Here Are The Numbers! Here is the Math! Obama Holds Every Card!

[David Zephyr]

Raw Popular Vote Totals:

Senator B. Obama ....12,989,852
Senator H. Clinton ....12,403,174

Projected Delegates:

Senator B. Obama ....1,573 (Pledged)+ 207(Super) = 1,780
Senator H. Clinton ....1,464 (Pledged)+ 242(Super) = 1,706

Only 611 Pledged Delegates can be won from this point on. That's all that is left.

Seven days from today, the next two contests of Wyoming and Mississippi will have taken place and, in both cases, Obama is heavily favored -- so much so that Hillary is not even making an effort there. And after those two contests, another 45 delegates will be taken from out of the existing pool. A reasonable estimate is that Obama should gather at least another 30 from those 45.

Tom Brokaw has reported that Obama is shortly to begin releasing the names of still 50 more Super Delegates who are already on board for his candidacy.

The math is clear.

Barack Obama has won the greater number of popular votes. Nothing can change this at this late point.

Barack Obama has won the greater number of individual state contests. Nothing will change this from this point on.

Barack Obama has won the greater number of delegates. Nothing can change this at this late point.

There is simply no way that Hillary Clinton can achieve the nomination of the Democratic Party at this point without gaming the system. The math is clear.

If Hillary Clinton is angling to be Vice President and to use her continued, quixotic struggle as a bargaining tool for that position, wouldn't it be better for the party if she would just ask Obama for the position now.

She can not win. The math is not there. She needs to cut a deal before she destroys our chances in November.

The only ethical outcome is for Barack Obama to be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

[blm]

1. You are presuming Clinton camp doesn't know this and would drop out if they did so as not to

further damage the KNOWN Dem nominee.

But some of us are aware that they undermined Gore in 2000 - that they undermined Kerry and sabotaged Ohio Dem voters in 2004. They would rather have a President McCain to run against in 2012 than a President Obama being sworn in Jan 2009.

[Cha]

26. Yeah, it's not as if we're dealing with

reality here. Also, it's not as if we're not use to dealing in non-reality after 8 years of boooosh.

This is like bush-gore 2000..Gore won but the m$$$m and extreme 5 got bu$h in. Doesn't mean they're gonna win this time, though.

[David Zephyr]

63. Hey, zidzi!

:hi:

[grantcart]

2. Obama also has the most endorsements of dem sen/govenors

[napi21]

3. The ral dilema is that NEITHER candidate can reach 2,024!

It's quite interesting that BOTH candidates have their following, and both are for the most part liked by both groups. For a while I really believed one was going to eek out a win, but it is now mathmatically impossible!

I wonder who is going to come up with a solution?

[creeksneakers2]

24. Its only unlikely that one could get a majority from just pledged

delegates. They both need at least some super delegates to put them over the top. They both already have some super delegates. With 611 pledged up for grabs, and the candidates only about 300 away from the majic number, one of them will go over the top.

[rinsd]

4. The Hillary campaign is not quitting.

You guys can keep posting your bullshit.

But there are elections left to vote in and we do not have a presumptive nominee yet.

[Joe the Revelator]

6. I think the math suggests that we do have a persumptive nominee...

I think thats the point, the math shows us that Hillary can not catch up to Obama, making him the presumptive nominee.

[greyghost]

7. This is the deal Clinton/Obama 2008...

TPTB have already decided it.

Feel free to dream on.

[WHAT]

60. does not work well with others/...Clinton

could be the gruffhuffinster or blowembacktothestoneage matadors...

OLE

(personally) they should all migrate to where they set-up the goal post be it China or Mars (and when espousing mobility, be frozen, stagnant in that designated destination...free to pursue the exceptionalism (w/blinders) of their breed...round 'n round

while worlds explodes and time devolves and imagination might stretch its muscles in hindsight and the ivy on the towers dries-up from too much sunlight ...not enough nurturance no matter the metals or the cheap accolades couched in career rewards playing loud to tin ears ...those tender shoots striving to succeed

curling and thirsting and shouting

[CitizenLeft]

75. what WHAT?

I don't know what you said, but it was damn funny and sounded good! :rofl:

[rinsd]

17. Last I checked Supers still have to vote as the nomination cannot be clinched with pledged delegates

And the "rule" that super delegates should follow their constituents votes is a made up rule that the Obama campaign does not even follow (See Sen Kennedy & Kerry).

