1 time (1996) in the last 16 years.
Arkansas - 6 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
California - 55 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years.
(note because of the circumstances i'm not adding Florida at this time)
Massachusetts - 12 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
Nevada - 5 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
New Hampshire - 4 electoral votes - supported Democrat 3 of the last 4.
New jersey - 15 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
New Mexico - 5 electoral votes - Supported Democrat 3 of the last 4.
New york - 31 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
Ohio - 20 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
Oklahoma - 7 electoral votes - All repub support for the last 4
Rhode Island - 4 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
Tennessee - 11 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
Texas - 34 electoral votes - All repub support for the last 4.


Treating the primary as a general:
Total Electoral votes if they did take each state-
Senator Obama: 189 electoral votes
Senator Clinton: 219 electoral votes
Modifying it to eliminate states that have not supported a Democrat in the last 16 years -
Senator Obama: 129 electoral votes
Senator Clinton: 178 electoral votes

[pnwmom]

118. Wow. Thanks for the analysis. n/t

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

122. This analysis is fundamentally flawed

It assumes that Clinton voters won't vote for Obama or vice versa. The core states that Democrats always win, they will win in 2008. The swing states are the only ones in question, and you can't project GE results based on the primary results.

[miceelf]

133. Uhhh..

Wisconsin and Minnesota- "solid support"???

Wisconsin has gone for the Dem candidate by less than a percentage point in the last two cycles.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

160. Ice Bank Mice Elf

:evilgrin:

[ContinentalOp]

153. You forgot to add the solid blue states to both.

So add at least 86 to Obama's side for NY and CA and he wins.

[jgraz]

156. "Forgot" is a very kind word to use here.

[AlertLurker]

162. Red State / Blue State Electoral Votes

Given that each take ONLY BLUE STATES, who has more Electoral Votes?

Obama's Electoral Votes 74
Clinton's Electoral Votes 88

State EV Blue/Red-2004 Obama/Clinton
ALABAMA 9 R O
ALASKA 3 R O
ARIZONA 10 R C
ARKANSAS 6 R
CALIFORNIA 55 B C
COLORADO 9 R O
CONNECTICUT 7 B
DELAWARE 3 B O
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 3 B O
FLORIDA 27 R C
GEORGIA 15 R O
HAWAII 4 B O
IDAHO 4 R O
ILLINOIS 21 B O
INDIANA 11 R
IOWA 7 R O
KANSAS 6 R O
KENTUCKY 8 R
LOUISIANA 9 R O
MAINE 4 B O
MARYLAND 10 B O
MASSACHUSETTS 12 B C
MICHIGAN 17 B C
MINNESOTA 10 B O
MISSISSIPPI 6 R
MISSOURI 11 R O
MONTANA 3 R
NEBRASKA 5 R O
NEVADA 5 R O
NEW HAMPSHIRE 4 B C
NEW JERSEY 15 B C
NEW MEXICO 5 R C
NEW YORK 31 B C
NORTH CAROLINA 15 R
NORTH DAKOTA 3 R O
OHIO 20 R C
OKLAHOMA 7 R C
OREGON 7 B
PENNSYLVANIA 21 B
RHODE ISLAND 4 B C
SOUTH CAROLINA 8 R O
SOUTH DAKOTA 3 R
TENNESSEE 11 R C
TEXAS 34 R C
UTAH 5 R O
VERMONT 3 B O
VIRGINIA 13 R O
WASHINGTON 11 B O
WEST VIRGINIA 5 R
WISCONSIN 10 B O
WYOMING 3 R

[whopis01]

179. How about focusing on how the General Election is REALLY likely to go?

Using your statistics for the states, I think it is a bit more reasonable to take this approach:
(one quick note - South Carolina has 8 electoral votes, not 3 and Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes, not 11)

First, set aside the states that go solidly Democratic as either candidate is likely to get those in the GE:

Solid Democratic States (that have already voted):
California - 55 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years.
Connecticut - 7 electoral votes - solid Democrat support for the last 16 years
Delaware - 3 Electoral votes - solid democrat support for the last 16 years
DC - 3 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for the last 16 years
Hawaii - 4 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for the last 16 years
Illinois - 21 electoral votes - solid democrat support and is Senator Obama's home turf.
Maine - 4 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years
Maryland - 10 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.
Massachusetts - 12 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
Michigan - 17 electoral votes - Solid Democratic for the last 16 years
Minnesota - 10 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.
New jersey - 15 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
New york - 31 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
Rhode Island - 4 electoral votes - Solid Democrat for the last 16 years
Vermont - 3 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years
Washington - 11 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.
Wisconsin - 10 electoral votes - Solid Democrat support for 16 years.
-- 220 votes total


Solid Democratic States (that have not yet voted):
Oregon - 7 electoral votes - Solid Democratic for the last 16 years
Pennsylvania - 21 electoral votes - Solid Democratic for the last 16 years
-- 28 votes total




Now, for each candidate, split up the states into the solid Republican and the swing states:



Starting with the wins of Senator Obama:

Likely to go Republican (that have voted):
Alabama - 9 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Alaska - 3 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Colorado - 9 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate since the 1992 election.
Georgia - 15 electoral votes - has not supported a Democrat candidate since 1992 election.
Idaho - 4 electoral votes - has not supported a democrat candidate for the last 16 years.
Kansas - 6 electoral votes - All republican for the last 16 years
Nebraska - 5 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
North Dakota - 3 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
South Carolina - 8 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Utah - 5 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
Virginia - 13 electoral votes - Has not supported a Democrat candidate in the last 16 years.
-- 80 votes total



Swing:
Iowa - 7 electoral votes - Mostly Democrat, did support Republican for the 2004 election...
Louisiana - 9 electoral votes - 50/50 voted bush both times, voted President Clinton both times.
Missouri - 11 electoral votes - 50/50 voted bush both times, voted President Clinton both times.
-- 27 votes total





Then the states that had a majority of Senator Clinton support:

Likely to go Republican:
Arizona - 10 electoral votes - Only supported Democrat 1 time (1996) in the last 16 years.
Oklahoma - 7 electoral votes - All repub support for the last 4
Texas - 34 electoral votes - All repub support for the last 4.
-- 51 votes total


