Brains! Must . . .eat . . . brains!
Posted by myiq2xu at April 23, 2008 08:28 AMThe most fantastic of Clinton's arguments is "Obama can't close the deal!" Hillary Clinton--former first lady, party leader, sure thing--is way behind. But it's Obama who can't close the deal.
Posted by nerdoff at April 23, 2008 08:33 AMnerdoff,
Has Obama "closed the deal"?
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 08:36 AMYou ought to note your numbers assume the disenfranchisement of FL and MI.
Posted by rilkefan at April 23, 2008 08:36 AM......repuglicans couldn't write a better script: red states load up on a black candidate while blue states vote for the party regular and first family.....meanwhile the acrimony heightens and McOld has the semblance of an old school diplomat....how disgusting is this getting:
Dems seem to be stealing defeat from the jaws of victory.......this should be a Democratic landslide and frankly it looks like four years of the same old same McOld!
Better wake up America....the story is McOld and stale and the festivities are months away!!!
Posted by Goyo at April 23, 2008 09:02 AMI see The Math Club would rather commit political suicide than stare reality in the face. Obama can't fucking win the general election.
Posted by hal at April 23, 2008 09:04 AMShe's not going away. Get used to it. Super delegates will decide this. They read exit polls, they might consider a 200,000 vote win is not "inconclusive". Or not.
Every state is going to get to vote. Every state will know the two Dem candidates. If it hurts them in the fall they couldn't beat McCain anyway.
In the most important measure of support the superdelegates need to consider, the popular vote, Hillary Clinton now leads Obama.
Posted by Alvord at April 23, 2008 09:23 AMSo if the dem primary campaign "outcome already known", then why doesn't Obama just stop running and wasting money in the primaries and say exactly what you just said so smugly as his justification for it? And all those calls from the msm and many A-lister bloggers for her to drop out should end too because "the outcome already known". So no need to fear the 9 remaining contests...yet that's what they do.
Look, I know he has the far easier path to the majic number (but neither candidate has it) and that he has a far better chance at being the eventual nominee, but you can't tell me that the primary campaign's "outcome already known".
You're starting to sound alot like "we know exactly where they are, they're east, west, north and south of baghdad"...."known knowns, known unknowns". Or is it those characters who stormed Florida during election 2000 and helped fuel Bush v Gore 5-4 win.
Your arrogant definitive certainty is exactly what turns people like me off from your candidate. (That and having many Obama supporters -(not you capj thankfully) call me a racist and tell me I'm not a democrat). Lastly, funny how that inevitability thing is now a mantra Obama supporters seem to embrace...but when Clinton used it..oh the humanity...the double standard. Yup bringing change and a new kind of politics my arse. Please stop telling people it's over before it's over. Let the voters vote and arguments like this certainly don't encourage anyone from either side to turn out and vote. It's telling people their votes at this point don't really matter anymore so why bother because the outcome is already known.
Thank you for your intellectual honesty in bumping this up to the top and for the honest analysis, CA Pol Junkie.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 23, 2008 09:37 AMIt doesn't surprise a re-worked "math" to support BO. The delegate win in PA will be a little over 60 because to the 12 delegates, she gets an additional 55 delegates for wining the state.
On to IN and beyond. I know NC has 30 percent AA vote, so HRC starts with 30 percent in the hole, but like TX I think she will send her message and cut the current (SUSA) 9 point advantage BO has.
Posted by Prabhata at April 23, 2008 09:38 AMDo you think any of the undecided superdelegates will vote in a way that re-enfranchises the poor slobs in MI and FL (of which I'm one so no offense meant)?
Posted by Sharon at April 23, 2008 09:41 AMI guess Hillary "tunnel vision" is prevalent here. She was ahead by 20% points a few weeks ago. What happen, to that big lead, was her lying about Tuzla, NAFTA. She is broke she had 9 million to spend in April and was 10 million in debt, she has 32 million in the bank because her "rich" supporters ran up her donations by giving more than $2300 dollars allowed for the primary season.
