Again, Florida and Michigan would change the entire dynamics of such a count. Between the Florida governor supporting such a measure as well as Howard Dean saying he would be open to it, it's a very real possibility if Clinton establishes momentum with wins tomorrow.
The Cat: My opinion about the feasibility of an HRC nomination is predicated on her not having a blowout win tomorrow. If that happens I agree that the race is a toss up again. Short of a blowout tomorrow though, can you imagine any situation in which Hillary wins the 65-70% of remaining delegates without an all out dirt fest? What's her argument? Lately it's been a combo of Obama's not fit to be commander in chief and he's an inexperienced peddler of false hope with no record of accomplishment. As a supporter of the eventual Dem nominee, is that a strategy you can get behind considering that by virtually any math he is still likely to be the eventual nominee? Folks with longstanding connections to the Clintons like Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have said that after tomorrow enough's enough. They didn't choose that date arbitrarily. It's based on the math and the nature of her attacks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080302/pl_bloomberg/a_z1b1gct_nm The state's governor would support a re-vote. The chairman of the Democratic party would be open to a re-vote. In a recent poll, a majority of voters in the state would support a re-vote. It would be damaging to Hillary's credibility and the party if she were attempting to re-instate the results that were put into place without campaigning (Florida) and without Obama's name on the ballot (Michigan). Allowing campaigning from both Clinton and Obama and allowing the people of Florida and Michigan to have a role in a tightly contested election wouldn't damage anything. There is a very good chance it happens.
Yes, it's based on the math. The problem is, the math changes significantly if Florida and Michigan are tossed into the mix, and people like Dodd and Richardson aren't going to engage in speculation. They're going to deal with what they know now, for political reasons. However, the quotes yesterday from both Crist and Dean coupled with the apparent surge in Ohio/Texas momentum for Clinton makes this a legitimate possibility.
Batman, your scenario is bad, I agree. But you seem to assert a choice I don't think is there. The choice isn't merely to 1) drop out immediately, or to borrow one of GWB’s words, 2) to go “new-cue-ler”. She can stay in, keep the pundits in, and make the exit call when she feels it is best timing for the party. Personally I think had a close sense of the inevitability of Obama a couple weeks ago (I am honored to be sitting next to Barack...), though she/per people decided one last defense. And no, they haven’t gone nuclear even though manana is it. Once she drops outs, what else is she going to do? She doesn’t have a senate seat up right now. She in all likelihood won’t be in a presidential race again or have this many supporters or this much attention. So let her and her people enjoy the last week, or two, or month, before the finality of it. She made it a hell of a fight. Again, as long as she doesn’t go nuclear, and I assume she won’t because she didn’t going into manana, I see nothing wrong with a couple more debates and a well timed exit. The line “any publicity is good publicity” isn’t quite as true for politics as some other areas, but aside from total mudslinging, I am not convinced it is worse for Obama with Hillary still in there.
you're arguing in a circle, we realize the math will change if fl and mi is in the mix. the problem is they won't be in the mix if she doesn't dominate tomorrow your response-if she doesn't dominate tomorrow it doesn't matter because fl and mi could count that doesn't work, SHE HAS TO WIN BIG TOMORROW FOR FL AND MI TO EVEN COME INTO THE MIX
Cornyn ‘grieving’ over choice of McCain as GOP nominee. At the annual Dallas County Republican party Reagan Day Dinner this weekend, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) lamented Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) ascension as the presumptive Republican nominee, saying McCain wasn’t his “first choice” or even his “second, third or fourth choice.” “I sort of liken it to a grieving process,” Cornyn told the 500 or so die-hard Republicans at the event. “You come to acceptance.”
Can you show me where Crist or Dean used that qualification? I already outlined, in the scenario where Clinton wins Ohio by 8 and Texas by 3, how it's mathematically possible for her to overturn the delegate lead by throwing Florida and Michigan back into the mix. If you read the quotes and look at it objectively, if Clinton wins tomorrow, it's likely those states will be in play. To my knowledge, the only people who have tossed out the qualifications of "dominating" or "winning big" are Obama's fanatics. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you actually read my post, you would see that the analysts have been saying this. If she doesn't dominate tomorrow, why would they bring FL and MI in if she has virtually lost.
MI and FL won't come back into play without a revote or something other than just taking the numbers as they stand now. If that is done then there it will be difficult for Hillary to pick enough to close the gap. That is of course provided TX and OH are close.
The analysts are basing that estimate on the remaining states as they are now, not if FL and MI were brought into the mix. When Dean and DNC members make a final decision, they'll evaluate the potential math themselves on the hypothetical that Florida/Michigan are included. They won't be relying on the math of MSNBC analysts running on the opposite hypothetical -- that those states are not included. That would be pointless.
I never said otherwise; of course it would be a re-vote. In Michigan in particular, it would be ridiculously unfair to Obama to take the results as they are, considering his name wasn't even on the ballot! You're exactly right. It would be difficult. Do I think Clinton would pull it off? No, I don't. But the possibility exists, and it's greater than the 0.0001 percent chance that a lot of Obama supporters seem to think. The deck would still be stacked against her, but her chances would be reasonable enough (with wins in TX, OH and RI tomorrow) that she should stay in the race, imo.
Even if she gets crushed tomorrow, I don't expect her to quit. She has lots of delegates and it's still tough for Obama to clinch it without the superdelegates. I suspect she "suspends" her campaign but waits in the wings to see if anything happens. Assuming Obama rolls along, I then expect her to make some concessions (and gain some) for releasing her delegates at the convention.