Swing:
Arkansas - 6 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
Nevada - 5 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
New Hampshire - 4 electoral votes - supported Democrat 3 of the last 4.
New Mexico - 5 electoral votes - Supported Democrat 3 of the last 4.
Ohio - 20 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
Tennessee - 11 electoral votes - 50/50 supported bush 2x, and President Clinton 2x
-- 51 votes total




The other states that have not yet voted:

Likely to go Republican:
Florida - 27 electoral votes (voted 1/29) (Republican 3 out of last 4 years)
Indiana - 11 electoral votes (votes 5/6) (Republican 16 years)
Mississippi - 6 electoral votes (votes 3/11) (Republican 16 years)
North Carolina - 15 electoral votes (Republican 16 years)
South Dakota - 3 electoral votes (votes 6/3) (Republican 16 years)
Wyoming - 3 electoral votes (votes 3/8) (Republican 16 years)
-- 65 votes total

Swing:
Kentucky - 8 electoral votes (votes 5/20) 50/50 over last 16 years
Montana - 3 electoral votes (votes 6/3) 50/50 over last 16 years
West Virginia - 5 electoral votes (votes 5/13) 50/50 over last 16 years
-- 16 votes total




So, to put that all together:
There are about 196 electoral votes that are solid Republican.
There are about 16 electoral votes left from swing states that haven't voted for a Democratic nominee.

Each Democratic candidate is likely to get 248 votes from the solid Democratic states.

The swing states that Senator Obama won in have a total of 27 electoral votes. 80
The swing states that Senator Clinton won in have a total of 51 electoral votes. 43

270 votes are needed to win the general election.

So what does that mean?
First, either candidate has a very good chance at winning the general election. Only 22 votes beyond the solid Democratic states are needed in order to win.

With that said, Clinton is beating Obama by almost 2 to 1 in the swing states. That would seem to give her an edge for the general election. However, I would say that Obama is more likely to pull off an upset in one of the solid Republican states that he won.

Either way, I would say that it is really difficult to come to any solid conclusion when looking at the electoral math right now. If anything, Clinton might have a slight lead, but it really is not so strong as to be a determining factor in my mind.

[Matteon]

190. This makes no sense.

Any of the states that have gone blue for each of the last 4 elections will almost certainly do so regardless of whether HRC or BO wins the nomination. The same is true for states that have gone red for the past four elections.

You have NY, CA and Oklahoma under Clinton. Do you really think that, if BO is in the GE with McCain that CA or NY will go red? Come on. And Oklahoma is not going to be a blue state. Period. I went to OU and lived in Norman for three years. I worked on the Carson for senate campaign in 2004. It was neck and neck between Carson and Coburn until a week before the election. Coburn ran a TV ad showing HRC, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy manipulating a string puppet with Carson's face on it. We went from dead even to a 65-35 whipping in 5 days after that ad ran state wide. There is no way....NO WAY....Oklahoma votes blue in November. The same can be said for Kansas and Nebraska, which you have under Obama. They're not voting blue. Period.

The only relevant measure is to look at the swing states. Even that is only marginally indicative because 95% of either camp will jump to the other in the GE. The swing states (have supported each party at least once inthe last 4 elections) you have listed, such as Colo., Ga., Iowa, La., Missouri, Az., Arkansas, Nevada, N.H., N.M., Ohio, Tenn., should be tallied.

Obam 51 and HRC 61.

So, HRC fared better in the swing states by a small margin. However, both candidates won enough swing states to win the GE. If Obama wins all of the swing states in which he beat HRC along with all of the solid blue states then McCain goes down. The same is true for HRC.

The entire discussion of electoral votes and primary/caucus wins is asinine.

[pnwmom]

117. And every election for much longer than the past 40 years

has allowed superdelegates to vote for whomever they wish. They'll be deciding things again this time, IMHO. And it could go either way.

[jgraz]

157. Superdelegates weren't around before 1968

But, hey, don't let the facts stop a good spin.

[Hepburn]

140. And your problem with following rules is....???

Oh, I get it...unless Hillary cheats she cannot win.

Good point..NOT! :puke:

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

121. You do realize there's no official counts of independents & republicans

just projections based on exit polls. They're not going to use that number to decide anything.

[tekisui]

128. nope.

Obama will take popular and Dem popular, he already is.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

194. she already has the popular vote with FL and MI

[MADem]

27. She'll nail him in popular vote, I suspect. nt

[jgraz]

33. Once again: there is NO SUCH THING AS A POPULAR VOTE COUNT for Hillary

You cannot include the caucus-goers in that tally, so the number is meaningless.

[Ravy]

55. I believe they *do* count caucus-goers in that tally. They may not

for Texas, as that would be counting some of them twice, but I think they added the numbers from say, the Nevada caucuses, to the vote totals.

[jgraz]

60. How does that work?

The caucuses only track precinct count. The individual voting data is lost.

[Ravy]

68. They know how many people stood for each candidate.

They award delegates from precinct count, but without knowing the actual number of people, there would be no way to check those precinct totals. Check out next time they have a caucus, the media will tell you exactly how many people turned out, so they are clearly tracked.

[BzaDem]

77. Half wrong, half right.

In 4 states (Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine), they do not keep track of the individual voters. In ALL other caucus states, they do, and that IS reflected in the popular vote.

[jgraz]

86. Interesting...though it still renders the popular vote meaningless

If you don't count 4 states that Obama won, how can you say that Hillary is truly ahead on this criterion?

[MADem]

63. If no one makes it to 2025, you actually think the superdelegates aren't going to factor that in?

REALLY?

The superdelegates are gonna say, "Well, gee, like Al Gore, Candidate X--be it Clinton OR Obama--won the popular vote in the states that actually had a representational primary, and not a bullshit populist/activist/disenfranchising caucus, but we can't consider those numbers at all, because completely unrepresentative and disenfranchising caucus contests would fuck that up!"

They've got "percentages" to go by with the caucus states--they'll just have to make do with those. Do a little extrapolating and gut checking.