[David Zephyr]

38. I'm truly sorry, rinsd, but the Super Delegates won't overturn the popular vote & pledged delegates

It's over for Hillary. She had to win Texas by a very, very big margin and needed to win Ohio by even a bigger margin than she did. It didn't happen.

All you can count on is for the Super Delegates to overturn the popular vote where Obama already has 600,000 more votes, to overturn the greater number of state victories by Obama, and to overturn the greater number of won (pledged) delegates.

Even a revote in Michigan and Florida (where Obama's name would be on the ballots and where he would campaign) where Hillary won by big margins is no longer enough. It's simply over.

You know better. It won't happen.

[greyghost]

8. They're a pretty naive bunch.

[tabasco]

11. Please submit your calculations how Hillary wins

or STFU with your juvenile insults.

[rinsd]

18. Simple.

Win enough delegates to overtake or even come close to Obama.

Make your case to the Superdelegates who will be deciding this.

[laugle]

46. And don't forget we need a re-vote

in Florida and Michigan, so that all votes can be counted!

I don't want to lose Florida in the GE!

[wileedog]

57. They will not go against the PDs

Bank on it.

The media firestorm would be enormous. The Republicans would point out the party overturning the will of the people for decades. It would probably even be a major factor in the GE that she twisted arms in back rooms to get the nomination.

It will not happen, no matter how many times you say it will or try to rationalize it.

[greyghost]

20. No calculations necessary, only the knowledge of how the game

is played. BTW, that was no insult, I was simply staing a fact. Feel free to follow your own advice.

[David Zephyr]

62. OK. We'll use math and you can use your prayer rug.

Sorry. Math trumps your faith.

[greyghost]

79. It's called pragmatism, not faith.

[UALRBSofL]

16. I'm gonna have to check but CNN reported earlier

Hillary had the popularity vote. Also, when you count the 210 delegates from florida Hillary should get, it puts her above Obama.

[greyghost]

23. Some people are naive enough to think that two states...

are going to be left unseated at the democratic convention.

Boy are they in for a crude awakening.

[Laelth]

45. Some of us are naive enough to believe that ...

... there are consequences for not following the rules. Bush, obviously, has proven that we are wrong. I hope that Hillary doesn't prove it to us again.

:(

-Laelth

[greyghost]

78. Don't be surprised, and it has nothing to do with Hillary. The DNC

is not going to disenfranchise two states in the GE.

[Laelth]

91. If they re-vote, then I don't object.

But seating the Florida and Michigan delegates as they currently stand would be terribly unfair.

Don't you agree?

-Laelth

[laugle]

47. You are correct, but in fairness to both sides there should

be a re-vote in Michigan and Florida and let the chips/votes fall where they may!

[UALRBSofL]

19. Here is the popularity vote as reported by CNN

Obama: 13,566,066 Clinton:13,602,469

So she holds a slight edge here.

[David Zephyr]

27. Leave it to a Clinton supporter to add in Florida and Michigan. Get a clue: They don't count.

Spit in one hand and make a wish in the other and then tell me which gets filled first.

[spooky3]

52. I would not be so certain about this.

It looks to me as if the national DNC is trying to work out a compromise, possibly a do-over that would not penalize the voters of FL and MI for the misbehavior of the state leadership.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

I would think that if you are confident about your candidate, you would prefer that there be a primary now, in FL and in MI. The voters there did not make the decision that led to their being disenfranchised, and this is NOT the same as seating the delegates based on the prior primaries. If the voters like your candidate, they will give him more votes than Clinton now.

[PurityOfEssence]

66. Regardless of whether they count, they were cast by real people

Let's get serious here: when you publish the tallies of the popular vote, you're using this as a point to "prove" that Obama has more "legitimate" support among the electorate than Clinton. This is an entirely separate argument from countable votes.

Florida and Michigan politicians were selfish, greedy, reckless assholes who violated the rules in an effort to feather their own nests and have more efficacy than the party rules had deigned. Dean did the absolute right thing by threatening not to seat them at the convention, just as Thatcher did the right thing in taking the Falklands back. Morally, I'm completely with him on this and see an ethical lapse in anyone who disagrees. Sadly, many innocent voters in these important states are disenfranchised by this idiocy, and sadly for us all, we're not getting as accurate a read on who the members of the party (and others allowed to vote) want. It's a mess, yet Dean still did the right thing.