She was forced to spend so much in Penn, that her bank account is on ZERO for Indiana and North Carolina.
Posted by a4L at April 23, 2008 09:43 AMCan I just eat my waffle this morning??? (grin)
Best quote from the blogosphere today:
"Someone should call a priest, or the National Enquirer: Hillary Clinton has now come back from the dead four times. Her win in the Pennsylvania primary wasn't just a numerical victory. It also gave her a new justification for her long-shot effort to win back a nomination that was once considered a lock for her."
--John Dickerson, Slate
Why can't he close the deal??? HMMMM?????
Posted by PaulieB at April 23, 2008 09:46 AMMuch like "Night of the Living Dead" she has returned to eat and destroy the Democratic Party. Especially, seeing she has no viable chance of ever winning enough pledge delegates.
Posted by a4L at April 23, 2008 09:51 AMFirst, note that the both candidate differ by relatively small number of delegates. Also, PA was not allocated yet and MI and FL will have to.
Second, it might be suicidal for the Democrats to go with Obama, since he cannot carry any important state.
Third, the best move on Obama's part now is a major conciliation effort. A success of such move will assure him the nomination, make a victory in November likely and stop the long term division in the party.
My feeling is that such as approach will heal the racial tone the "creative class" has conjured, will stay true to the African American community that is immensely important morally and may stop the terrible sexism that pervades the campaign.
Posted by koshembos at April 23, 2008 09:56 AMCan I just eat my waffle this morning??? (grin)
I dunno, my fave quote is from yesterday at Corrente:
"St. Obama performed his first miracle, turning waffles into whine." I'm still giggling at that one.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 23, 2008 09:59 AMGreat one Coyote and Corrente...big smile with that one.
Posted by peter at April 23, 2008 10:10 AMLike Hillary and Tuzla, she just has high negatives. She will need 90% of the delegates just have more pledge delegates. I would have more respect for Hillary if she would just tell the truth, First she sez don't count Michigan to NPR, now she sez lets count them. Where's the Sniper fire, on this one.
Posted by a4L at April 23, 2008 10:11 AMJust keep whistling past the graveyard boys. Just go into your happy places where Obama isn't alienating half of the people he needs to win the GE and where Hillary isn't an unstoppable killing machine, if that's what it takes to makes you happy.
Posted by Shane at April 23, 2008 10:40 AMPrabhata, all Democratic primary delegates are distributed proportionately. The statewide delegates will be 30 for Clinton and 25 for Obama. As of the moment, she gets 5 more net district level delegates for a total of +10. The 7th congressional district could flip back to Obama, though, which would give Clinton a net of +8.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 10:46 AMLook, I know he has the far easier path to the majic number (but neither candidate has it) and that he has a far better chance at being the eventual nominee, but you can't tell me that the primary campaign's "outcome already known". - emal
You don't need to be an Obama supporter to know how this story ends. If the last 16% of the campaign looks anything like the first 84%, Barack Obama will be the nominee. Clinton has thrown the kitchen sink at Obama, but the race hasn't changed a bit. There is nothing she can do to change the outcome - only an extraordinary external event can do that.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 10:50 AMYou still don't get it capj, your simplistic certainty using "teh Math" as the final absolute arbiter when it comes to predicting the outcome of the game of politics is a bit simplistic. Especially in a game that involves humans and their capacity/(and as in the case of superdelegates) the political right to change their minds and to think for themselves pick who they want to according to the rulz even as events/voting transpires around them.
As I said, you could have said, "the more likely outcome" but certainly not "outcome already known". It isn't over until it's over and all "Teh Math" won't make it so until the future (you predict with such absolute)is in the past.