Naaah, I don't think they'd ignore that popular vote. They'd factor it into their decision.

You can call the number meaningless, but it isn't meaningless to the person who shlepped out on an icy day to vote. You just don't tell people their vote doesn't count.

The magic number, again, is 2025. Anyone who gets there, owns the show. Falling short is another story altogether.

[jgraz]

90. Wow, could you possibly fit a bit more slanted spin into that post?

I think the superdelegates are going to look at the candidate who has won more delegates, more states and has out-fundraised his opponent by nearly 2-to-1. I suspect they'll also look at who has run a tighter campaign, who has managed their money better and who has delivered a positive, honest message.

Gee, I wonder who that could be. :shrug:

[anamandujano]

91. Someone who has twice as much money at his disposal and can't close the deal?

I don't think so.

[jgraz]

95. Such a disingenuous assertion

Obama has twice as much money as the inevitable, former first lady who had a 40-point lead last November. The fact that she's getting crushed in the fundraising contest speaks volumes about her viability as a candidate.

Whining about being outspent just reminds people how incompetently she's managed this campaign.

[anamandujano]

102. Money spent usually translates into votes. There's a lot of research to back it up.

He couldn't close the deal. That is not viability. That is raised eyebrows by the long ton.

[jgraz]

104. Um, I don't know if you've noticed, but the deal is pretty much closed

If it was anyone but Queen Hillary, this race would have been declared over long ago.

[anamandujano]

108. Maybe in Russia or Pakistan it would be over, but here we follow the

process.

Sad, but true.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

123. Why don't you look at where Obama was in the OH and TX polls 3 weeks ago

compared to how he finished.

[PseudoIntellect]

187. Yeah, stupid Obama.

Stop cheating by getting a million people to donate!

[MADem]

98. Well, gee, thanks for expressing YOUR slant on what the superdelegates "think."

But ya know what? You just might be WRONG.

A tighter campaign, eh? Like chit-chatting with the Canadians about NAFTA and the meaning of campaign bullshit vs. actual viewpoints?

I think you're wishing and hoping, myself. And doing no small amount of spinning, yourself

What I also think is that this is uncharted territory, and it's ... interesting.

The magic number is 2025. Unless a candidate makes it to that number, both can make a case as to why they should be chosen. Being ahead in the delegate count, or being ahead in the shitty red state count, or winning the most "Not Primary" contests are factors. Are they compelling? As compelling as winning the Sixth Largest Economy In The World, California? Or a host of other states where people actually make their choice on a BALLOT, and aren't bullied around in a gymnasium to come to a 'group grope' decision?

Time will tell.

[jgraz]

103. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hillary KNOW there would be caucuses?

Are you telling me she had no plan to win any of those "group gropes"?

All of the candidates knew the rules going in. Only one of them is whining about them now that she's losing.

[MADem]

110. Pardon my double click..

[MADem]

She blew them off, some of 'em. Bet she wishes she didn't now.

All of the candidates knew the rules going in--that's quite right of you to say.

And the biggest rule is this--you have to make it to 2025 to WIN. That's TO, not "near." There's NO RULE that says "Oh, if you're AHEAD, then you get to be the winner." Uh uh.

Otherwise, if there's no one sitting on the magic number, "something else" happens.


A candidate can put forth that they're taller, that they have nicer teeth, that they have a better looking ass, you name it, in justification. It doesn't mean that the convention will lock into these justifications irrevocably. Winning the popular vote IS an argument, even if you don't happen to care for it. Most people with half a brain KNOW that caucuses aren't terribly representative, and they also know that they are inherently disenfranchising, especially when it comes to the elderly, the handicapped, the blue collar/shift worker, the poor without transportation, etc. etc.

Making these assertions as part of a case to the convention isn't "changing the rules."

The rule--the only governing rule-- is make it to 2025 and you WIN. End of Discussion. But ONLY if you make it to 2025.

[pnwmom]

120. They might also look at who has had the greater share of popular support

ever since the race started. IF Obama comes to surpass Clinton in this regard, great. The superdelegates' choice will be clear.

Otherwise, they'll have to choose between going along with the delegates who support Obama, or going along with the average Democratic voter who supports Clinton. And that won't be an easy choice.

[jgraz]

151. How do you measure that, given that IA, NV, WA and ME don't report caucus-goers?

Four states that Obama won, four states that have no individual count of caucus attendees. Another move of the goalposts, this time to a different stadium altogether.

[jgraz]

180. You must mean polls, because Obama has NEVER trailed in the popular vote

Even if you spot Hillary FL and MI and discount the four caucuses that don't track individual voters, she's still about 32k shy of Obama.

Of course, the "popular vote" is just the latest desperate Clintonian invention to try to steal a nomination she's already lost by any objective measure.

[LVjinx]

189. Actually, the role of SD's is the opposite of that

The SD's were introduced to prevent a popular but perhaps unelectable person gaining the nomination even if they DO get the plurality of pledged delegates. That was the entire idea of their creation 20 years ago, to provide a firewall against the nomination of a demagogue, or extremely popular individual with no chances of winning, or someone who doesn't best represent the interests of the Democratic party. For example, if Rudy Giuliani had run as a Democrat, and everyone voted for him on name recognition but Obama was close behind, it would be the job of the SD's to say "Hey, this Rudy fellow doesn't represent the Democratic party at all!" and select Obama instead. So it will be with Clinton and Obama, as it is mathematically impossible for either of them to win it at this point.

Consequently, the SD's can, and one would hope, will vote for the person they think is best qualified, not who has the most adoring fans or web videos.

[pnwmom]

119. The polls are more accurate than the caucuses in determining

how much support either candidate has.

And after what I heard about the insanity of our state caucuses this year, I'd have preferred a poll.

[casus belli]

159. He's still up by almost 600,000 votes. So, not likely. n/t

[MADem]

166. That's debatable. Funny how that "momentum" shit can cut both ways. NT

[casus belli]

184. Honestly, I think it's overused by both campaigns. n/t

[Jawja]

125. Her plan is to

destroy Obama as a viable GE candidate, make an issue out of seating the Florida and Michigan delegates, pressure the super delegates and win a brokered convention.

