If you only have two candidates, and if every delegate picks a side, then *someone* will have a majority, ending the race. Unless you have a huge mass of superdelegates that refuse to choose for no reason (they are going to have to pick eventually, so why not in June instead of August), it can't go to the convention. But beyond that, here's the math: Using RCP numbers, he's at 1737. Tthere are 408 pledged delegates left, and 282 Super delegates left. Let's say she wins 55-45 the rest of the way - that's PA and OH size wins across the board. That's 184 more pledged delegates, putting him at 1921. Of the Supers, I believe around 70 remaining are Add-On delegates that primarily go to winners of each state. Most analysis suggests they split 50-50. That puts him at 1956. Of the remaining 212 supers, he'd need 69 (33%) to end it. Even now, at the low point of his polling, he's gaining supers faster than she is - and she's losing some to him while, I believe, he has yet to lose a single superdelegate during the whole campaign. For her to win, you're going to need around 70% of the remaining superdelegates to say: 1. We don't care that Obama won a solid majority of delegates in the primaries 2. We don't care about all the new, young voters that he's brought to the process - potential new voters that will ditch the party in a heartbeat if they pick Hillary (in general, her voters are far more loyal Dems) 3. We don't care that we'll piss off a demographic that votes 90% Democrat 4. We'll be looked as taking the nomination away from the first legitimate black Presidential candidate in history. Regardless of the merits of any of the above, barring a massive Spitzer-like scandal, they simply aren't going to do it. Hillary needs support *now* to win (or really, a month ago). If these people aren't willing to come out in support for her now, why would they do so a month from now? As far as the general election polls, that's irrelevant. A week ago, it was completely different. Three weeks before, it was different again. A snapshot in time 6 months before the election is completely useless as a decision-making factor. Why would general election polls this week be important but not the ones last week that showed the exact opposite? I'm not arguing the merits of who's the better candidate or who fares better against McCain or what not. It's just that the math says this nomination is already over, no matter how much people try to pretend it is a race. Officially, it may end next week if Obama pulls off a solid IN/NC sweep (highly unlikely), or it will end in the first or second week of June when a big mass of supers commit to Obama.
Huge endorsement by the Indy Star. This plus North Carolina's Governor's endorsement could make for some high drama on Tuesday! If Clinton does well in North Carolina, we are in for some fun. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080502/OPINION08/805020400/1291/OPINION08 Experience makes Clinton better choice in primary Posted: May 2, 2008 In this extraordinary election year, Indiana's Democratic voters have been presented with an extraordinary opportunity: Choose for their party's presidential nominee between a gifted senator from Illinois who has enthused millions of new voters and an equally talented senator from New York with years of high-level experience. It's been difficult for voters in other states to decide a clear favorite between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's also a difficult choice for The Star's Editorial Board, which recently questioned each candidate in person about key issues facing the nation. Obama offers an attractive vision for the way things could be. He speaks eloquently of hope and change. He connects with voters, many who formerly felt disenfranchised, on a level few political leaders have attained. Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are. She offers nuanced positions on how to address the war in Iraq, trade with China and economic expansion. Her depth of knowledge is remarkable. As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability. Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage. Clinton regrettably has pandered more to voters, particularly on gas prices, than Obama. Both have taken stands on free trade that give in to protectionism. Clinton also was an integral part of her husband's political machine, which earned a reputation for flattening opponents. That factor understandably gives many voters pause about whether another Clinton should serve as president. Yet, one thing is clear: The next commander in chief will take office at a time of extraordinary risk for this nation, both at home and abroad. The challenges -- including those posed by a sagging economy, rising energy and food costs, the gap in health care, wars in two countries and threats from Iran -- are complex. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges. She earns The Star's endorsement in Tuesday's primary.
This political water torture continues to affirm my feeling that Democrats are the most spineless of politicians who aren't willing to stand up tall on anything.