Fine. As a result, this hurts Clinton in Florida, probably Obama in Michigan and Edwards in both. (Everything hurt Edwards, but that's another gripe.)

Yes, you are correct: Obama has won more pledged delegates. Here's where you're deliberately misleading, though: you're tugging on heartstrings to claim that he also is winning the popular vote, and thus DESERVES to have such a lead rather than happening to have it by the intricacies and peculiarities of the patchwork quilt of the various primaries. That's not right. Whether we feel they should have a say or not in the nomination (and I say they shouldn't) the voters in these two states cast ballots clearly preferring Senator Clinton, and to not include them in the "popular vote" is either deliberate deception or convenient mischaracterization. If you want to talk about the "popular vote in the allowed states", that's another matter, but that wouldn't support your contention of "right".

It's a nasty little episode, and Senator Clinton was hardly clean when it's analyzed: she, typically for her, played both sides of the street by keeping her name on the ballot in Michigan, and it renders the whole thing an irritating muddle.

Still, these votes happened, and these voters will be voting (or allowed to) in the general election.

Your case would have been far better made by admitting this rather than allowing only the convenient facts to be cited, and like virtually every aspect of this boneheaded episode, things are not so simple. The system was broken, and the whole dynamic of a complex continuum was disrupted in ways that hurt many campaigns and may very well give us a nominee that the country never intended us to have. Then again, maybe MI would have cancelled FL out; it's open to conjecture. Edwards could have possibly pulled unexpected numbers in MI and been kept afloat, too; that's hardly farfetched.

That's the big point: it's open to conjecture.

Still, of the people who cast ballots in Democratic Primaries and Caucuses, SHE HAS A MAJORITY AT THE MOMENT, REGARDLESS OF PARTY RULES OR ANYTHING ELSE.

As for "Obama holding all the cards", that's just silly. If he doesn't have the votes for a first-round nomination, then it all goes out the window. He and his supporters can bellyache 'til the cows come home about smokey back rooms and the like, but if he doesn't have the numbers to clinch it, then it's an open contest. That's fairness as dictated by the agreed-upon rules, and its to be enjoyed and cursed by all sides alike.

Regardless of what anyone thinks or likes, the rules are clear: if the delegates aren't committed and voted on the first round, we don't "owe" him anything. In fact, one of the most irritating feelings emanating from the Obama campaign is that we "owe" him EVERYTHING, but that is yet another gripe.

The ONLY way he "holds all the cards" and math works for him is if he has it cold on the first ballot. We're supposed to be civilized pluralists, not anarchic opportunists, so the rules that smack Floridians and Michiganders upside their addled heads are the same rules that could very well have Obama come in with more delegates and walk away like Gary Hart in 1984.

The previous rebuttal called you out correctly on this, and you'd have been better served by modifying your statement with a qualifier rather than dismissing the individual as a partisan and quibbling over a technicality that proves your contention incorrect by definition. You're trying to mischaracterize Obama as somehow "deserving" it because more people have voted for him when, in fact, LESS have; more people have voted for Clinton at this point, so if there's any cosmic "right", it marginally belongs to her.

Bummer, huh?

[David Zephyr]

72. You simply can not add. Again, Hillary can not win without gaming the system.

And again, one of your blowhard speeches in your perpetual, personal grudges because your candidate John Edwards went nowhere. Can't you get over that already?

I understand that it was hard on you that Edwards wound up with only a paltry 26 delegates and only got 5% of the vote in Nevada.

Anyway, here it is, sweet and simple:

Hillary's only argument can only now be:

"In spite of the fact that I lost the great majority of state contests...

In spite of the fact that I'm behind by over 600,000 in the popular votes by Democrats...

In spite of the fact that I can not possibly now overtake Obama in pledged delegates...

I think that the Party should still make me the nominee."

That's all she has left. Sorry you are taking it so hard.

[PurityOfEssence]

76. She currently leads by 37,300 in the popular vote, quoth RealClearPolitics

Don't believe me; read the link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

More importantly, if someone can't win on the first ballot, all bets are off. It's like a run-off election. Those are the rules. If the sale has not been made, there's another round of negotiations.

Sorry for my stodginess, but as a member of civilization, I believe in following the agreed-upon rules. It's hardly like some of the skewed rules aren't benefiting Obama; he may garner more delegates by losing Texas, but I'm not sniveling about that. She stands to lose more by us standing by Dean's honorable decision on Florida, and I think it should stand.

