There Are Only 8 States Left, Only Eight

[sandnsea]

Of those, Hillary has the opportunity to win four. She will not win MT, SD, NC, or OR. She is not predicted to win IN, although I can't figure out why not.

So, Hillary people, please explain why these 4 states should change the outcome of the election.

:shrug:


April 22 Pennsylvania<123> primary 103 35 20 158 29 187
May 3 Guam caucus 4 4 5 9
May 6 Indiana primary 47 16 9 72 13 85
North Carolina<124> primary 77 26 12 115 19 134
May 13 West Virginia primary 18 7 3 28 11 39
May 20 Kentucky primary 34 11 6 51 9 60
Oregon primary 34 12 6 52 13 65
June 1<125> Puerto Rico<126> primary 36 12 7 55 8 63
June 3 Montana primary 10 4 2 16 9 25
South Dakota

[lapfog_1]

1. I thought IN would be like Ohio...

and, therefore, possible for Hillary to win... but I was told by others here that IN is much more like IL, and that's Obama country.

Still, I think it will be very close.

But then I think PA will be closer that Hillary wants as well. So, of the states she needs HUGE blowouts to get it close... she probably only wins KY and WV by large margins, maybe as much as 58 to 42. And that won't be nearly enough.

At the end of the next 10 contests, I expect Obama to hold his lead in pledged delegates.

PR is kinda funny... they changed from caucus to primary just recently... and the governor is a big Hillary supporter... but he and his associates were indicted today in a corruption scandal... so maybe PR is going to be Obama as well... I could see it happening.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/27/puerto.rico.governor/index.html

I haven't seen many threads on the scandal in PR here at DU... have there been a few and I just haven't found them yet?

[msallied]

2. I read awhile back that one of the heaviest precincts in Indiana

borders Illinois, and that will likely swing the state in his favor.

[sandnsea]

3. So he is going to win the next 5 out of 8

But we're still pretending Hillary has a chance.

:shrug:

I do not get it.

Puerto Rico and Guam don't have electoral votes, so even by Hillarylogic, they don't count.

[nxylas]

21. Hillarylogic is that states she wins count

Presumably that includes "states" that aren't really states, like Puerto Rico and Guam.

[Zynx]

15. Indiana is like rural Ohio.

Indiana is not a whole lot like Illinois. Maybe a small portion of Indiana, but not much of it.

[eilen]

24. I'm told it is more like the Southern states

My husband travels for his job and has worked Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio and Illinois and that is what he thinks based on the people he has met in those states. He particularly likes the people in Indiana, says they are polite, have courtesy (unlike his current coworkers here in upstate NY where the foreman won't even shake his hand and acknowledge he breathes the same air). My dh is IBEW.

[Zynx]

27. I always make the joke that Indiana is the metastasized cancer of Mississippi that floated

north along the Mississippi River and east along the Ohio River(I know this is against current in both cases) before settling between Ohio and Illinois. I mean this in terms of its political culture only. I love both states in terms of a lot of the people and the terraom.

[sandnsea]

32. That's what I thought

That's why I don't understand why people think Obama is going to win there.

[Tatiana]

43. I think Missouri is a better comparison.

If he wins it, he will win it like he did MO; Indianapolis will be St. Louis.

[rock]

4. OK, try this

Usually ONE state is pivotal. For example, in the 2000 general election, it was Florida. How about we count all the votes and see how that turns out? Hmmm okay?

[sandnsea]

5. Do you play cribbage?

Not only can she not win, she's dang near at the point of being skunked.

[texshelters]

20. He's on the last road

and she's in the middle of third.

No such thing as a 50 point hand.

Tex Shelters

[sandnsea]

6. kick because it's OVER n/t

[madfloridian]

7. And another.

Because it is over.

[dsc]

8. I am one of the people who have yet to vote

It is bad enough that one Montanian had about as much say about who are nominee is as about 50 New Yorkers, but should they really get infinitely more say than North Carolina as a whole?

[sandnsea]

9. I haven't voted either, it's OVER

Three states will not offset the rest of the country. That's all she's likely to win in the next two months. Three friggin' states, big whoop. It's OVER.

[woolldog]

11. which 3 states do you think she'll win?

[sandnsea]

12. She's supposed to win PA, WV, and KY

That's it. So I don't know why we're pretending there is any chance to change the outcome. There just isn't.

[H2O Man]

10. Good OP

On target.

nominated.

[depakid]

13. Nice that Oregon gets a say- and a little attention, for a change

[hogwyld]

16. As an Oregonian

I would much prefer that my vote was symbolic with Hillary dropping out way before May.

[depakid]

17. I'm sure you would -as supporters of any candidate would

No fault in that... though it's not a realistic -or even the best prospect.