The result will be a divided Democratic Party, an energized Rethug Party and another 4 years of George W. McCain.

[Hepburn]

141. Yep.....

...Hillary....all EGO, all the time.

:puke:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

134. You mean won on the 1 time crossover Rethuglican votes that won't be there for the GE in Nov.......

in Texas of the "registered" democrats 67% voted for Clinton....that's the telling story!

[jgraz]

181. Keep moving those goalposts

Maybe we should just track bitter white women over 60.

[sandnsea]

2. Except she didn't win in FL & MI

Obama won the delegates in NV, and possibly even TX. And they tied in NM, and NH. And then AR, AZ, OK, and TN are red states and don't count.

So she's won CA, MA, NJ, NY and RI.

[ClayZ]

8. Yeah!

[Buve]

28. AR A RED STATE

Not with a CLINTON on the ticket.

they <3 them clintons down there.


(edit: and the rest of the premise is completely flawed)

[Inchworm]

129. That made me twinge

Watching Hillary claim FL and MI in last night's speech.

MI and FL screwed up and shouldnt be allowed back in no matter what.

:mad:

[Dr. Strange]

142. Oh please...

you're not seriously suggesting that Hillary follow the rules are you?

[KaryninMiami]

136. Thank you. Florida and MI cannot and will not be counted without a revote.

[lukasahero]

154. FL is talking about doing just that...

If so, it's likely MI will follow suit.

[angie_love]

3. yup she should drop out.

[melody]

4. And she has lost the General Election for us -- congratulations

I'm sure you're proud.

[Apollo11]

6. So winning in November is a "false hope"?

Geez, I thought you Obamites were supposed to be optimists! :eyes:

[melody]

9. I'm not an Obamite ... whatever that is ... I'm a party realist and I know Hillary has doomed us

We have zero chance now of winning in November.

The only reason I backed Obama was to help speed the process. Now Hillary has slowed it down. Someone
I once respected enormously has helped cripple the party prior to the GE.

Yes, it's false hope now, but not because of Obama ... then again, maybe that was Hillary's whole point
about cautioning us regarding "false hope". She was planning on tossing the election to McCain anyway.

[EmilyAnne]

12. Why do you think she absolutely will not win the GE? n/t

[melody]

15. Because she has lengthened the entire primary process to go all the way to a brokered convention

That will destroy half of the time when they SHOULD be targeting McCain TOGETHER.

Instead, Hillary has selfishly chosen to target Obama for her own political aspirations.

[Leopolds Ghost]

109. I selfishly want to see a brokered convention that would heighten the contradctions

Causing a furious anti-war movement, no longer encumbered by having to suck up to
pink tutu Dems like Hillary and her security moms, to turn on the Republicans
in azure Minneapolis with the renewed fury of a movement scorned.
Displaced anger can be useful. If we're lucky we'll get a 68 in
Minneapolis, not Denver.

And newly nominated Obama, having narrowly survived an attempted coup by Hillary in Denver
that would otherwise prove devastating for the Democratic party, and probably will be
devastating for Dems any way you slice it anyhow (which just provides more justification
for the anti-war movement to begin putting their bodies on the gears here) can sit back and play
Martin Luther King, tsk-tsking the radicals as they tear up the place in Minneapolis.

It will be a joy to watch. :popcorn:

[melody]

114. And then McCain will win in November?

This benefits us how?

And don't give me the crap about Democrats being no different than Republicans. George Bush
laid waste to that argument.

[BrightKnight]

115. so, the convention nominates 1 VP & 1 President - win/win

problem solved

We get both groups of energized supporters going into the general election. The party will be united. The ticket would be unbeatable. The White House would have three very bright people to figure out how to clean-up all of Chimpy's messes.

[Apollo11]

13. "Zero chance" of winning? What happened to "Yes We Can"?

Sorry about the Obamite thing.

[melody]

23. Yes We Can was an Obama campaign slogan -- I'm for the strongest Democrat

And that is Obama.

Hillary is the one who decided we wouldn't have the strongest ticket possible ... she's the one shooting down the party.

[mtnester]

7. Proud of the Democratic Party? You betcha..unlike some

I have faith in the party I have been a part of for so long too. Unlike some.

[melody]

10. I don't want faith -- I want reality -- I'm mad as hell for the party that Clinton has now crippled

I'm proud enough of our party to fight for it.

[mtnester]

34. My gentle recommendation would be then to support your candidate

with vigor and all the passion you can, and refrain from tearing down the supporters of the other. Because the ultimate carrot is November, and NEITHER side can do it without the other.

Most proud Democrats WILL vote for the candidate the party presents, no matter their original preference, in November. The alternative is too horrifying to any true Dem, and apparently to most of the nation based on the crossovers who went for a DEM candidate. Those who say they won't vote for a particular Dem candidate in November are absolutely suspect as far as being ready to go to bat for the party, and earn my ire no matter WHO they say they WON'T support (i.e.it matters not to me if you say I wont support Hillary or I Won't Support Obama..you suck if you say either on this board)

MCCain will be a strong candidate for the Repubs...not strong enough through no matter how the Dem party battles for a candidate. The turnout alone in the primary, when you look at how many Dems turned out and how many Repubs turned out, says a lot about how people feel about making sure a Dem..ANY Dem, gets the WH.

Telling the other side they have just cost us the carrot simply because we supported a certain candidate keeps no friends nor makes no friends. Saying hey, our candidate needs to try to change the message, do better next week, we will see how the next one goes...good...telling us we destroyed the country and our chances for this country in Novemeber...bad.

My 2 cents, only worth that to me.



Edited for a hideous 5 AM spelling error

[melody]

41. Not when other supporters aren't going to first back the PARTY

The problem is the supporters who won't accept reality and who are insisting upon a brokered convention
which WILL lead to a McCain victory in November.

What's more important to you -- Hillary winning the nomination or the Democrats winning the GE? She cannot
win the nomination by the usual process. She CAN only negotiate for it via very divisive methods. Is it worth it
to you to force your candidate in if she kills the party?

The Clinton supporters are the ones being hideously selfish.

