You're telling me you quoted a Murdoch-run paper which in turn quoted a Reagan supporter (and an anonymous source) as saying Obama had a problem with Jews? Color me amazed. Thanks for that insight. I think I hear the phone ringing... It's the TN GOP... they want you to write more copy for their press releases.
I think Hillary's hyper-aggressive campaign has had its effect in halting Obama's momentum. It hasn't really upped her numbers, but kept him from rising. So both seem to be in the 40's and it will just depend on undecideds. My predictions: Obama wins Texas 55-45 Clinton wins Ohio 53-47 Obama wins Vermont 62-38 Upset Special: Obama wins Rhode Island 50.5-49.5
News reports indicate that Hillary will continue to run despite the results in Texas and Ohio. These reports say that her rationale is that she and Obama will have close to the same amount of delegate votes and all will depend on the super delegates. If Hillary were to win with super delegate arm-twisting, what would Obama supporters do? I know I will switch off to McCain.
I think her people have to say this - once you admit you're on the verge of dropping out, your campaign was over. Rudy G and Fred Thompson did the same leading up to Florida and South Carolina as well. After Super Tuesday, she had a 100 superdelegate lead or so. Today, it's around 45. After next week, it will be even lower if she doesn't win both TX/OH tomorrow. She really can't win using superdelegates. Of the remaining 300 superdelegates or so, she's have to win them 220-80 or so to make up her pledged delegate deficit - that's basically impossible. What she *could* do is combine that with FL/MI and try to pull it off, but the chances of it happening is less than 2%, I'd guess. Assuming she sweeps tomorrow, Obama will win the two contests in the next week (Mississippi and Wyoming). Then, there's nothing at all for 5 weeks. I can't see her trying to run in PA for 5 weeks with all the pressure on her to drop out. Obama's already within single digits there and has yet to start campaigning. I think she'll finally see the light at that point. I don't blame her for staying in through tomorrow - she has nothing to lose, and if she believes she's the best candidate, she should give herself every chance to win. But after tomorrow, unless she does much better than the polls suggest, there's no real viable way to win.
Not going to happen. If she stays in despite it being obvious she won't get the nomination, other Dems will take the gloves off and nobody wants that.
My once-bitten, twice-shy prediction: Clinton by 10-12 in Ohio. Clinton by 3-5 in Texas (though Obama wins caucus and evens up or wins delegates). Clinton by 10 in RI. Obama by 15 in VT. Hillary winds up with a negligible net gain of somewhere between 5-20 delegates. And, although she has no realistic (and non-destructive) path to the nomination, she stays in and the race bitterly divides the party. I hope I'm wrong. And, intellectually, I think Obama will take Texas. But NH freaked me out for good on this race and I've got a bad feeling. And I'd rather use my prediction to hex Hillary than Barack.
Disagree. The biggest key for tomorrow might be psychology, even moreso than the actual number of delegates. Crist already said he was open to holding a "re-vote" in Florida. Dean said he was open to the idea as well. If she wins Texas and Ohio tomorrow, I don't think nearly as many party higher-ups will encourage her to quit as has been speculated the last couple of weeks. I think, in that scenario, the popular opinion would go toward having a re-vote in Florida and Michigan, which would give her a fighting chance. Not a good chance by any means, but within the realm of possibility. My guess: Clinton by 9 in Ohio Clinton by 2 in Texas Clinton by 7 in Rhode Island Obama by 25 in Vermont
Your points are all well made, but the key was in the parentheses. With clear wins in OH and TX, she has a realistic though very far-fetched path to the nomination, true. But not without utterly destroying Obama as unfit and unready to lead. The time for coming from behind by simply being the better candidate has long since passed. Her only shot now is to make and win the argument that Obama would be a disaster. Could she conceivably pull that off? Sure, it's conceivable. Should she? No way. Obama's right when he suggests that he will get the vast majority of Clinton voters in the general but that it's unclear that she would get the vast majority of his. Why is that true? Because he is engaging tons of new voters (young, independent, otherwise disaffected and disinterested). They're not voting because they're Democrats and they're not voting because they're sick of Republicans. They're voting because they're inspired by Obama and his message. Those voters are by no means a lock to show up for Clinton in the general. Furthermore, she has such a steep hill to climb and it will take so much negative advertising against Obama to pull it off that she will profoundly alienate Obama voters in the process. As of the red phone ad, the 60 Minutes Muslim thing (in which she leaves the door open to the continuance of that bogus meme) and her mockery of Obama's voters and, indeed, hope itself, she has already done so with me. As of today, if Hillary's the nominee I'm staying home in November. And I'm a Democrat. A lot of Barack's voters aren't. If Hillary can't count on me, she sure as hell can't count on them.