You're being very selective on the subject of "fairness" here, and it's pretty clear.

The corollary to your rhetorical possible justification from the extremists in the Obama Camp could be characterized as this, if he can't clinch it before the convention:

"In spite of the fact that I've failed to get enough votes to end this, I think that any other decision would be unfair."

It's very simple. Those are the rules. If one can breach the threshold and seal it on the first ballot, then that's how it goes, but if not, it effectively goes back to committee.

She and her supporters have not only the procedural rules on their side but a very strong emotional appeal: if that's the situation come the convention, he hasn't made his case adequately and it goes to the convention to sort things out. Use whatever metaphor you like, but it's like an overtime or extra innings in sports. Those are the rules. It'll also be close, so outrage seems quite unseemly.

It's hardly chickenshit or obstructionist to look the deciders in the face and remind them that, by the agreed-upon rules, he hasn't cut the proverbial mustard yet.

As for the underpinning of a "right" because of more people attempting to vote for him, the statistics disagree. Look at the line that includes MI and FL: she leads by 37,300, or a little more than the population of Monrovia.

Sorry if this got too hot, but you were quite derisive in dismissing someone who was pointing out that your pronouncement of his popular vote lead wasn't true. It isn't.

There is a disturbing orthodoxy among many of the more strident Obama supporters that he so obviously "deserves" this nomination that any resistance to that claim is an abusive affront; I'm probably shadow-boxing with others' strident bickerings on this tack when addressing you here, but the tenor is more than just a little reminiscent.

He's done well. He's shown great support. Math of the delegates and rules is considerably on his side, but he hasn't clinched it, and if he doesn't, the slate is completely wiped clean. His supporters can shriek at the unjustness of all that, but a little bit of perspective shows that it's not just the "unfair" inequities of a stupid and inconsistent system, it shows that she, too, has done remarkably well, coming back from two pronounced obituaries and doing well with some vital constituencies.

Should it play out as you presume, with him having more pledged delegates by the time of the convention, she'll still be rather close, so the outrage at her having any claim to the mantle is really quite out of line; she would have proven herself to be neck-and-neck at the time and worthy of it being decided en masse by the apparatchiks, fixers, hacks, luminaries and foot soldiers of the party. If he can't clinch it, it's hardly an outrage, and it WOULD be an outrage if he and his people demand to rewrite the rules and claim that a plurality is suddenly fine. It would REALLY be an outrage if this claim isn't just expected but demanded.

We do not "owe" him this nomination. This needs to be earned, and the rules are clear.

[David Zephyr]

77. You deceitfully include Florida and Michigan in your false tally. You have no shame.

How pathetic is that.

You pad the real numbers with ones that do not count because they were illegal.

Take your argument to the Chairman of the Democratic Party who just issued this statement:

"The rules were set a year and a half ago," Dean said. "Florida and Michigan voted for them, then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. Well, when you are in a contest you do need to abide by the rules. Everybody has to play by the rules out of respect for both campaigns and the other 48 states."

Juxtapose that statement with your delusionary statement "Sorry for my stodginess, but as a member of civilization, I believe in following the agreed-upon rules."

Your support for Hillary (and John) is related to the fact that you agreed with their early positions on invading Iraq. That's what this is really about.

In any event, go fight with Howard Dean. Remember him? He's the other anti-war, former presidential candidate that you opposed, too. That's the common thread here: your support for the invasion of Iraq that you want everyone to forget. I haven't.

[rinsd]

80. Yeah Obama followed the rules...he had surrogates campaign for him in MI & ran TV ads in FL.

:eyes:

[onenote]

81. Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan

Who, on the ballot was his surrogate? Uncommitted? If so, then you should give the 200,000 plus voters who cast "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to Obama, and if you do that, he moves comfortably ahead of HRC in the national popular vote tally, even with Florida thrown in.

But you won't do that because it works out better for you to have it both ways (claim Obama really ran in Michigan but not count a single vote for him there).

Nice.

[rinsd]

84. The point of voting uncomitted was to allow those delegates to be "free range"

Also I would not include popular vote totals from MI because both candidates were not on the ballot.

FL is debateable. Obama likely depressed his own turnout by telling his supporters that the election was meaningless (even though there was a Constitutional amendment on the ballot). I would treat it more like a straw poll.