[sandnsea]

30. If Hillary were leading

I would say the same thing. It is time for this thing to be over. This is ridiculous. She cannot win.

[Flabbergasted]

22. I'll be surprised if the race is not more or less decided by then.

I think by the time we vote, there will be an overwhelming consensus that Obama is the nominee. It grows by the day.

[depakid]

25. I see no signs of a consensus

Obama has the lead, but cannot win without superdelegates. Now, if Hillary were to lose Pennsylvania, that might change.

[sandnsea]

31. Why? Hillary lost Texas, remember?

She really didn't win Texas like the media says she did. She didn't really win the delegates in NV either. And she really tied delegates in NH. If we were dealing with reality, she'd have been out a very long time ago. Pennsylvania doesn't make a difference either way. If you are willing to concede if she loses PA, then why aren't you willing to concede now that you know PA doesn't really matter.

[depakid]

34. I just said things may change is she lost Pennsylvania

not that they would- but I'd expect to see more pressure. As it stands, Obama is far from a consensus. He won't have the straight up delegates in most any scenario

As to Texas, I prefer to see primary voting results rather than caucuses- for reasons that have nothing at all to do with either candidate. A few of my friends in Washington were pretty roundly pissed about the caucus deal. Thankfully, Oregon will never have those (though it might be fun for political junkies like you and I).

[sandnsea]

35. Pennsylvania doesn't matter

It isn't going to change anything. Your preference between primaries and caucuses doesn't matter - delegates matter. If she respects the delegates the people have voted for, it's OVER.

[depakid]

36. Of course it matters!

It's big state full of electoral votes that ANY Democratic candidate needs to win in November.

[sandnsea]

38. So you support letting party leaders choose

So why not just have them choose now and be done with it. Why have an election at all. Why not just let the electoral college meet and select the new President.

[Flabbergasted]

33. Pelosi, Reid saying he's in contact with Dean, Richardson endorsement, Dodd today....

I think these are all signs of momentum. The party is working toward a solution. We'll have a much better idea by May 22nd what they are working for. I believe they will try to show that Obama is the party choice. I also believe that this will be successful and be readily apparent by ORegon voting.

[maximusveritas]

14. Yep, the only people denying this just haven't bothered to look into the numbers

Or they're holding out for some miracle where the Florida and Michigan delegates get seated and Hillary wins PA by like 500,000 votes.

I think this'll definitely be over on May 7th.

[VolcanoJen]

18. Time to annex more states!

It's not fair that there are only eight states left! }(

[texshelters]

19. Because Clinton is the heir apparent

no matter what the polls, delegate counts and math says.

"My precious, my precious," Clinton after losing the nomination.

Tex Shelters

[nxylas]

23. What are the numbers after each state?

Eg. the "47 16 9 72 13 85" after Indiana?

[bobbert]

29. Winning lotto numbers for each state

You should play them if you're a Hillary supporter because those numbers will come up when she wins.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. The Chicago media market penetrates Indiana

This is why Obama will win Indiana. Look at Wisconsin, alot of people thought that Hillary would win there because of the blue-collar voters there. Not the case. The states that directly surround Illinois will go Obama.

[Zynx]

28. Wisconsin is a far different state than Indiana.

They look the same in a lot of ways, but they are considerably different. Voting trends alone confirm this.

[StevieM]

42. Oh please, nobody thought she would win Wisconsin. Obama outspent her 5 to1,

refused to debate her there and he campaigned there for 7 days, while she dropped in for a weekend.

Steve

[TheDeathadder]

37. explain this one

why is it that Obama had the press on his side, establishment Democrats on his side, the false label of "UNITER" on his side, and yet he couldn't seal the deal and with only a few contests left, he's losing the big contests and Democrats polled he's even with Clinton and he's losing support of the independents and republicans who helped him win the early contests?

he can't can seal the deal, he's not man enough for the job, he had to run off to the Virgin Islands so he didn't burn out and quit.

[sandnsea]

40. He didn't have the press on his side

the establishment Dems on his side, or anything else on his side. He's had to fight every step of the way. He hasn't lost all the big contests, he's won WA, VA, GA, IL, MN, WI, and TEXAS. He is polling fine, a recent Pew poll has him ten points ahead of Hillary. It's only in Hillarityland that Obama hasn't mopped the floor with the Clintons.

[stillcool]

44. Obama was way behind...

by a lot..in every state until he campaigned in that state before the election. The label of 'uniter' is not false if you look at the turn-out of voters. If by big contests you mean New York and California, what does that have to do with anything? And as far as his losing support..where?

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=17&num=16150

HILL TROUNCING RIVALS IN N.H. & OHIO
By IAN BISHOP
January 31, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton has blown past her primary rivals in the 2008 kickoff state of New Hampshire, and bests the field of White House hopefuls in the swing state of Ohio, new polls show.