[mtnester]

61. What is important to me is making sure the sense of fair

is observed as we move along toward deciding upon a candidate. Now that it has been made close again, can you really say, since the race is not over, that now PA should not count, that HRC should drop out for the better of the parry? Why? Last night made the case for Obama to consider that as well with your logic. Shouldn't he start considering it? And so then what if he also loses in the next batch of states?

Those points are irrelevant at this time, because our primary is not over yet. When it is, the party will get down to the business of burying McCain...and we will. Again I say most of us will vote for whomever the candidate is, no matter how it gets that way. It sounds to me like maybe you won't if it happens to go the way of HRC. So...I turn it back to you. If it is a brokered convention, and it is HRC...how will you vote? I can honestly say if Obama is the nominee out of a broker, I WILL vote for him....because I ABSOLUTELY know what is most important...beating John McCain.

edit - spelling error only

[melody]

88. I've already said I'll vote for the Democratic nominee - I've said it fifty times

However, I'll hold my nose to do so -- and I will do it without hope.

We're finished. Our best chance was to unify behind one candidate today -- that chance is now over.

[WinkyDink]

130. Obama could have just as easily bowed out. Why should she just hand the nomination to him?

[melody]

150. No, he can't -- he has the delegate advantage. Hillary can't win

I wish her supporters would look at the reality of the math.

All you are doing is stretching out the process to make damned sure that we have no chance of unifying
behind a single nominee -- and therefore, beat McCain. You've done nothing more than pout, drag your
feet and sulk in the corner.

[oasis]

14. Hillary has the apparatus to battle against the right wing machine.

And win.;-)

[melody]

18. Hillary's apparatus has already destroyed half the time we had to fight against McCain

Simply for HER own political aspirations.

How is THAT going to "battle the right wing machine" when she has become part of it?

[oasis]

137. Hillary's pledge to the American people "I'm in it to win it". She's standing by

her commitment. Her "aspirations" coincide with making America a better place.

[melody]

149. Her aspirations are a selfish, narcissistic power grab -- she isn't going to "win it"

She's just going to make damned certain the Democrats don't.

[aquart]

19. Because she knew what kind of fight she'd have and PREPARED for it.

Which is exactly what I'd like to see in a president: realistic, hard-nosed, planning and preparation.

[lukasahero]

155. Is it November already?

Hmmm, must have missed a few months on my calendar.

[melody]

165. It may as well be -- the GOP is already planning on November. We're still fighting each other

Nice going, y'all.

[GreenTea]

5. She won in McCain's home state (AZ)? Only PA should be next .....

She'll win in PA as well as all the above!

[WinkyDink]

131. NO. QUESTION. I don't care how many college volunteers Obama has in PA.

HRC will have the unions---who won the state for Gore and Kerry---and she has the VERY popular Big Ed.

[Phillycat]

144. She will win in PA.

Don't worry about that. We will not let you down.

[EmilyAnne]

11. I wish one of them would get a very decisive win. Why does it have to be so close, damn it.

I think it just shows that both are highly electable. In my dreams tonight they'll run together.

Sigh.

Congrats to you guys, though. Now I know how you were all feeling these last few weeks.

[GreenTea]

20. Ohio wasn't "close" 55% to 44% in favor of Clinton.....

[Apollo11]

26. I think EmilyAnne was referring to the race as a whole. Not just Ohio.

[donheld]

24. To make us all crazy of course

[aquart]

16. Ooh, all those big industrialized high population states can't matter.

Can they?

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. Exactly. 15 out of 50 states matter(s).

Just like it matters that Kerry won 48% of the vote (the same percentage
Obama won in TX, and in the same counties. Hill won the lily-white Repub
counties for "some" reason)

[dsc]

78. she won 2 out of every 3 hispanic voters

you are flat out being dishonest.

[Leopolds Ghost]

84. Has nothing to do with my last post

You clearly don't understand statistical breakdowns.

[dsc]

161. You implied she won only lily white counties

which she most certainly didn't. You flat out told a fable.

[casus belli]

183. self delete, responded to wrong post.

[MADem]

21. Such tiny little unimportant states, with NO Democrats in them, either!!!

Oh, wait...that's the OTHER list...

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Lovely sentiments. What we need is to get you involved in the Clinton media campaign

[anamandujano]

48. Check post #39 for "lovely sentiments."

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. All 50 states matter. any 15 you pick matter. Any percentage of the vote, matters.

But ultimately democracy is about trying to win by one vote.

This Jeffersonian dictum breaks down the minute (a) the ballot box
is corrupted or (b) people try to game the rules or circumvent the process.

[anamandujano]

66. "Hill won the lily-white Repub counties for "some" reason)"

I was referring to this lovely sentiment.

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. It's a disgusting sentiment on their part

The people in that part of the country, hate, hate, hate Hillary
and most of the Dems in Amarillo area vote Repub in the fall by
overwhelming numbers.

The statistics show they are either gaming the election
(HALF OF TEX REPUBS VOTED HILLARY, A PERSON REPUBS LOVVE TO HATE)
or simply hate black people (not the word they use) and "muslims" more.

[anamandujano]

75. It's you flashing the race card because your candidate lost the day. It's ugly,

but we're getting used to it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. I was expecting the Panhandle to show some progress by splitting their vote evenly. They voted race

Having no dog in the fight. (After all, since the same voters, including
registered Dems in the Panhandle, would vote to give Bush a 3rd term if
asked in November. These are the Dixiecrats who converted after Lyndon
Johnson signed the Civil Rights act and have never looked back).

And Hillary appealed to them with her "child safety" Willie Hortonizing.

PA-THETIC.

[Leopolds Ghost]

Oh, and did I mention the exit polls? 1 out of 5 white voters in Ohio admitted race was an issue

And they went overwhelmingly for Hillary.

Those are huge numbers post-1980.

Hillary is busily trying to turn Obama into the "Jesse Jackson candidate"
in case she loses, so she can pull one out at the convention a la Walter
Mondale vs. a mortally wounded Gary Hart.