Of course that was Obama decision as a strategic (iow kiss ass move) in regards to Iowa which had nothing to do with the pledge. To say otherwise ignores that he took a drastic measure of removing his name from the ballot in MI but when FL rolled around he sought permission to have TV ads run there. Notice the contrast. It was a political stunt, thought up by Richardson & Biden & gleefully bandwagoned by Obama & Edwards.

As to the campaigning in MI.

This is the script of the John and Monica Conyers radio ad, which will be broadcast on Detroit-area stations. Monica Conyers is president pro-tem of the Detroit City Council.

MALE: THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS CONFUSING. I WANT TO VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA BUT OBAMA'S NAME IS NOT ON THE BALLOT.

FEMALE: THERE IS NO ONE ON THAT BALLOT I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT.

MALE: WELL, THESE FOLKS CAN HELP US. EXCUSE ME, CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS, WE NEED YOUR HELP.

FEMALE: HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR OBAMA ON TUESDAY?

Rep. Conyers: YOU CAN'T. YOU CANNOT EVEN WRITE IN OBAMA'S NAME. IF YOU DO YOUR VOTE WILL NOT COUNT BECAUSE OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN CHOSE NOT TO PLACE HIS NAME ON THE MICHIGAN BALLOT SO AS NOT TO VIOLATE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES. BUT YOU CAN VOTE UNCOMMITTED

Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED.

Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED. WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE.

MALE: THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN CONYERS AND COUNCILWOMAN CONYERS. I WILL JOIN YOU AND VOTE UNCOMMITTED ON TUESDAY.

FEMALE: ME TOO - AT LEAST MY VOTE WON'T BE WASTED

Councilwoman Conyers: THIS TRUTH IN POLITICS MESSAGE WAS PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MONICA CONYERS

My solution for MI & FL?

Split the pledged delegates 50/50 between Clinton & Obama & seat them while Superdelegates from those states are not allowed to vote. Punish the party members at fault rather than the voters of those states.

[onenote]

85. so are you backing off your previous post

which implicitly defended including Michigan in the popular vote total?

You said a lot, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. But what you didn't say, given the subject matter of this thread/subthread -- the popular vote -- is interesting.

[PurityOfEssence]

87. You hold the bloody shirt of a popular vote advantage, yet ignore popular votes

Once again, the point of claiming that more people who have voted have voted for him is to make an emotional appeal that he's the person that the people want, regardless of the delegate count, in which he leads. The whole purpose of this is to back up his delegate lead by saying "look, HE'S the one most people have been voting for; she has no moral claim to be the nominee."

Well, your point is absolutely incorrect. Now you intimate that I'm somehow hiding MI and FL votes, when I've been absolutely specific about this from the first post on this thread.

Your point is incorrect: he doesn't have some moral claim to the prize because more people have tried to vote for him; they haven't. Yes, he's got the lead, but if he can't cross the finish line, the rules are very clear: the clock gets reset and they both plead their cases.

As for claiming that all this "proves" my love of this war, that's extremely emotional slander of the worst kind. I do not "support" Hillary Clinton for this nomination, never have, have until lately been extremely critical of her and still am at times, have never voted in any poll here or elsewhere in any way that can be construed as "pro-Clinton", don't much like her, don't like her policies, don't like her husband and much of his record and have been VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT.

I've been posting about Obama because I see grave ethical problems, electability problems and other issues that deserve to be addressed.

I was vigorously opposed to the IWR since the idea first surfaced, and was active on the phone and with letters with my three congresspeople, two of whom voted against it. I have been consistently vocal on this board in opposition to the resolution during the lead-up, was consistently dismissive of anyone who questioned whether Junior would launch the attack and have been against the war since it started. If you remember, many didn't think he'd actually do it. I disagreed consistently and repeatedly, and was not surprised by his action. My view of the war has been crystal-clear and unabashed; where you get this idea is beyond me. When we met, much of the substance of our first conversation was how you were so hurt by Kerry's vote.

Yes, I've been a longtime Edwards supporter, posting for him since before he even announced last time, and I have EXTREME problems with his vote. I've said so repeatedly, and have NEVER defended his vote beyond saying that I thought he was sincere in his gravely mistaken belief of the threat. Unlike many when posting about my champion, I admit failings and disagreements.

To tar me as ever having been pro-war or even tolerant of the resolution is abominable. This smacks of a shut-down accusation akin to calling me a racist or a republican, to so disgust others with me that I can be sneered and shouted out of the public forum as morally unworthy. Not only is this a deplorable attack, it's ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.