Fair enough, The Cat. (BTW, color me surprised that the Clinton camp have found one more in a series of very unlikely but barely maybe possible if you squint your eyes right reasons to stay in the race.) rimrocker: I agree with your last post and that would be fine with me. I'm just sick of her scorched earth tactics. And if she stays in past tomorrow and keeps that crap up I sure as hell hope Obama says enough is enough and fights back. Hillary's got a lot of nerve saying he's not vetted when she's been withholding her tax returns and records and schedules from her time as first lady. We're supposed to listen to her say he's not vetted and wait until she's the nominee to find out what she's hiding? No thanks.
This is going to be interesting. For basically the first time in the race (maybe twice, if you include New Hampshire, though it wasn't reflected in the polls), Hillary has had sustained positive momentum the last few days. In every other state this election, it's always been her simply trying to hold on, but this time, she's actually gained ground. Two important things about this: 1. She finally might have found a message that works or found a ceiling for Obama. If so, it does change the dynamic going forward if she stays in. 2. It appears that message is the ultra-negative kitchen sink attack campaign. Unfortunately, it means a lot of sleaze and nastiness, for an extended period. On the flipside, assuming Obama survives, he'll be better prepared for an ugly general election. I don't think McCain will be ugly, but certainly his surrogates have demonstrated they will.
Batman, you have a low threshold when it comes to political campaigns, at least when the campaign involves a candidate you ardently support. Hillary has done nothing close to a political run worthy of, "I'm just sick of her scorched earth tactics." (in my opinion) I almost always agree with you on political issues (as well as just being an admirer), and I would like Senator Obama to win because I think he would win, but in my opinion, that statement is simply inaccurate and based more on emotion than on reality. A tough campaign, sure, but nothing near "scorched earth." I've seen scorched earth. This ain't it. Heck, you ought to see a couple of local races in Austin. One is for Travis County tax assessor-collector and pits gay, liberal retired Democratic state legislator Glen Maxey, someone I like (at least until now), against longtime incumbent Nelda Wells Spears, who's done a fine job for, like, forever. Maxey is running an extremely tough campaign. Closer to "scorched earth" than I would have thought possible for him. (Spears will win, IMO) The other is between State Rep. Dawnna Dukes, who's had the office since 1995, but supported Texas House Speaker Jim Craddick for reelection as Speaker (one of the main players in DeLay's redistricting nightmare), and Brian Thompson, a 27 year old UT law school grad, who's only lived in the district about a year (in Austin since 2002) and has run a campaign in full attack mode. I used to support Dukes, until she supported Craddick last year, but no longer. So it doesn't bother me that Thompson is throwing kitchen sinks at her. I want her to lose. Why did I give you those two examples? Because one race involves a candidate I'll vote against because he's gone negative against someone who's done a good job and doesn't deserve it. The other involves an incumbent who just supported the reelection of the Texas House Speaker that worked hand in glove with DeLay and was a major, major player. How a Democrat could support the guy is beyond me. I'm sure she was promised some committee chair. What she was promised, and recieved, was tens of thousands of dollars in cash from Craddick for her reelection campaign. And you know what? If she wins the nomination, I'll vote for her. Better a lousy sell out than a Republican. The Democratic Party only needs to win about 5 seats to take back the State House. Sorry, but I think your criticism of Ms. Clinton, while understandable as she's running against your guy, is just over the top. I know you don't agree, obviously, and I find it absurd that, based on what I've seen up until now, you wouldn't vote for her in the general because of how she's run her campaign. She would be the Democratic candidate running against McCain (I don't think she's getting the nod, but allow me my point), who's sucking up to a Texas far-right evangelist that has said he can't wait for the end of the world, when the Jews in Israel will be able to go the Hell, the ones that didn't convert and "see the light." (the guy said it far worse... I'm giving the Cliff Notes version) Look... why should a candidate who still has a chance of winning bow out when there are very real scenarios that might allow her to get the nomination? If she loses one of the two big states tomorrow, she should pull out, and the pressure will be tremendous for her to do so, but if Hillary wins the popular vote in Texas and Ohio, and captures more delegates than Barack, and the Florida/Michigan re-vote that The Cat brought up is a real possibility, should she drop out simply because Obama's supporters want her to? She wouldn't be in anything like the position of Huckabee, who is now a joke, but in a fierce race that still holds out a chance for the nomination. Is it good for the Party for this to drag on? No. Of course not. The voters are deciding whether it will go on, however, not the Obama campaign. That's how I look at it, if Ms. Clinton wins Texas and Ohio tomorrow, especially with The Cat's scenario re Florida and Michigan. (god, don't parse my words sentence by sentence in reply. I don't post like that and won't respond that way! thanks in advance) Impeach Bush and Save us from Canada!
Deckard. I with you on this one. The Clintons havn't been close to new-cue-lar and we will see much worse towards Obama in the general by fringe right wing groups. The way the race is going I don't think it is bad for the Dems or Obama to have a legit opponent a little while longer. After Clinton is out, and I think it will be soon, things will go dead for the majority of America until the conventions. Obama has had mostly good publicity, and that which isn't might even have some beneficial effects prior to the general (inoculation vs similar issues that will be brought up again). So longs as the Clintons don't go nuclear of course, but at the end of the day I don't think they will because they know this is another chapter in their history/legacy.
Local NPR-affiliated radio station reported this afternoon Hillary is having 9-point lead over Obama in a latest Ohio poll. Contributed some $$ to Hillary campaign to keep her in the good fight. Called and convinced a number of friends to vote for Hillary tomorrow. My wife and I are gonna cast our vote first thing tomorrow morning for Hillary!
On Houston TV I have seen at least 10 ads for Obama. None for Hillary. About 5 to 0 for Obama on the radio. Don't know if Hillary is avoiding spending money in HOuston.
So what happens with the republican race tomorrow if all those republicans vote for Hillary and Huckabee ends up beating McCain in Texas? that would be weird