[anamandujano]

94. You can thank Jesse Jackson's son for making Obama into the black candidate.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. It's Clinton's supporters who think theres something wrong with voting for the candidate blacks like

After all, there was nothing wrong with Jewish voters going overwhelmingly
for Gore thanks to Lieberman being on the ticket.

Or Irish voting overwhelmingly for Kennedy (for that matter I don't recall
anyone here on DU being upset when Catholics failed to support Kerry --
the future Hillary supporters were already in full swift-boat mode, blame
the loser mentality.)

[anamandujano]

107. For the last time. I think Barack Obama is an incompetent arrogant punk.

He came out of no where and is being pushed forward by big money. I actually think he is the Repuke candidate this time around.

If Sheila Jackson Lee or Kweisi Mfume were running, they would get my vote in a heartbeat.

You are showing yourself to be more the buffoon with each new post.

I'm not going to keep pointing out your race baiting. Frankly, you are nauseating.

[Leopolds Ghost]

111. I'm not impressed by either candidate. However I certainly will not vote for a Scoop Jackson Dem

Or a candidate that relies on Scoop Jackson / George Wallace Democrats
in rural Ohio without even a pretense of creating a non-racist coalition
powerful enough to actually benefit the white working class voters she is
so grossly sucking up to and attempting to isolate as a voting bloc with
targeted appeals to eliminate more steel jobs and replace them with
"green collar" jobs.

I have been quite vocal in my disdain for Obama's economic coalition,
which resembles Kerry's. But Obama, like Kerry or JFK, is a saint
compared to the Clintons who eviscerated the New Deal and destroyed
the left in this country.

[anamandujano]

92. "child safety" Willie Hortonizing---pathetic

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. It's 3 AM. Do you know where your children are?

Not in Iraq, I hope. Or hanging out on the "wrong" side of the tracks :hi:

It's 3 AM and the phone rings. It's Barack Hussein Obama, and your 7 year
old child picks up the phone! Oh the horror.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. And that's ALL she won. 15 out of 50. And no, there is no metric other than pledged delegates

For determining the "superior worth" of these 15 states,

as Hora O'Donnell claimed tonight (saying Hillary had a credible case
to ask the supers to overturn the pledged total on the basis of WHICH
states Hillary won by narrow margins.)

When Tweety said "I thought this was Jefferson's country,

"and Jefferson said Democracy is the willingness to accept an election on the basis of one vote"

(or in this case one pledged delegate)

(paging Al Gore)

Hora O'Donnell replied "Jefferson isn't alive today."

[GreenTea]

29. You forgot Ohio (OH)...

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. You forgot Puerto Rico

and Poland.

[GreenTea]

37. How 'bout PA next?

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. WY and Mississippi are next.

Like I said, there are 50 states, not 15 -- and there is no metric
for judging relative importance of Hillary's 15 states other than
the amount of pledged delegates.

Certainly not level of inustrialization (a terrible excuse for voting
for either Clinton, given that Clinton, like Obama, wants to eliminate
America's working class jobs and replace them with "green collar" jobs
and H1B visas. No -- this is a race-based issue, causing people to vote
against their own interests, and 1 out of 5 Ohio voters said so, and 80%
of them voted for Hillary in the exit polls.)

[Buve]

50. banannas

1 delegate = 1000 votes in Idaho
1 delegate = 25000 votes in Texas.


You're metric seems to be lacking, what is this Kenya?

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. I don't think you want to make that argument since Obama's winning TX delegates

Them's Dem party rules. Do they suck? most probably. So are the rules designed to game the system for Hillary, not to mention all the gerrymandering and race-baiting going on in an attempt to marginalize support for a black candidate. It's 3 AM, do you know where your children are?

[rodeodance]

145. Hillary has the popular vote

[Apollo11]

36. Ooops!

How the hell did I make such a dumb error? :eyes:

Luckily I was in time to go back and edit the OP.

Thanks! :hi:

[jgraz]

64. And POLAND!

:P

[lapfog_1]

38. To start with... she didn't "win" FL and MI as they never held

sanctioned primaries. So you can scratch those two off your list.

That leaves 13 states out of 50... she will likely win PA to, and maybe one or two others.

So 16 out of 50 (well, 54 or so with Guam, Puerto Rico, DC, and overseas).

Gee, that's a compelling argument... Hillary can win a few states by small margins!

Whoopeee!

[Buve]

42. Only one

only one democrat had ads in FL before the election....


hrm... who won FL's election again?

(edit: also, are you arguing that obama is going to win all those red states that no dem has won since 1976?.... how do I say this respectfully.. HAHAHAHAHAHHA... damn I = FAIL)

[jgraz]

45. Here's the problem: Hillary loses ground wherever she campaigns, and Obama gains ground

Hold a real campaign in Florida and it's anybody's guess who wins. One thing's for sure: no way Hillary holds the same delegate tally.

[Buve]

57. hrm...

Last 3 days of OH and TX suggest different results then your hypothisis. If FL and MI already counted the debate would be entierly different.

[jgraz]

62. She hit the ground with 20 point leads in both OH and TX

Look where she ended up.

[lapfog_1]

69. Who said Obama would win all those red states.

Seriously, do you think Obama LOSES us any state that you think Hillary wins?
(this in the GE now).

Which ones?

Based on what data?

Now, does Hillary win us any state that Obama will lose in the GE?

Which ones?

Based on what data?

[Buve]

40. Broken system

if she wins the popular vote and loses the nomination this still broken Clinton/Gore democrat will crawl into a hole and will only come up for politics each GE...


I totally swear it...

pinky swear...



(FromTheHole: so whats going on out there)

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. What makes you think she's winning the popular vote nationwide

Just because she wins the popular vote narrowly in "big" states,

entirely on the strength of rural white resentment of urban black/liberal voters?

Folks need to study math. "Importance" does not cancel out popular votes
or delegates in numerous other states.

[Gore1FL]

47. Mathematics makes her

Huckallree RondPaulm Clinton. (at least prior to McCain winning)

Not yet eliminated, yet unable to win.

[anamandujano]

52. If he can't get to 2025, he is in the same position as she is. Deal.

[Buve]

59. yet they deny it.

He can't win either, cause win = 2025.


Cause we are all following these arcane rules, no matter how messed up they are, right.