I vote they draw, as close to a split the delegates as possible. And yes this would in effect be a big win for Obama. I don't agree. Let's say she has a mathmatical but not realistic chance after tomorrow. At that point she can ride it out until she is mathmatically out of it, or just before (gracious exit). With it could come free publicity (more debates, attention [how long is she going to stay in], & conspiricay theories [she is going to go after his superdelegates] to occupy the media). As long as it isn't mud wrestling nasty, I disagree with the conventional wisdom that it is better for it to be settled, especially because Obama is relatively new to the national stage compared with Hillary or McCain (plus even more debate practice for Obama). Once it is settled the media will do a lot more equal time for the parties.
Desert Scar: There are two problems with your suggestion. One is that Hillary wouldn't be riding it out waiting for the delegate count to be over; she would be scratching and biting and kicking to convince voters that Obama is unfit to be commander-in-chief. Even if she exceeds wildest expectations tomorrow, she'd need about 70% of the remaining delegates to win. That means winning Mississippi, Oregon and Indiana (for example) -- each states where Obama's favored -- by 40 points. The ONLY way to do that is by demolishing him with negative campaigning. The second problem is that without blowouts on one side or the other, there aren't enough pledged delegates (in other words, actual voters) left for one of them to clinch. Without serious blowouts, it will be up to super delegates to put one or the other over the top. And without serious blowouts by Hillary -- again, on the order of 70% wins -- Obama will go to the convention with a lead in pledged delegates. At that point, Hillary has two choices: Acknowledge the will of the voters and drop out or try to convince super delegates to ignore the will of the voters. I think we'd all like to believe that at that point she would drop out. But unless she sees any realistic scenario in which she wins among actual voters why not drop out now? The answer is that she does see a realistic scenario and it involves trashing Obama so thoroughly that he plummets 40 points in the remaining states. That is in no way good for the Democratic Party and if she doesn't blow him out tomorrow across the board and still stays in she is choosing personal ambition over party and over her stated commitment to ending the war, health care for all and all the other issues on which she knows for a natural fact Obama would be better than McCain.
I'm not sure it takes that, and I'm not suggesting that. Michigan and Florida are two very delegate-rich states, and if she were to win a re-vote in both states by 10-15 percent along with a double-digit win in Pennsylvania, she could make a sizable dent into Obama's lead. Most likely it wouldn't be enough to take the pledged delegate lead, but there's definitely a chance. I agree that Obama is a better general election candidate based on the demographic breakdown of his voters, but that was obvious in December and January. That in and of itself isn't a reason for her to drop out, if she believes she's the best candidate and her supporters give her momentum with victories tomorrow. There is a realistic scenario, as much as some of you hate to admit it, and it doesn't involving trashing Obama. It involves putting the numerous delegates from Florida and Michigan back in play. If she's able to win both Texas and Ohio tomorrow, I don't see what's unreasonable about that perspective.