HOW DARE YOU MAKE THIS CLAIM! Find ANY posts even mildly tolerant of the IWR; I've been posting constantly since July of '01, and there are none. There are so many that are so unequivocally against the resolution, its passage, the attack and the ongoing ugliness that there can be no question. Not only have I been against it, I've been voluably against it. This is despicable. It is unconscionable, unfair and just plain mean.

This is something about which I care deeply and have from the beginning. To grant yourself the right to be as shrill and vicious as you please when defied by resistance to your contentions is not the stuff of neighborliness.

[David Zephyr]

94. Apologies for saying you supported the war in Iraq.

Your opposition against Howard Dean in 2004 who opposed the war, and your support of Edwards who supported the war and only apologized for it late last year on Meet the Press, and your defense of IWR supporter Hillary Clinton, and your aggressive posts against Obama who opposed the war confused me.

I'm glad you correctly believe the war in Iraq was a catastrophic military, diplomatic, economic and social decision. So do I and Barack Obama.

[PurityOfEssence]

96. Thanks for setting the record straight on that particular point

My opposition to Howard Dean had nothing to do with his opposition to the war or his dubious--and contradicted--pronouncement that he'd have voted against the resolution if he had to stand for an accounting. The same goes triple for Wesley Clark, and it's an open question what Obama would have done, especially from his actions at the time and later.

Had he been vehemently against the IWR, one would think he'd have spoken repeatedly instead of just once when in a district that would have electorily punished him for anything else.

The only actions that are clear on this issue are those of the people who had to face the music. Only two Senators who were up for reelection voted correctly: the soon-to-be-dead Paul Wellstone and Carl Levin. Many in Congress got it right. 23 Senators (one of them Republican) got it right.

The evidence is quite contradictory on Dean and Clark, and easily open to question on Obama.

Kucinich is the hero here. Bob Graham gets a point or two, too. Then there's that squirrely bronze-age feudalist Ron Paul, just to round things out.

I'm sorry that I stand to take issue with some of your pronouncements, but the habit of feeling free to go for the carotid when denied blanket acquiescence wears thin. You, as do many other partisans, need to realize that your dreams are not inherently more important than those of others, and that by civilized respect, the same toleration is to be accorded others that one expects for oneself.

Don't like being lectured? Stop lecturing others. Don't like strident approaches? Don't go for the throat.

Having said all that, though, I do sincerely understand the frustration you have of having someone whom you truly admire and trust being so very close to the pot of gold and meeting with what seem like the acts of philistines. All this, heightened by the pissy antics of many Obama-haters is surely enough to send one into a tizzy, but spend that capital, and one loses the moral highground if one ever had it to start with.

Jeez.

Take care.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. So what if Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot - he could have gotten write-in votes ...

I suppose.

[KnaveRupe]

93. Actually, no.

If anyone wrote in Obama, or Edwards, or any other candidate who removed themselves from the ballot, those ballots were invalid.

There was no way for anyone in Michigan to vote for Obama or Edwards or Biden or Richardson, but 238,168 of them DID vote AGAINST Hillary, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel.

[Window]

5. Thank you for this. I was looking for some numbers.

Peace:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

10. You are welcome. I thought it would be helpful for a reality check with numbers.

Peace to you, too.

[Window]

42. K/R.

:kick:

[sniffa]

9. She majored in Miracles not Math

Oh wait...

[ExFreeper4Obama]

12. Hillary is done and she knows it

Thats why she was talking about a dream ticket this morning. She knows she's finished.

[CountAllVotes]

21. good point!

and explains why Obama called McCain last night as well. They both KNEW it at that time.

Welcome to the DU btw!! :hi:

:dem:

[politicks]

33. He'd help her out.

But she'd just hold him back.

[KoKo]

35. Hillary is a FIGHTER....but she also knows how to "compromise."

Isn't this what OBAMA is all about? COMPROMISE...so that we can "ALL GET ALONG?" :shrug:

[David Zephyr]

39. Welcome to the DU!

:hi:

[KaptBunnyPants]

13. You assume the Clinton Party has ethics.

At this point I find that to be a self-refuting assumption.

[greyghost]

25. AMEN LOL

[JuniperLea]

14. Raw Popular Vote Totals:

Nuff said.

[cbayer]

15. Well, I did the math and according to your numbers,

Clinton needs 343 additional delegates to have the majority.