Clinton changing the rules again -- Clinton campaign retools delegate math May 6, 2008 By Christina Bellantoni - DURHAM, N.C. — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign yesterday tried to redefine the delegate math for securing the Democratic presidential nomination, signaling its willingness to wage a divisive battle with front-runner Sen. Barack Obama through the summer. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, questioned Mrs. Clinton's trustworthiness heading into today's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. Top Clinton aides said the nominee must win based on a tally that includes delegates from Florida and Michigan, which held January primaries that were disqualified by party rules. The campaign's "Delegate Hub" Web site identifies 2,208 as the total delegates needed to be nominated, or 183 more than the threshold of 2,025 set by the Democratic National Committee's rules. "That's what we believe is the standard for deciding this — who has the majority of the total delegates including Michigan and Florida to decide the nomination," said Clinton strategist Geoff Garin. The Obama campaign has long accused Team Clinton of "moving the goal posts" to avoid facing the reality that it is nearly impossible for her to catch up, and his supporters in the Democratic Party's hierarchy reacted angrily yesterday to the idea that the 2,025-delegate finish line could be changed, especially because Mr. Obama is 273 delegates from reaching that magic number according to his campaign count. "When you totally ignore the rules, letting these people change the outcome, that doesn't pass the straight-face test," Allan Katz of Tallahassee, Fla., a member of the DNC's executive committee, told The Washington Times. "It's not just a question of changing the rules, it's ignoring the reason the [DNC's] rules committee is there, to enforce the rules. You don't get relieved of that responsibility if you don't like the outcome," Mr. Katz said. http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc...80506/NATION/525934081/1001&template=printart
Gee, no wonder Deckard thinks it's perfectly reasonable for Clinton to consider herself ahead if one assumes a GOP-type primary. Established rules clearly have no meaning for her so she'll just keep changing them until she finds a set she's winning in. Nice strategy.
Check this one out from the master panderer known as Hillary, who's campaign has had several rounds of plastic surgery makeovers since January. I've lost count. I guess she is now "pro-gun", "Bubba" Hillary.
It actually doesn't exist. An amusing (but not newsworthy gaffe): http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_mailings_gun_gaffe.html Sen. Hillary Clinton’s mailing attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s record on guns appears to include a striking visual gaffe: The image of the gun pictured on the face of the mailing is reversed, making it a nonexistent left-handed model of the Mauser 66 rifle. To make matters worse, a prominent gun dealer said, it’s an expensive German gun with customized features that make it clearly European. “The gun in the photo does not exist,” said Val Forgett III, president of Navy Arms in Martinsburg, W.Va. Forgett's company was Mauser’s agent in the United States when the gun was released, and it sold Mauser guns here again in the 1990s. “The bolt is facing to the left side of the receiver, making it a left-handed bolt action rifle, indicating whoever constructed and approved the mailer did not recognize the image has been reversed.” Forgett said the error would be obvious to sportsmen. “I find it laughable on its face,” he said. “It’s like a picture of Babe Ruth hitting right-handed.” The gun's image in Clinton's mailing is above; a correct image of the gun is below. Other rifle enthusiasts e-mailed Politico after an image of Clinton’s mailing was posted to this blog. “I bet the Clinton folks did a mirror flip on the stock image to make it look more ‘aesthetic,’” wrote one, David Phillips. “What a latte-sipping, Gucci-wearing thing to do.” The Mauser 66, released in 1966 and no longer manufactured, is a high-end hunting rifle that found military use as a sniper rifle. In Clinton’s mailing, it’s pictured with a double-set trigger, a customization that’s popular in Europe but “almost unheard of in the United States,” Forgett said. “It’s a $2,200 German import — it’s hardly typical of what the average workingman in Indiana uses,” he said.
I would imagine that it is a reversed image, but converting a gun that's available only in right-handed versions to left-handed is a relatively common gunsmithing job.
i would not say common, nor would i say......want to shoot a rifle that had its reciever cut so drastically and then welded back up.
It is a double set trigger, often just called a 'set trigger'. Target shooters used to use them, although they used to use them a lot more than they do these days. One trigger pulls back the hammer, the other releases is. Because the second trigger isn't pulling the weight of the hammer back, you get a super-sensitive hair tigger. They used to use them more often than not on really small caliber (4.7mm) Schutzen Rifles. IIRC, Thompson Center still makes quite a few pistols with double set triggers. A couple of examples:
Thanks! Makes sense. I shoot my single-action only Model 1911 much more acurately than either of my double-action handguns.
Well it looks like Hillary's plan is working quite nicely. She may not win the nomination, but she seems to be making dam sure Obama can't win the general. ------------- CNN: Exits Show That Half Of Hillary's Indiana Backers Say They Wouldn't Back Obama Against McCain By Greg Sargent - May 6, 2008, 6:36PM As noted below, the exits reveal intense polarization in the Dem electorate. CNN has a detailed breakdown of these numbers: * Half of Hillary backers in Indiana wouldn't support Obama in a general elex against McCain, compared to a third of Obama backers who wouldn't back Hillary. * It's worse in North Carolina: There, only 45% of Hillary supporters say they'd back Obama against McCain, compared to 59% of Obama backers who'd vote for Hillary. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
To be fair, this would dramatically change if Hillary were to win, for two reasons. One - it's easier to be magnaminous when your candidate is winning. Two, to win it would require shady stuff from Hillary that involves wrecking the party and what will be described as "stealing" the nomination. Once that narrative were to get out there, his supporters would react (this is one reason why supers aren't going to go that route).
No matter how Obama wins the nomination, Hillary has convinced her supporters that it won't be fair and somehow it was stolen from her (after all she was the presumptive nominee).