More to DS and The Cat.... Here's Marc Ambinder running an extremely rosy scenario for Hillary the rest of the way and still finding her behind by 100 delegates at convention time. The arguments you guys make for her staying in would have made perfect sense on February 6, but Obama's huge wins in 11 straight contests have put him too far ahead for her to catch up without a thoroughly negative, scorched earth campaign AND convincing super delegates to subvert the will of the voters. But don't trust me; look at the numbers. This scenario reflects Hillary doing better in every single state than anyone believes she will and she's still about 100 behind. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/inside_delegate_math_the_numbers.php Inside Delegate Math: The Numbers 29 Feb 2008 04:15 pm Using delegate projection software created by Matt Vogel, I ran a scenario yesterday showing how tough it will be for Hillary Clinton to catch up to Barack Obama's earned delegate lead. Some of you have asked for my specific state-by-state projections. So let's go state-by-state, again assuming that the full sanctions levied by the DNC are kept in place. Ohio: Clinton wins by 4% and earns a net of 5 delegates Rhode Island: Clinton wins by 10% and earns a net of 3 delegates Texas: Obama wins by a net of 8% and earns a net of 15 delegates including those taken from the caucus portion of the contests Vermont: Obama wins handily and nets 3 delegates. We can fiddle with the numbers a bit, but winning by an extra percent in Texas is worth more than winning by an extra percent in Ohio. If Clinton wins by 8 percentage points in Ohio, she picks up a net of about 11 delegates compared to Obama's 15 in Texas. Let's be nice to Clinton and assume that she manages to eek out a win in Texas, giving her 3 extra delegates. For the day, she'd net only 8 delegates under this scenario -- with Texas and Vermont having cancelled each other out. Moving on to Wyoming, let's assume, generously, that Obama only wins by 55%. He picks up 2 delegates. Then comes Mississippi. Let's assume the split is 60/40, Obama -- he picks up 7 delegates, and so -- since March 4 -- he's back up 1. Flash forward to Pennsylvania, and let's assume that Hillary Clinton manages to win 60% of the vote in the state. She'll earn 32 extra delegates -- her biggest net gain so far. I'll give the next two states and a territory to Obama -- by six points only each -- Guam (+0 net), Indiana (+4 net) and North Carolina (+7 net). Hillary Clinton has a shot to win West Virginia, which votes on March 13, so let's assume she wins by 10 points, earning a net of two extra delegates. Momentum carries over into Kentucky, which she wins by 10 points and earns five extra delegates. She's not going to win Oregon, probably -- Obama picks up six delegates there. The June 3 primaries of Montana and South Dakota are probably Obama's: let's assume he wins them by 10 points, earning a total of 3 net delegates. The last contest is the Puerto Rico caucuses, which takes place on June 7. Let's give Hillary Clinton an 80 to 20 victory there, giving her a net of 33 earned delegates. So -- under these most rosy of scenarios -- since March 4, she'll have earned 520 delegates to Barack Obama's 461, having reduced his earned delegate total by about 80 -- or -- by about 60 percent -- but he'll still have a lead of approximately 100 delegates in total... and be that much closer to 2025.
First of all, your rosy scenario isn't necessarily the rosiest -- certainly possible Clinton wins Ohio by more than 8 (several polls have her up by more than that now, and momentum seems to be trending her way). I'd also argue it's possible she wins Texas by more than 3. However, I never claimed there was a realistic chance at the pledged delegate lead. Let's look at the actual lead of 100-110 for Obama, depending on what source you believe. You take the 60+ Clinton would gain in that scenario, and that cuts it to around 50. If Florida is allowed a re-vote, it would have even more delegates than Pennsylvania, where Clinton would be picking up 32 in your scenario. Michigan would be somewhat close to Pennsylvania in delegates. Between those two states and the remaining super delegates, do I think there's an opportunity for a 50 delegate gap to be closed? Yes, I do.
(agreeing with you) Check the CNN Delegate Counter interactive display. You can go state by state from here, including setting superdelegates. Hillary needs near landslides in everything left to get the nomination. It's just not realistic.
The Cat How does Hillary realistically make an argument to re-instate or re-vote in Florida and Michigan without damaging the party or her credibility?