If I were a superdelegate I'd certainly be a bit more than concerned about November based on the deeper results coming out of this "math" you so tout. Some especially significant issues they most likely need to take into consideration would be actual voter results/demographics facts to date and what level a priority they play in come November. Hillary made a very strong case in PA imo (and other states too). There's got to be concern...why can't he connect with middle class older voters especially women who are often strong dem base voters? Plus sorry, Michigan and Florida are important states to consider in "the Math" come November...so something needs to done there too. It's a far more complex system and many more factors are involved here at play than you make it appear based on pure statistics...it's not so absolute..
Lastly and a bit off tangent here, I'm back to my previous thinking (although not likely to happen but certainly still a possibility-even if a remote one)...perhaps they need to run on a ticket together...because I just am not so certain that either one on their own could outright win this thing in November. They each bring a different strength and type of voter to the table...that the party needs to be very competetive in NOvember and to counteract McSame and his base, the media.
A majority of votes cast in this process have now been cast for Hillary. A majority of Democrats voting have voted for Hillary. Obama continues to lose the key battleground states, while winning states Dems have no chance of taking the fall. Only the bizarre Democratic method of assigning delegates along with black voters (understandably) voting favorite son has kept Obama from sinking beneath the waves long ago.
And, of course, neither candidate can win this without the Supers, and the Supers were created exactly to stop a candidate like Obama (one who has managed to get a lead in delegates while showing fatal flaws for the fall campaign) from being nominated. So the only question is, Will they do their job?
If not, well, I suppose we will survive President McCain.
Posted by tdraicer at April 23, 2008 11:37 AMObama continues to lose the key battleground states, while winning states Dems have no chance of taking the fall.
This little factoid is so thoroughly meaningless that it pains me everytime I read it.
Do people who impart some meaning to this actually think that states like New York, California and New Jersey are gonna vote Republican in the fall if Obama is the nominee?
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 11:41 AM>Do people who impart some meaning to this actually think that states like New York, California and New Jersey are gonna vote Republican in the fall if Obama is the nominee?
No, but you know that, which is why you picked Blue rather than battleground states. Obama has already tossed away MI and FL by blocking revotes, and his chances of winning OH and PA are significantly less than Hillary's. And the road to the White House passes through those four states. But I understand that people who took an inexperienced centrist like Obama and in their own minds turned him into a Liberal Messiah are always going to have problems with political reality.
Posted by tdraicer at April 23, 2008 11:55 AMemal, perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Just as we had a very good idea how Pennsylvania would end up voting long before yesterday, we also have a good idea what will happen in the remaining states. Clinton will win easily in Kentucky and West Virginia; Obama will win North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota; Indiana will be close.
It just isn't very credible to think that the last handful of states will vote in a fundamentally different way than the first 43. Clinton will need about 84% of the remaining available super delegates to get the nomination. There is no chance in hell they will swing to Clinton en masse, when Obama has more pledged delegates and has energized young voters and African-Americans. Obama certainly isn't perfect, but Clinton doesn't exactly come up smelling like roses. Her only shot at the nomination is a calamity befalling the Obama campaign, which is something over which she has no control.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 11:55 AMNo, but you know that, which is why you picked Blue rather than battleground states. Obama has already tossed away MI and FL by blocking revotes, and his chances of winning OH and PA are significantly less than Hillary's. And the road to the White House passes through those four states. - tdraicer
If you're going to make that argument (and I think electability arguments are extremely unreliable this far out), you need to look at all states, not just the ones you want to. You'll find that Obama has a better shot to win overall, thanks to states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico (which Clinton won), Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 12:01 PM...and his chances of winning OH and PA are significantly less than Hillary's.
That's a load of BS.
But I understand that people who took an inexperienced centrist like Obama and in their own minds turned him into a Liberal Messiah are always going to have problems with political reality.
Yeah, that's me. Kneeling down before the altar of Obama. It's Wednesday, right? Yes, Wednesday so it must be Obama.
Posted by snark at April 23, 2008 12:05 PMSorry to rain on your parade with the facts. All the states won't decide the election-those four will. And Obamna is far more likely to lose all four.
But apart from blacks understandably voting favorite son and "tepid" Obama supporters who have no problem with Hillary winning, I've found Obama supporters are people who have convinced themselves that Hope, Change and Unity are a political program; that Obama, an inexperienced Chicago pol, is somehow a representative of a New Politics; and that a mushy centrist (who on economic matters has campaigned to Clinton's Right) is somehow a reincarnation of RFK and MLK combined.
If the results weren't likely to be President McCain, it would all be really funny.
tdraicer, you really ought to get out from behind your computer and talk to some Obama supporters. We are all sorts of folks who are voting for Obama for all sorts of reasons.
You obviously became politically aware in 2000, or you would understand that every state votes and they don't always vote red, blue, and purple. Political alignments swing based on changing demographics, issues, and candidates. With Obama as the nominee, states like Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa lean our direction while states like Virginia and North Carolina are likely to be in play.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 12:35 PMThe 2,025 delegate threshold you cited in your post is without counting Florida and Michigan; with those two states added to the mix, the threshold becomes 2,214. Securing the nomination by machination, i.e., to the point of excluding the MI and FL delegations from the convention, is tantamount to political suicide for Barack Obama.
I know, I know. Just sayin' ...
Posted by Donald from Hawaii at April 23, 2008 12:42 PMDonald from Hawaii, the nomination will be decided without Florida and Michigan and it won't make a damn bit of difference in the general election. Do you really think Democratic primary voters are going to blame Obama for the DNC's decision, and then vote for McCain as a consequence? People have much bigger fish to fry - little things like the economy, war, the cost of gasoline etc.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 01:01 PMCAPJ, the reason Clinton Supporters continue to rag on about MI and FL is that Hillary continues to do so, and she did so today. I am amazed at a Democratic candidate for president who thinks that a vote with only one of the two candidates on the ballot is a fair vote. But she does. Does anyone, for a second, think that if it were Obama that ran unopposed in MI, Clinton would be fighting for the votes to count in his column? Nope. It's "Fair for me, not Fair for you" politics. Same Old.
Posted by T2 at April 23, 2008 02:21 PMVoters from MI (at least this one) continue to "rag on about MI" because OBAMA didn't wanTA revote when it was up to him. Gee, his name woulda been on a ballot then but NOOOOOOO...
Posted by Sharon at April 23, 2008 06:42 PMSharon, there were some fundamental reasons why a Michigan revote didn't happen, and it had nothing to do with Obama. Democrats who crossed over to the GOP primary since the Democratic one didn't count would have been prohibited from voting in the revote, which would obviously not be fair. I heard there were Voting Rights Act issues as well. Of course, the primary couldn't happen without Republican support in the state legislature and they had no interest in helping the Democrats. If you want to blame someone, unfortunately that would be Governor Granholm for signing the bill to move up the primary.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 23, 2008 07:34 PMhal, come off the ledge. Over half the country doesn't like or trust Hillary. She's not going to win the nomination, much less the election. Either vote for Obama, or vote to end abortion in the U.S. Your choice.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 23, 2008 07:37 PMAlvord, Clinton does not lead Obama in votes.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 23, 2008 07:41 PMkoshembos, your presumption that which Democratic candidate wins or loses a blue state in a primary will automatically win or lose it as the Democratic candidate in November has no basis in reality. It is a fantasy created to justify Clinton's nomination. Nice try, though. By the way, considering that several Clinton supporters are now claiming that Hillary has the lead in the popular vote explains much about their problems with math.
It's been a close race. The presumptive winner has performed poorly, the challenger has a greater mass appeal, and despite the wishes of her followers, Clinton will not win the nomination. The love that they feel for Clinton just isn't shared by the rest of the world. She won't be good at the head of the ticket, she is less likely to win in the fall, and her coattails are non-existent.
But don't stop believing.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 23, 2008 07:58 PM