Clinton's poll bounce comes on the heels of her announcement that she's running, and her much-publicized first campaign foray into Iowa this past weekend.

She had enjoyed a high-tech campaign rollout, featuring a video announcement of her candidacy and three nights of Web chats with supporters.

"We had a great first week and we hope it is a sign of things to come," campaign spokesman Phil Singer told The Post yesterday.

Clinton has jumped out to a 15-point lead in New Hampshire over her leading rival, Barack Obama, 40 percent to 25 percent, the new Survey USA poll shows. Former Sen. John Edwards stands at 23 percent.

Hillary Clinton: Is the Democratic Nomination All Hers?
She doesn’t have the nomination prize wrapped up just yet, but the paper and ribbon are handy.

By Richard Sammon, Senior Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
October 22, 2007
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/Hillary_Clinton_Is_Democratic_Nomination_Hers_071022.html

Hillary Clinton’s lead over her Democratic rivals is starting to look formidable. The N.Y. senator is overshadowing the other presidential hopefuls, pulling way ahead in the polls, in fundraising and in organization.

The media are starting to refer to her as the presumptive nominee, a characterization that must make the other candidates feel frustrated.

CLINTON HAS 33-POINT LEAD
By GEOFF EARLE
October 4, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton has jumped to an astounding 33-point lead over Barack Obama, topping her main rival among every major slice of the electorate and widening a dominating advantage she has held all summer.

Clinton got support from a full majority for the first time in any national survey about the Democratic presidential field. She is backed by 53 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.

Obama follows far behind, with 20 percent, and John Edwards has 13 percent.

"I think it's pretty well done, don't you? All over but the voting," said Rep. Tom Petri (D-Wis.), when asked about the poll
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10042007/news/nationalnews/clinton_has_33_point_lead.htm

May 8th, 2007 at 13:15:24

Poll: Clinton pulls ahead of Obama
http://rawstory.com/comments/31343.html
Agence France-Presse

Hillary Clinton has taken a 15 percentage-point lead over fellow US Senator Barack Obama in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, according to poll results published Tuesday...

October 3, 2007, 1:45 pm

By Dalia Sussman

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton far outpaces her main Democratic rivals to handle a range of issues, and she is considered the strongest leader and the most electable – forces that have helped her widen her lead in the race for the Democratic nomination, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Mrs. Clinton has anywhere from a 30-point lead to a 51-point lead over Senator Barack Obama to handle health care, the economy, the war in Iraq and the campaign against terrorism, the poll found.

Poll: Hillary Ahead In South Carolina
By Eric Kleefeld - August 22, 2007, 10:35AM
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/08/poll_hillary_ahead_in_south_carolina.php
New polling from Rasmussen has Hillary Clinton beating Barack Obama in the South Carolina primary, with 38% for Hillary against 30% for Obama, with John Edwards at a distant third with 13%. Hillary and Obama are even among black voters, a demographic in which Obama needs a strong majority in order to win. Among whites, Hillary leads with Edwards in second, and Obama far behind.

Iowa Poll Shows Clinton Ahead By 29 Percent
http://wap.nbc5.com/detail.jsp?key=251931&rc=ln_ne
10/08/2007 -- There's a new poll out in the all important state of Iowa that shows presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton ahead by 29 percent, with John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama not far behind.

Clinton leaving Obama in the dust in latest state poll
Friday, August 17, 2007

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/08/17/MNG7RJV1E1.DTL&type=politics
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, bolstered by an aggressive campaign organization in California, has amassed a whopping 30-point lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama - and enjoys more support among likely voters in the state Democratic primary than all of her Democratic presidential rivals combined, a Field Poll released today shows.

[GoneOffShore]

39. Her support is slipping in Pennsylvania.

I'm not sure she's going to win here.

Certainly not in Philadelphia.

[StevieM]

41. You don't know what will happen in MT, SD or OR

Your delcarations are based on assumptions stemming from Obama's performance in western caucuses. We don't know that elections will go the same way. I think Hillary has a great shot in Oregon and a good shot in Montana. And if you're right then what's the problem? Every state, including Florida and Michigan, should vote.

Steve

[Upton]

45. Ore should go Obama

Look at these favorable ratings:

Obama-60%
Clinton-46%

She also trails McCain in the state by 6%, while Obama leads McCain by 6%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/oregon/oregon_2008_presidential_election

[sandnsea]

46. I live in Oregon, and used to live in Montana

She's got NO shot. NONE, ZERO, ZIP.

The problem is that Hillary is destroying the nominee.

[TheDonkey]

47. Why won't you give Puerto Rico a right to vote!! Damn YOU!!!