And that's only 56% of the remaining delegates.

That just doesn't seem like a situation where a candidate would choose to drop out. I wouldn't.

[druidity33]

28. i think 56%

of the remaining delegates translates to about 65% of the popular vote for the remainder of the contests... that seems unlikely to me.

:shrug:

[cbayer]

32. I don't know whether it does or not.

But I haven't seen anything to substantiate it.

[politicks]

34. It's actually 62%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4915757">here

[Mike03]

22. I appreciate the technical aspect of your post. Thanks. K and R.

[cynatnite]

29. So what happens if MI and FL redo their primaries? n/t

[David Zephyr]

36. It still wouldn't be enough even if she won big. Obama has 600,000 more popular votes already.

Nothing can reverse the math at this point unless Hillary can win over 65% of all the rest. She can't do it. It's over.

[laugle]

48. Hold on to your hats I think she will win big

in Pennsylvania...................

[mzmolly]

30. Great post DZ!

K and R. :hi:

[David Zephyr]

61. Thanks. Obama's total of popular votes is now 600,000 greater than Hillary's.

It's over.

[KoKo]

31. The PEOPLE WILL SPEAK...on this........

Hell with the crap system by Dem Party "Big Wigs" about Super Delegats/Delegates.

The PEOPLE WILL SPEAK....they WILL be heard.

[loveangelc]

37. Neither will have enough to clinch the nomination. If there's a redo in FL then the pop vote will be

closer. However, Obama will still be ahead in popular vote and pledged delegates probably. I do not see the super delegates overturning the pledged delegates unless it's VERY close, like a difference of 20 close. Hillary will make the case that shes won the big states and Ohio and probably Pennsylvania, but the idea that Obama won't win big blue states is ridiculous and he will be able to make the case that he'll probably get most of Hillary's voters. He can also argue that hes won swing states like Iowa and Wisconsin, and will probably win Virginia, Colorado and Nevada in a general election, possibly Utah since the polls of Obama/Mccain seem to be close. Obama has a better case to the superdelegates imo, and I'm being objective.

[JBoy]

40. Hillary's got some cards.

[ruggerson]

41. Your entire premise is fucked up

No one wins until they get 2025.

They don't have to have a delegate lead or even a popular lead.

That is how the rules read.

They win when they get the MAJORITY of delegates. 2025.

Period.

[PITBOS]

44. why do many posts from the supporters of the unethical one

curse, throw out something general or say Obama supports are all the same; but then doooooon't really say anything.

[David Zephyr]

55. Welcome to the DU, PITBOS. They do so because it hurts to lose.

Hillary's campaign staff already knows that they can not win now without resorting to something that the American people will not accept.

All of their bravura is only the last gasps of pride before their capitualtion to reality.

And here's a big welcome to the DU. :hi:

[David Zephyr]

54. No need to go all potty mouth, ruggerson. I know the numbers upset you, but that's just how it is.

No need for the potty mouth.

It only shows how defeated you really must feel. I know it hurts to lose.

Your candidate is behind by over 600,000 votes at this late point and that must truly be discouraging. It's the reason the super delegates are peeling away now.

Your language reveals your hurt. But you shouldn't shoot the messenger.

I only provided the numbers. And numbers don't lie.

[ruggerson]

70. I realize this is the spin your candidate's campaign is promoting

that gets parrotted here. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rules of the Democratic party. My ire had nothing to do with you, but with the dishonesty of this spin that gets repeated over and over.

And, yes. I feel oh so defeated and discouraged after Hillary just kicked your guy's ass up one side and down the other.

Hopefully, I'll feel even more defeated and hurt after Pennsylvania.

:hi:

[David Zephyr]

74. No spin. Just numbers.

I very carefully sat down today and went through the numbers to break them down and to post them here. The Obama campaign did not provide me any help, ruggerson. I'm quite a capable fellow. The one stat that I left out --- because I didn't want to be merciless -- was the number of actual states that Obama has won as opposed to those won by Hillary. I figured the numbers I provided were crushing enough.

She is prolonging a contest, using her "kitchen sink" strategy and all for what? She can't win. She needs to strike a deal with Obama and push him to let her be his VP. I don't think he wants her because of Bill, but she can bargain now.