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. Jefferson says win=plurality. SDs only vote in Denver. Before then their vote is meaningless

And all that matters is Obama's huge lead in elected delegates.

You don't see me relying on asking Obama to trot out the 50 SD's
in his pocket (according to Tom Brokaw) until he seals up the
nomination some time around NC.

(whereupon he will be bloodied and broken "race" candidate
whom no rural white man or woman will ever vote for, thanks
to Hill's Lee Atwater tactics -- note the Panhandle counties
she won in TX by huge margins -- thereby enabling her to run
as the "I told you we shouldn't nominate a black person"
candidate in 2012)

[anamandujano]

71. Primary rules say 2025, Jefferson be damned.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. Too bad, because SD's aren't going to overturn the will of the people

and Hill won't win a brokered convention without blood in the streets a la 68
(which might be needed to exorcise the Clintons frankly).

[anamandujano]

79. There is no "will of the people" if he doesn't get the 2025, no matter

how furiously you try to spin it.

[joshcryer]

83. Exactly, neither of them have a *mandate*. Thus the convention is brokered. Guaranteed.

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. You wish. After all, we can't have an "unelectable" candidate as the nominee

To quote the barely-veiled talking points issued by Clinton supporters in racially divided states.

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. What to look for is the elected (apportioned) delegates. The few remaining SDs will not overturn

the results of their state nor vote to overturn the overall total at the convention,
regardless of who previous SD's came out for.

[joshcryer]

82. Elected delegates will *not* be the "only" thing that counts.

At the DNC they will table many different opinions as to why each candidate should win. If Hillary has the majority of votes, she will use that in her defense, if Obama has the majority of delegates, he will use that.

Whether or not you will be satisified with the outcome is anyones guess, but it's not as clear cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of how many delegates in each camp.

With MI and FL out, and likely to remain out (unless Howard Dean accedes to Chuck Todd's command that he schedule new MI and FL primaries "in order
to leave a legacy as DNC chairman" implying that he would be fired in the
first act of President Hillary) the total needed for nomination may not
be reduced but the incentive will be for SD's to break majorly one way or
another. They will not all of a sudden break for the candidate who is
losing the popular vote and the delegates elected by the popular vote.
And this "small states with caucuses don't count in popular vote terms"
is nowhere to be found in the rules either. The purpose of the SD is to
ratify the candidate who is the clear front runner to PREVENT a brokered
convention like you had in 1972.

I like the fact that Hillary supporters want another Chicago 68. I do too.
I especially relish the prospect of seeing Clinton in the role of Humphrey
and Mondale. Did I mention that Clinton as the Nominee should unleash a
floodgate of anti-war fury on the Republicans in Minneapolis to rival
Seattle, since they will have no reason to hold back waiting around for
pink tutu Dems to embrace the antiwar movement?

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. Tweety: "Jefferson said Democracy is winning by a single vote" (in this case pledged plurality)

Hora O'Donnell: "Well, Jefferson isn't alive today."

Implying, "the superdelegates can and should overturn the
pledged delegate totals like the SCOTUS did in 2000 because
Hillary won the important states... Deal."

Basically the argument is that nominating a black man would
be suicide for the party, like nominating an antiwar candidate
or a populist candidate, so the SD's are in place to prevent
all THOSE sort of people from reaching the nomination.

[anamandujano]

74. Doesn't it worry you how badly Tweety wants Obama as the nominee?

It should.

[Leopolds Ghost]

106. I appreciate his lone defense of both Obama and Kerry from swiftboat attacks echoed by Clinton

anti-Muslim; claiming Kerry is anti-troop for opposing the Iraq war;
saying the same things about Kerry's war record that she said about
Obama's Christianity; etc.

[MADem]

72. They just can't handle the "Nearsies don't count" aspect of the contest.

It infuriates them.

The uncertainty doesn't make them happy either. For all of the talk about the "Clinton anointment" it seems to me that the anger is really directed at those who stand in the way of the "Obama ordination."

Bottom line--without 2025, no one can claim and wear the crown.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. Nearsies DO count when the total is cumulative--and Obama is blowing Clinton out in cumulative total

Statistically impossible for Hillary to catch up, so her supporters
elect to destroy the Democrats at the convention instead as she attempted
to destroy Kerry's career, to pave the way for the next election.

Fine by me, I want to see an unencumbered anti-war movement in this
country. which is only possible if there's either a "movement" candidate
on the Dem ticket (like RFK) or a really detestable, free-trade,
deregulatory hawk (Hillary).

Both have their pluses and minuses for Dems (a movement candidate
tends to lose in the GE, but so does a detestable weak-soup Dem
like Humphrey) But a Humphrey convention would definitely motivate
anti-war folks in time for the Republican disaster at Minneapolis.

[MADem]

116. No. Nearsies do NOT count. Your argument is spurious.

The only "catching up" to do is to "catch up" to the number 2025 (or 2024 if you want to be technically precise).

If you don't hit THAT number--not NEAR to it--if you don't hit THAT VERY NUMBER--then you're no better off than anyone else who didn't hit that number.

If you DO hit that number, you WIN. Game over. The nomination is YOURS. Telling one candidate to step aside so the other candidate can grab enough to get to that number is bullshit, though. Either EARN it, the hard way, or let "something else" happen at the convention. Those are our party's convention rules. They're fine with me. And it doesn't "destroy" Democracy--otherwise, the rule would have been "The candidate with the number CLOSEST to 2025 wins." But that isn't how they wrote it.

We used to do it this way ALL the time, and the nation and the party survived. So get over that tired-ass old talking point the sore Obama crew is shopping about. If I've read it once here in the past few hours, I've read it a dozen or more times. And always with the same hyperbolic "destroy" word.

This isn't hand grenades or horseshoes. Nearsies don't count. And that's in the rules.

It's really too bad that you don't like what Democracy looks like. This IS what it looks like. Just because you happen to think one candidate is "detestable" doesn't mean that another candiate should be permitted to push her off the stage and swipe all of her votes. Too bad. Let both of them make their case, and we'll see what happens.

I can live with whatever decision the convention makes, if that's how it shakes out.