In any event, I like you too much to be upset with you...even when you go all potty mouth on me. :hi:

[VotesForWomen]

64. don't you know, the rules only matter when they favor obama. nt

[Generator]

43. Yeah but Hillary has the fear card and the Muslim card

She's learned well from the other side. As a mother when I saw the 3AM ad I almost threw up. She disgusts me. I am tired of fear.

[laugle]

51. IMO, it was designed to

make people think about our national security and maybe that's what it did!!

It certainly is on my mind!

[JPZenger]

49. Limbaugh Helped Hillary in TX - 1400 Fox Viewers Say So

Today on Thom Hartman's Show on Air America, he played a tape of Limbaugh urging his listeners to vote for Hillary. He wants her to stay in the race so she bashes Obama.

Thom Hartman was appearing on Fox News this morning. He said that he didn't think much of it - until Fox News asked people to contact them to let them know if they followed Limbaugh's suggestion.

Hartman said in the 5 minutes he was waiting to go on, Fox News received 1,400 emails from people who said they voted for Hillary in Texas at Limbaugh's request.

Hartman also said some Repubs in Texas got mad after they found out that they gave up their right to vote for other repubs in the primary because they requested a Dem ballot.

[Scurrilous]

50. K & R

:thumbsup:

[joeprogressive]

53. Wait that can't be right. Those look like the identical margins

that existed before Tuesday's primaries. I don't understand, HRC was doing a touchdown dance and her supporters were gloating here on DU. Are you trying to tell me that she really didn't gain much ground. I'm perplexed.



Oh, BTW, that was sarcasm in case you missed it.

[cooolandrew]

56. It's ok they hate the sums, just keep it our secret. =)

Encourage their front runner belief it's easier for us then.

[AtomicKitten]

58. Great post. K&R

[cooolandrew]

59. Yes, because without ethics the party then becomes something else...

John Edwards " I am a Democrat I know why I am a Democrat and I will be a Democrat till the day I pass away"

[DearAbby]

67. I miss John Edwards n/t

[Lord Helmet]

65. somebody give her a cookie for coming in 2nd

[Dogmudgeon]

68. You're right. Hillary can't win. We might as well eat that plate of crow now.

We'll never make up that 74-delegate deficit or that 4% popular vote deficit. We're sunk.

Yep. No hope left. That's it. Finito. Kaput. DOA.

--p!

[boppers]

69. Under what scenario can it be made up?

You figuring she can pull 65% in all of the remaining contests, or 90% in some of them and only 55% in others?

[LadyVT]

71. This is not how the nomination is decided (link)

Read this and get educated:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obama...

[CitizenLeft]

73. 25 MILLION people have voted in this primary... so far

...and we're not done yet. Considering that 60 million people voted for Kerry in 2004 in the GE, and I find that number ASTOUNDING.

I pray this enthusiasm holds up - just imagine the turnout in November!

[hogwyld]

82. Or we can kiss all of the young and new voters away

With this drawn out, pointless, bloody last stand for a pyrric victory. Do you really think all of these new voters are interested in the destructive politics of the past? IF, by some miracle, she pulls this out via backroom deals or something similar, we can kiss our collective democratic asses away for a generation.

[MyNameGoesHere]

83. Why do Obama supportes keep forgetting 2025 things? Math my ass. n/t

[Mass]

88. Your delegate numbers are too high. I think you counted the super delegates twice

According to CNN, Obama has 1321 pledged delegates and 199 superdelegates: total 1520
Clinton has 1186 pledged delegates and 238 superdelegates. total 1424

(this does not include the TX caucus and 11 OH delegates).
Everybody else has comparable numbers.

This does not change anything to your analysis, though.

[kentuck]

89. DZ, I think this may change?

"Barack Obama has won the greater number of popular votes. Nothing can change this at this late point."

I think Hillary may end up with the popular vote and Obama will have the lead in delegates. But neither will have the 2025 necessary to lock up the nomination. It is going to the Convention. The Party needs a plan if the above happens. Do they have a secret ballot of the all the delegates, including the members of the House and Senate, to determine the nominee? Or would they simply rely on the remaining Super delegates to provide the majority? I doubt that either will get a majority in that manner? I think the secret ballot, with the winner - even if by one vote - should be the nominee.

[David Zephyr]

90. She can't overcome a 600,000 gulf of votes with the remaining contests.

It's a staggering number. 600,000 votes between them now.

[mculator]

92. So Hillary for VP...

That's a win.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4927930

[jgraz]

95. Hillary still holds one card