[Gore1FL]

96. If she doesn't get 2025, he does.

Math is funny like that.

[GreenTea]

53. PA will tell ALL! We'll see...

[Gore1FL]

99. She needs about 100% of PA

[mattclearing]

70. She shouldn't quit.

She proved that she still belongs in the race. I'm disappointed because I wanted it to be over, but what can you do?

Don't know if she can win, but it's not for me to decide.

[ellisonz]

81. FL and MI don't count.

Also, he got more delegates than her in NV.

[joshcryer]

85. The system is flawed, read my sig line. Hillary would have to get 1.2 million *more* votes to *tie*.

That's pretty goddamn fucked up and you can bet at the DNC this will be pointed out!

[ellisonz]

101. And?

[Leopolds Ghost]

113. And Obama will win TX

in delegates which is the relevant math here, as Chuck Todd
(who is constantly puffing up Clinton tonight) emphasized.

[Usrename]

126. I think it's pointless.

Hillary says she won them and her cult followers just believe.

[robbedvoter]

124. yeah...like we need any of those in GE.....

:eyes:

[gravity]

127. This isn't winner take all

Obama won more contests by landslides

[catgirl]

132. Funny how you include Michigan and Florida. N/T

[Apollo11]

135. Hillary inspired me to do it! "Yes She Did!"

"We've won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee." B-)

www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04text-clinton.html

[Hepburn]

138. Yes....

...I don't know about you, but I really don't want a Goldwater Girl and the head of the College Pubbies as the head of the Dem ticket.

[meow mix]

139. its not winner take all, she performed badly. thats why obama is ahead

sorry to say, you lose

[rodeodance]

147. Onward to the convention~~~

[rodeodance]

143. time for BO to drop out with honor

[rodeodance]

146. REC

[awaysidetraveler]

148. Obama's won 25 states to Clinton's 16, so yes she should bow out.

Hillary gained 1 delegate over Obama in Texas.

Texas Primary: Clinton 64/ Obama 60
Texas Caucus: Obama 35/ Clinton 32

Hillary gained 15 delegates over Obama in Ohio

Ohio Primary Clinton 77/ Obama 62/ Edwards 2

The Vermont and RI Primaries canceled one another out.

Vermont Primary: Obama 9/ Clinton 6

Rhode Island Primary: Clinton 12/Obama 9

Of course, the real problem is the reporting, which is rallying HRC's base for no purpose.

Let's say that she does go on to win in all the states you just mentioned: an assertion with no basis that I can see.

The net gain she would need per race is 10 delegates each, and those states simply don't have that many delegates to yeild
in this closely fought election.

Clinton won, but it's a Pyrric victory. Now it's time for peace talks so that both sides of this debate don't get slaughtered
in the general election.

[Apollo11]

152. So in your world, California is worth the same as Idaho?

I mean, if it's all about who won the most States, then that's the implication.

The list of 16 states in the OP are all States that already voted - including Florida and Michigan.

Of course I can see the case for doing over the primaries in Florida and Michigan.

But I would not agree with excluding the delegates from Florida and Michigan.

Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. As a Democrat, I think that counts for something.

I hope the superdelegates will pay close attention to the popular vote in battleground states.

I hope they will also pay attention to national polls and who can beat John McCain.

Hillary's numbers have been improving steadily over the past few days.

[awaysidetraveler]

168. Hillary's also lost the popular vote.

Hillary can't win, she can only destroy the democratic party at this point.

[redqueen]

158. I was hoping someone would list out all the abbreviations, like in the OP...

and set them next to each other, the lists, for contrast.

Just for fun. :D

[awaysidetraveler]

169. Why don't you count them for yourself?

[redqueen]

170. I said "list", not "count". I already know how many there are.

:wtf:

[awaysidetraveler]

172. Then why not list them?

Just for fun.

[redqueen]

173. Don't want to.

:P

[LostinVA]

163. Yes -- because all the high population states aren't needed to the GE win

[awaysidetraveler]

171. Many of Obama's victories are in high-population states. You wouldn't vote for Obama in the GE?

Louisiana, D.C., and Chicago stand out among his many victories.

Why wouldn't you vote for him in the GE?

[LostinVA]

174. CA, NY, NJ, MA etc are needed for the GE win

Obama is not doing so well against McCain in CA and NJ and they should be EASY wins for him. Not to mention Obama hasn't won any closed primaries, which doesn't bode well.

You need to think about the electoral college and what states have more electoral votes.

FYI, Chicago and DC are cities.

[JackORoses]

164. You can't fit all of the states Obama has won into an OP Title

There are just too many.

[LulaMay]

167. Yes! CRUCIAL GE states...and she has been the DEM choice in our closed primaries.

[Apollo11]

175. Kick

:kick:

[anonymous171]

176. She wins in a lot of border states.

[PresidentObama]

177. And next month, you can add the big state of PA to that list.

Yes, She Will!!

[galadrium]

178. you can subtract TX from that list, since Obama got more TX delegates than Hillary

[Apollo11]

191. More Texans voted for Hillary than for Obama

That's what I mean when I say that Hillary won Texas.

It's unfortunate if the delegate numbers don't reflect that.

I can only conclude that the process is unfair.

:kick:

[amborin]

182. Hilllary is also ahead in the popular vote

[ExFreeper4Obama]

185. Eh?

:silly:

[avrdream]

188. I saw that on the news today.

Total voted so far, the difference was less than 4000 votes. That's how tight this is. I hope everyone remembers how close it can get when it comes to the GE and supporting our candidate.

[SoCalDem]

186. 7 of those states would vote for "any" dem in a general

and the others will probably be Mccain states unless they all hate Grandpa so much they stay home...but if HRC is on the ballot they will drag their weary bones out of bed and brave any weather...so they can vote for Gramps...and AGAINST her ..

[Apollo11]

192. Latest poll shows Hillary would be our strongest candidate against McCain

This thread is for you:
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4923299

:kick:

[SoCalDem]

193. Thanks..but the "polls" are like underwear..changed daily

:hi:

[Apollo11]

195. Kicked

For all those who didn't get the message! B-)

:kick: