Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

It has generally been assumed that the Obama campaign wanted the Democratic race to end as soon as possible while the Clinton campaign was determined to keep fighting all the way through the convention. But perhaps that assumption is off the mark. Here's Clinton campaign chair, the usually not off the talking points Terry McAuliffe speaking in Oregon:

During a Medford appearance Wednesday, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign and a high-ranking Democrat said he believes his party's presidential pick will be sewn up shortly after the voters have spoken in the 10 remaining primaries.

"I think it will be over in June," said Terry McAuliffe, former chairman for the Democratic National Committee.

Congressman Barney Frank, a long time and high profile supporter of Hillary Clinton, went even further this week:

Longtime Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts - A Hillary Clinton supporter and the brother of senior Clinton policy advisor Ann Lewis - said Tuesday that whichever Democratic presidential candidate is trailing should drop out once it "became clear that candidate had no remaining practical chance of winning the nomination," the Associated Press reports.

Frank named the date by which he believes that candidate should give up the fight: June 3rd, the day of the South Dakota and Montana primaries. He added that the trailing candidate should drop out "probably sooner" than that.

Following Frank's logic, it sure sounds like the Congressman wants Clinton to drop out by June 3, at the latest, and perhaps even sooner than that. At this juncture, Barack Obama holds an overall 142-delegate lead and an even larger 164-pledged delegate lead -- leads that do not appear likely to disappear any time soon. Indeed, while the Clinton argument seems to rely on the possibility that superdelegates would swing en masse in her favor, the fact of the matter is that since as long back as February 5, and even continuing to this week, superdelegates have been moving noticeably towards Obama and not Clinton. What's more, and perhaps more importantly, given the demographics and polling out of the remaining states, as well as the apportionment of delegates acress congressional districts and proportional splits of delegates (rather than a winner-take-all system), it appears highly unlikely, if not nearly impossible, that Clinton will be able to catch up to Obama among pledged delegates. As such, because Clinton will most likely remain behind in the overall and pledged delegate counts come June 3 and Frank seems to be calling on the candidate behind in the race for 2,024 to drop out, it sounds (at least to these ears) that Frank is making an early argument that Clinton, whom he supports, should be easing herself out of the race.

But even taking McAuliffe's less strong words at their face, it's hard to see how Clinton would emerge the winner under the prediction he made in Oregon (even though he did explicitly say later that he believed Clinton would be the nominee). Given the great likelihood (spelled out above) that Obama will continue to hold a significant delegate lead in June, it's hard to understand how, in such a situation, Clinton would emerge as the nominee in June while trailing, both among pledged delegates and delegates overall. For Clinton to win at this juncture, it seems just shy of necessary that Obama comes into the convention with a lead, but a delegate mark short of 2,024, leaving open the possibility that the convention will go to multiple ballots in which Clinton might be able to eventually emerge on top.

Can things still change? Certainly. Anyone who talks in hard terms about what will happen about what might or even might likely happen doesn't know what they're talking about. To the point, is it possible that Obama will tank over the next month and a half? It's certainly a possibility, one that the Clinton campaign seems to be banking on. Specifically, the Clinton campaign pushed the talking point today that last night's debate changed everything.

But we've heard that argument before. We've heard that Obama was done after revelations about some of the things that his reverend said, or that he was done after he used the term "typical white person" to describe his own white grandmother, or that he was done after he admittedly slipped up in the wording of his comments in San Francisco -- after each of which Obama has persevered, and indeed maintained his lead in the race for the nomination.

Will last night's debate finally be the feather that breaks the camel's back? There is little tangible evidence that would lead me to believe that Obama's superdelegates are about to bolt, or alternatively that a large portion of undecided superdelegates are about to move to Clinton. In fact, Obama has picked up two new superdelegate endorsements today, including one that switched his backing from Clinton to Obama. So while it could happen, I just don't see it actually happening. As such, and in light of the comments by Frank and McAuliffe as well as the reality on the ground, it's getting increasingly hard for me to see a genuine path to the nomination for Clinton.

Tags: Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Re: Clinton Campaign: Over in June

Give the Clinton campaign credit.

I think they recognize that niether candidate will be president if this goes to the convention and they're ready to fight these next 10 contests until the end and accept their fate, whatever it is, after the votes have been cast.

by SFValues 2008-04-17 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: Over in June

Terry McAuliffe finally makes an intelligent statement.

by nwgates 2008-04-17 11:50AM | 0 recs
Why cast votes if the supes can just switch?

Even if the remaining states all cast their votes for Obama, he can't win without the supes. And if Clinton is counting on the supes elected so far to switch, then why should she quit after all the votes have been cast? Just because they got elected doesn't mean that she feels bound to defer to that.

by Louise 2008-04-17 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why cast votes if the supes can just switch?

You're saying something will make the SDs vote for her over Obama if he won all the remaining contests.

by ragekage 2008-04-17 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: Over in June

I will say this.  If Hillary Clinton follows this and this thing ends after Indiana and North Cakalackey, then she will have earned enormous respect from me, and others like me.

It would not surprise me if she wound up giving a speech not unlike Gore's concession speech that will be heralded by many as "the best speech she gave all campaign.  If she had been that way throughout this campaign..."

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-17 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: Over in June

She's not going to concede.

She's going to literally pound him in PA, Ky, W Va, Ind, and PR.

He will win NC and Ore.

Why should she quit?  He's going to limp into the convention, and he should.

He is unelectable in the GE.

by sas 2008-04-17 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: Over in June

Well, I'm certain you'll be the first to admit you were wrong if you turn out to be- right?

Remember, folks, Clinton has to blow out Obama. We were just told so, or else.

by ragekage 2008-04-17 11:06PM | 0 recs
The problem for Clinton is...

Obama just doesn't have a glass jaw, like she believed he did.

Now, he took a pounding last night. It was a 3 on 1 debate. And even the 1 time the asked Clinton about Bosnia and she admitted she did not say what she knew to be true, no one (even Obama) followed up with, "So you are admitting you lied." It would have been easy, but no-one did demonstrating just how biased the whole evening was.

In the midst of taking this pounding, he never lost it. He did not have his best night, but nothing happened that was a game changer. Clinton had her best chance last night for one and it didn't happen.

The fat lady might not be singing, but she has her pitch harp out.

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 11:10AM | 0 recs
A front pager does the math again.

  Thank you, Jonathan.  It comes up Obama ever since Hillary lost eleven "insignificant" states in a row by 33%.  America loves a winner, one who brings hope of desperately needed change and a better future, and that is what Obama does.  No amount of slash and burn campaigning will bring him down.  This man from humble circumstances has come out of nowhere to blow the inevitable candidate and all her tens of millions of dollars and enormous name recognition and all her hard wired connections and her high priced "talent" out of the water.  He's made a whole new rule book for future office seekers.  I'm so proud of this guy I could bust my buttons.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-17 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem for Clinton is...

Well, except for the fact that Obama performed horribly and was almost to the point of anger and calling the debate an outright farce.

Look, Obama is no fool, but he continually reminds us that he is a rookie in politics.  For an exercise, just listen to the actual words and vocabulary the Clinton used vs. what Obama used throughout the debate: Clinton trumped Obama badly with her details, wit and range of understanding on the real issue questions.  Clinton does know how to speak firmly and with confidence, and while Obama has proved himself in speeches and small settings, when he is confronted by tough questions, personal issues and mysteries surrounding his history, he cannot or will not give straight answers.  What are debates for if not to get some answers?  That is a negative against him, anyway you look at it, and especially for someone who is possibly going to be a President.

The debate had an obvious winner: Senator Clinton.  What is most disparaging is that Obama supporters cannot outright admit that their candidate Barack Obama lost at anything, because if they did, they would have to admit to cracks appearing in the falsely imagined/created image of Obama the Man from Hope and Change, the perfect leader.  

Personally, I would have much more respect for Obama and his supporters if he would have himself admitted to losing on his own failures than to try and spin his lose to the poor range of questions or the badly moderated event.  

Is everything always going to go Obama's way if he is President? Obviously, no.  So he can whine and spin and deflect all he wants now in the primary, but as President, he won't have others to hide behind then.

by Steven B 2008-04-17 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem for Clinton is...

I am an Edwardian, and will work my ass off for whomever the nominee is. I still think Edwards would have been our best chance to win. I'm not whining, I'm calling it as I see it.

To not see that this was a bit biased, is delusional. Some debates have been more biased for or against others all the way through, this is just about the most blatant. She preformed better, yes, much better, but I don't think it was game changing because there is no melt down video to exploit. He is playing prevent defense and run out the clock so he can give up a score or two.

She is losing the nomination, and probably only has about a 15% chance of winning. Its called the math. Its not impossible, just improbable. I had to come to that realization with my guy earlier.

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The problem for Clinton is...

I think there really IS something going on with this cycle being different than previous cycles.  It started with the differences in fundraising and Hillary and/or McCain counting on the DLC/R equivalent standards while Obama favored the "bottom-up", digital standard.  It moved on from there, though, IMO.   I don't think the standards from previous cycles apply this cycle on ANY of it.  I think the voters really ARE tired of the negative campaigning, as well.  

I'm an Obama supporter despite my demographic as an old white woman; I was also a Dean supporter and think that the 50-state strategy is best.  Might be that I'm foolin' myself, but I listen to folks like Chris Matthews bemoan how Obama just can't seem to "put her away" and I think, "You pundits just have NO clue how that was the OLD way of politics ... so last cycle."  I see Hillary's campaign as expecting 20th century methods to make a difference in the 21st century.  I don't think it can happen for her, but if it does, I'll vote for her in the GE.

by Anita 2008-04-18 06:48AM | 0 recs
probably not the straw...

I find it hard to believe last night was the 'straw' or that Clinton will get much mileage out of Ayers.  Certainly, some leaners may fall on the Clinton side but the overall trend of Clinton picking up on all these faux controversies and bashing Obama seems to play more into people's perceptions (right or wrong) that "she'll say anything to win."

Not saying that is fair, but it is very difficult for her to make up ground thru negativity.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-17 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

It's certainly a possibility, one that the Clinton campaign seems to be banking on. Specifically, the Clinton campaign pushed the talking point today that last night's debate changed everything.

While I hate to overstate the intelligence of the American voting public, what happened last night that could change anything?  What's the clip that will be aired that will destroy Obama?  When there's more conversation about the questions than the answers, it's hard to see it as a game changer.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

I think the lack of a dramatic moment is key here.  Let's face it, most folks aren't paying attention.  Heck, Jerome didn't even watch the debate last night.

Without some major gotcha soundbite which cable news can show over and over, it seems like the effects of the debate are marginal at best.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-17 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

The comment below reminded me...

There is one clip that I could see being played, and that's Clinton saying that Obama can win the election.  That seems to be the one moment that people left with and I don't see how it helps her.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

I guess that could be a gotcha moment in the sense that there has been a whisper campaign about a whisper campaign about Obama's electability.

Agreed, does not help HRC since BO's perceived lack of electability is pretty much her last argument to the SDs.

Let's assume this is all over by middle of June, which seems pretty reasonable.  By beginning of July, the dem candidate will have bumped up in the polls overtaking McCain as dems unite and we'll all be wondering what the fuss was about.  

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-17 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

You are an idiot if you think Dems will unite.

by sas 2008-04-17 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

"Specifically, the Clinton campaign pushed the talking point today that last night's debate changed everything."

The talking points:

1. Rezko changed everything
2. Rev Wright changed everything
3. Michelle-Proud-Gate changed everything
4. NaftaGate changed everything
5. Bitter-Gate changed everything
6. Ayers-WeatherGate changes everything
7. Double digit win in Penn WILL change everything

The truth:

1. Iowa changed everything............

Everything else has been details.

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-17 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

Good to see there's an end in sight to all this.  I still think things can happen for Sen. Clinton by then, so may the better candidate win.  And I read somewhere 10 million people watched last night, so that's huge.

Obviously, the debate last night was absurd in its content.  I expected a Bittergate question, but 2 Wright questions?  I also thought the Bosnia question was stupid, particularly the format ("oh my god it cost you my vote how could you say something that turned out to be wrong you must hate puppies" is what I think that guy said)but really that it was asked at all.

I think Clinton's main argument on this shouldn't be that it was a "substantive debate" but basically "yeah, it was a Drudgian freakshow.  What'd you expect, Senator?  Did you not see what the media did to my husband for 8 years?  You not notice that Spitzer is hounded to resign, while Vitter sits happily in the Senate?"  

"Senator, if you find the media absurd now, you have no idea what you'll be facing when its McCain at the other podium.  The media will do anything to help him win, I think that their questions will be even sillier."  

"You seemed to sit there in shock and hope things would be different.  I can fight thru the crap and still accomplish things on the issues that matter.  And that's what we need."

I do think the race has begun to do more damage than help for the chances for either candidate in November.  Both have seen their negatives rise.  But I think Clinton has a chance to sway some people.  If she can, she can win.  If she can't, then she probably wouldn't be able to sway indies.  The moment of truth is upon us.    

by bosdcla14 2008-04-17 11:14AM | 0 recs

Your optimism is admirable.

I think we can all agree this debate was unfair to both Democrats. The Bosnia question to Hillary was as silly as the questions to Obama on Wright, bitter, Ayers, et cetera. The worse problem for Democrats was ABC's right-wing framing of the issue questions on Iraq and tax policy. Gibson and Steph might as well have been Sean Hannity and Grover Norquist.

That said, I really don't think there's any possibility of Hillary catching up in the delegate count by the time June 3rd rolls around. She can narrow the gap if she's lucky, but it won't be enough.

by Hatch 2008-04-17 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Optimism

Whoa, whoops, full disclosure, I'm an Obama supporter.  

I do think there's a chance the debate is a game-changer (also thought that about Wright, never really bought it about bittergate).  

And if Clinton does cut way into Obama's lead, I hope he'll consider stepping back and being Veep.  

by bosdcla14 2008-04-17 11:40AM | 0 recs
No Chance

If people hadn't been paying attention to this race before, and if these scandals hadn't already been played out over and over on TV and in newspapers and online, I'd agree that the debate might be a game-changer. But I think this is all old news for the most part, and there aren't enough undecided voters left for Hillary to make much of a recovery.

by Hatch 2008-04-17 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Optimism

If the roles were reversed, and Obama came back and cut deeply into Hillary's lead, but did not overtake her, would she step aside and give him the nomination?


by PatriotAct1984 2008-04-17 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Optimism

Good point.

by bosdcla14 2008-04-17 12:47PM | 0 recs
"Can Obama beat McCain? Yes, yes yes."

I think that exchange for all intents and purposes ended her campaign. My understanding is that this has been her main lever to move the SDs; that Obama cannot win and they have to step in to save the party from itself. If Obama can beat McCain, where is the incentive for the SDs to step in and do something they are manifestly reluctant to do, namely overturn the results of the primary contests?

by Purplepeople 2008-04-17 11:16AM | 0 recs

well obviously the answer is for her to say, she didn't really mean it.

I am sure that would go over well.

you know I only had to say that because I was on TV. I didn't really mean it I don't think Obama should win and you should endorse me, and no I wouldn't just say anything to win, including that Obama can win when the next day I will say he can't.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-17 11:21AM | 0 recs

I think that she painted herself into a corner there.

by Purplepeople 2008-04-17 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

She may have painted herself in a corner, but let's at least give her some credit for saying the right thing.

She either truly believes Obama can win in November or she doesn't believe he can win in November and put the best interests of the party first and said he could.

I didn't like the way she piled on to Obama last night on Wright, Ayers, etc., but after that question I let out a sigh of relief when she said "Yes, Yes, Yes".

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-04-17 12:16PM | 0 recs

It was the right response and she gave it, so kudos to her.

by Purplepeople 2008-04-17 12:19PM | 0 recs

So she lied, again (Bosnia, remember, said "something that I knew wasn't true," her words, not mine)!

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 04:35PM | 0 recs

Yep.  That's been her "main lever to move the SDs" and most have moved to Obama.

That ain't gonna change anytime soon.

by bawbie 2008-04-17 11:22AM | 0 recs
"When Harry Met Sally" Yes! Yes! Yes!

I thought Meg Ryan gave a better read.

by bernardpliers 2008-04-17 12:07PM | 0 recs
now, that's funny!

now, that's funny!

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

May you be right Jonathan that the Clinton campaign is acknowledging that a convention fight would be suicide. As it is certain that she will be behind in  pledged delegates and very likely in popular vote after the primaries are finished, if McAuliffe and Frank are to be believed she will drop out. That will have been a good few months too late of course, given that the election has been locked in its current vice-grip for two months now. but still, having it over in June will give the better part of the summer to Obama to try to reunite the party and bring the Clinton coalition aboard.

by wasder 2008-04-17 11:20AM | 0 recs
Obama is not a uniter...

I don't think Obama can unite the party, especially if it's controlled by elitist leftists who most average Democrats don't like.

Most independents, moderate/conservative Democrats will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.  Hillary can bring votes from the right, Obama cannot, especially after his beating last night.  

If Hillary is the nominee, the Dems get back the White House.  If Obama is the nominee, President John McCain will be utter on January 20, 2009.

by stefystef 2008-04-17 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not a uniter...

if Hillary can bring votes from the right, why is it her supporters complain about open primaries?

can't she also bring them over during the primary?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-17 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not a uniter...

"Hillary can bring votes from the right"


by xodus1914 2008-04-17 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not a uniter...

   What elite leftists are you talking about? that's a statement worthy of Rush Limbaugh...not a Democrat.
by southernman 2008-04-17 12:02PM | 0 recs
LOL...this is hilarious!!

   I thought we should vote for Hillary b/c she's withstood all of the attacks the GOP has ever thrown. They hate her and she's still here. She said as much just last night.

  According to you however, we should vote for Hillary b/c she can bring voters from the right!

  Bullshit!! That is ridiculous that not even Clinton is claiming it.

by southernman 2008-04-17 12:04PM | 0 recs

These statements about Hillary's electability and her being vetted are completely divorced from reality. She has yet to face the GOP slime machine and her negatives are going through the roof. Democratic voters polled believe Obama is more electable against McCain by a wide margin. Voters don't trust her, according to recent polls even her own supporters don't trust her. What will happen to those negatives when the piles of crap about pardons to Weatherman, FALN terrorists, working for a Commie law firm, shady donors and a long list of real and manufactured bogus 'issues' starts getting churned out by the same slime merchants that Hillary is now parroting.

Her performance in last nights debate will reinforce every negative about her. While Obama declined to pile on with the moderators on the Bosnia issue, even though the moderators did not follow up and he had an easy opening. Hillary was doing her best Rove imitation at every opportunity. I don't think the story will be about who won the debate or whether Obama was off his game or whatever. It will be about the sleazy gotcha slime instead of the issues.

Voters reacted when Hillary got blasted from the entire panel and the moderators before NH. I think the potential blowback could undo Hillary sooner then would have been the case without last nights sleaze fest. You won't hear Obama whining about how unfair the press was to him, he will use the debate to go on the offensive, the perfect illustration of the old politics versus what the country needs. I think this could be a big plus for him.

I think having to face everything the Clintons and the wingnuts could throw at him now has made him better prepared. I'm not worried about a divided party, the candidate is going to need to be able to withstand trial by fire if they are going to win in Novemeber. Obama has proven up to the task so far. WHile Hillary has been hoping for an Obama collapse it is far more likely that her own campaign will implode before his does.

by hankg 2008-04-17 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Delusions

I think the potential blowback could undo Hillary sooner then would have been the case without last nights sleaze fest. You won't hear Obama whining about how unfair the press was to him, he will use the debate to go on the offensive, the perfect illustration of the old politics versus what the country needs. I think this could be a big plus for him.

I agree completely with this simply because I think we're moving on to a new kind of politics in the US.  It's partly because of Obama that we're doing this, IMO, but I also think it's because we're just tired of the politics that take good people down and elect losers by slim margins who can't get anything done.  

by Anita 2008-04-18 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is not a uniter...

"Hillary can bring votes from the right, Obama cannot, especially after his beating last night."  

I hope that was a snark  but if not

April 17, 2008
Watergate-era Republican backs Obama
(CNN) -- From the politics/strange bedfellows file: Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has won an endorsement from Republican and former Nixon Watergate figure William D. Ruckelshaus.

To the very few Uneducated Clinton supporters (no offense to the many intelligent ones)
I know what you are thinking when you see someone involved in watergate is backing Obama and you assume he is a crook  but lets be clear he was fired for not following Nixon's criminal policies  he may be a republican but he is more honest then some Dems I know  

by wellinformed 2008-04-17 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

It will end by May 21st right after Obama wins big in Oregon.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-04-17 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

no I think if she doesn't drop out after NC, she is in till the end.

after NC they are expected to basically split. also the states left won't be worth much in terms of delegates or pop. vote.

thus after NC, the debate is about MI/FL Hillary knows she has till June 3rd to get a favorable outcome if she doesn't the supes endorse the leader and end it.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-17 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

The problem is that FL isn't going to be enough.  If Obama can wipe out 85-90% of her PA gains with his NC results, then there's no way she gets any sort of lead in any metric without giving him 0 votes in MI.

You can make a case for Florida, it's a stretch but it can be made.  Michigan isn't going to convince anyone.

She really does need at least a 15 point win in PA and probably a 20 point one to have a chance.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

I was just saying her dropping out after Oregon is HIGHLY unlikely.

if she doesn't drop after NC, she is not dropping out.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-17 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

She's not dropping out, period.

Her supporters want her to stay in.  

by sas 2008-04-17 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic

Well, that was abrupt.  It sort of throws the 24/7 infighting going on here into relief.  

by rfahey22 2008-04-17 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

I think the Clinton camp is putting that out there to lull the Obama people into passive campaigning.  There is some interesting politics going on out there.  It is also covering all the bases.

When they say the race will be over by June, they just might mean that Hillary will be taking it by June, like her husband did in 1992.  

I think the Obama camp is a little scared now, big cracks in Obama's mask showed last night.  Hillary also looked good to the voters in IN, WV, MO, NC, KY, ND and PR last night.  Let's not forget those upcoming states.  If we are going to take Wyoming serious, we should take Montana seriously too.

Complete the primaries!  If you are going to ignore Michigan and Florida (and give it to the Republicans in November), you might as well finish the game.

Hillary '08!  The Dream is still Alive!

by stefystef 2008-04-17 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

right so the campaign says it will be over in June,but in June the scream GOTCHA, and they expect what? the SDs will rush to endorse her so they can go through a bitter convention fight?

or you think the campaign is publically saying its over in June but in private telling the supes, nope I am taking this to a convention fight, so endorse me now?

how do either of those make her look good to the Supes? they dont want a convention fight, so I don't see how hillary forcing a convention fight helps her, they would just vote against her then out of spite.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-17 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

LOOK-go to SUSA's matchups, out today.

He does not do well againt McCain in more states than she does not do well against MCCain.

The Republican internals show him to be easily beatable, but not her.

Go to the sites people.  I'm not making this up.

by sas 2008-04-17 05:45PM | 0 recs
My Feeling...

Hillary didn't find her activist base until relatively recently. A lot of them came late to the party, whereas Obama's people--myself included--have been at it since last summer or longer and are getting more than a little tired of this particular phase of the fight. Maybe that gives Hillary a little bit of a leg up in these final contests... but definitely not enough to close the gap. The delegate counts will be relatively even from here till the end and Obama will still be up 100+ delegates when June rolls around.

by Hatch 2008-04-17 11:30AM | 0 recs
They already voted in North Dakota.

I know the rest of the country usually confuses us with them, and to be fair, we do look a lot alike.  :-)

We have our primary here in South Dakota on June 3.  DWU put out a poll two days ago that shows Obama with a 12-point lead here.

MT, SD, NC, and OR are likely to go for Obama, WV, KY, PA, and PR for Clinton.  Indiana?  The polls are all over the map.    Your guess is as good as mine, but if I absolutely had to choose, at this point I'd say advantage Clinton there, but probably not by more than 5 or 6 percent.

by Progressive Witness 2008-04-17 12:04PM | 0 recs
Obama actually picked up 4 superdelegates today

In addition to the Oklahoma and DC superdelegates, two members of North Carolina's congressional delegation, Mel Watt and David Price, endorsed Obama today. ry/1040043.html

by jimotto 2008-04-17 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama actually picked up 4 superdelegates toda

Those are leftover from yesterday.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 11:37AM | 0 recs
The Democratic Race Will Be Over by May 20t

May 20th is the day that Obama will pass 50% of pledged delegates. Essentially the race is over that day.

1416 PDs  - Today
73 PDs - PA - April 22 (giving Clinton 85- based on a 15 pt. vote spread.)
2 PDs - Guam - May 3 (giving Clinton 2)
65 PDs - NC - May 6 (giving Clinton 50)
34 PDs - IN - May 6 (giving Clinton 38)
11 PDs - WV - May 13 (giving Clinton 17)
1600 PDs - Total

1627 PDs- 50.5% of Pledged delegates

27 PDs needed to win

53 PDs total - May 20 - Oregon
52 PDs total - May 20 - Kentucky

Obama forecasted to win around 50%.

Obama will pass the 1627 mark by as much as 25 or more on May 20. For many supers, that will be the deciding day. After May 6th when it will be obvious that he will pass that threshold in two weeks, I speculate that alot of supers that have been on the fence will endorse Obama.


by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over by May 20t

whats so special about 1627?

by TruthMatters 2008-04-17 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over by May 20t

50% + 1 of pledged delegates.  That's a big deal for many supers.  

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over by May 20t

After Clinton wins six in a row, plus Kentucky?  Dunno.

by Eleanor A 2008-04-17 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over by May 20t

So you actually think Clinton will win NC?

by politicsmatters 2008-04-17 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over by May 20t

What 6 in a row do you see?

Currently Obama is on a 2 state winning streak.  Clinton wins PA which gives her 1.  Maybe she gets Guam but who knows, I'll give it to her though as 2.  Her best case for IN/NC is that they split, so you can either have a three in a row of PA/Guam/IN or you can start a new streak with IN.

She wins WV, that's 2.  She wins Kentucky but loses OR, so again, you can have a 3 in a row of IN/WV/KY (but lose your earlier one), or keep KY open.

She wins PR, that's 2 if you have KY open.  Obama has a double digit lead in SD right now so at best, Clinton splits MT/SD.

I don't see any 6 in a row, and I was giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt with states.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over by May 20t

Wow, 6 in a row. I don't see how that can happen.


You must be forecasting a Clinton victory in either North Carolina, South Dakota or Montana?

In NC, Obama's up 18pts at ( rimary.php)

Regarding SD, Obama won ND by 25, and both NE and CO 34 pts each. ID, next to MT, he won by 60 pts.

That seems a bit much for Clinton to close.

5 in a row, maybe, if she could pull off Oregon.

In the end, what difference would it make in the pledged delegates? Another 10, maybe. Not much of a chink in his 163 lead.


by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Obama spoke about the debate today.  The first 30 seconds of this is a better clip than anything I've seen from last night.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 11:39AM | 0 recs
The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

It's pretty obvious.  The Clinton's know what they're doing, Obama doesn't have a clue, except how to game the system.  We've got 10 primaries coming up -- not caucuses...Hillary will nab the nomination by June 3.

by bach 2008-04-17 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

Would you care to make a prediction on each contest?

How much do you forecast she will close the 163 pledged delegate gap?

I am especially curious about your forecast for PA. What do you believe will be the popular vote split and the pledged delegate split?

by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

Please don't let reality interfere with the debate.  Apparently 'gaming the system' is code for 'winning more delegates.'

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-17 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

Yeah, I think so too.  And Hillary's supporters (of which I am one) are not going to let go of the FL/MI issue without one hell of a fight.

What happens if one of the parties starts telling folks they can't vote in the general election because of some technicality?  This is people's right to vote we're talking about, not their privilege - a fact the Obamites seem to conveniently forget when it suits them.

(And it burns me up how many of them are just fine with this disenfranchisement.  If the high heel were on the other foot - with Hillary blocking a revote - they'd be threatening riots in the streets.)

by Eleanor A 2008-04-17 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

If Clinton has used that high heel to kick a little ass when these states were deemed illegitimate in the primary back in 2007, she would have credibility on the matter and could have got something done to make sure their votes counted.

But that ship sailed in '07 and Clinton wasn't on it.

by SFValues 2008-04-17 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

   Eleanor....two points. First, it's not disenfranchisement. They got to vote. They knew going into the ballot box that it was a symbolic vote. They knew that, they voted anyway. That's not disenfranchisement...speaking as someone who lives in the Deep South...that isn't close to disenfranchisement. Purging the voter rolls is disenfranchisement. Two voting machines in a precinct of 5000 voters is disenfranchisement.

  Second point...Hillary tried to block the voting in Nevada when she thought it favored Obama. She tried to change the rules of the game there, just like in MI and FL...where she once publicly agreed that they wouldn't and shouldn't count...


by southernman 2008-04-17 11:59AM | 0 recs

There is no legal right to participate in a primary election. This is why some states do not allow Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries or vice-versa. You only have a legal right to participate in a general election.

Not going to satisfy you, I'm sure, but it's the sad truth.

by Hatch 2008-04-17 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June


Why do you think a party would tell it's members they couldn't participate in the general?

Well if the Republicans did that it would actually be a good thing.

Like it or not, Clinton signed on to the DNC agreement to strip MI and FL of their delegates. You may think that unfair. And everyone thinks there was no good solution to the problem, only less bad ones. It stank no matter what the DNC chose to do.

At the same time, in 2012, 2016 and beyond, states will think really, really hard before  jumping to the head of the primary.


by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

ok, i've yet to hear an equitable resolution. obama didn't make the rules. neither did clinton. clinton has more supporters in both the michigan and florida parties, so it would stand to reason that she had more sway over their decision-making.

something a lot of you don't realize about florida (the state in which i live and about which i write for a living): true, the gop moved up the date, and attached the paper trail. also and equally true: not one democrat voted against attaching the two in committee. the state party botched this one.

the revote was a no-go because of financial issues. it was completely impractical to do the mail-in ballot thing. no one knew how to throw that together. even the clintonites in the party power apparatus knew that. clinton said no to a caucus (understandable). the state party didn't have the money, or from a constitutional sense, the authority, to hold an election. it was a nonstarter from the moment it was proposed. that isn't obama's fault. neither is it hillary's. it just sucks. our state party proved pretty damn stupid if you ask me.

so, do you count votes as they are, when neither candidate campaigned and voters were told their votes wouldn't count? that doesn't seem equitable to me, especially given the fact that obama closes when he campaigns, even in states he doesn't win.

in michigan, same deal. levin and granholm pushed the date up, not obama. obama's objection to a revote centered on the stipulation that only those who voted the first go-round could revote. That means those who voted in the gop primary because they were told their dem votes were meaningless couldn't vote. that seems like a reasonable position, at least to me.

i think seating the delegates and giving none to obama seems pretty unreasonable to just about anyone and everyone with whom i've ever spoken.

so, tell me, what constitutes an equitable solution? and no, equitable doesn't mean "seated as is," because that will not happen.

by jbill 2008-04-17 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

What would be equitable in Michigan would be for Obama to pick up the "Other" (I don't remember the category name) of all the voters that did not vote for Clinton.

I doubt Clinton would accept that.

by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

I think most Obama supporters are willing to let Florida go as is.  That's slightly unfair, but not overly so.  But counting Michigan as is is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.  He was not on the ballot because the Dem leadership urged the candidates to remove themselves.  He was not on the ballot.  Keep repeating that to yourself.  As an Obama supporter, I'd be ok with counting Florida and having a Michigan revote, but neither one should be allowed to count 100% of its delegates; there needs to be a punishment.  Let them count half or 2/3 even, but if you don't punish them (in fact rewarding them by letting Michigan vote so late at a critical time), every state will move up in 2012.  And those states will move to December, and November, and the summer of 2011.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-17 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

If we had webbed feet, we would be ducks.This Florida and Michigan pissing and moaning is both ammussing and telling.Sore loosers.

by tommy 2008-04-17 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

   you are dreaming. Clinton has NO mathematical shot at the nomination. The only way she gets it is if the superdelegates go against the majority of Democrats in the country.

  North carolina will go Obama. Indiana is a tossup. KY will go Clinton. PA will go Clinton. SD and MT will likely go Obama. Oregon is a tossup.

  Where exactly do you see Clinton making the gains she needs to pull ahead by June 3rd?

  She won't. She's lost. Obama has won the race. And once the last primary ends, the superdelegates will confirm that he won the race and give him the magic number needed to secure the nomination.

by southernman 2008-04-17 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

Clinton wins - PA, Ky, Ind, W Va, PR

Obama wins - NC, Ore, SD maybe Montana

Her states are bigger - popular vote will be close - with Florida, will go to her

Michigan must be dealt with

by sas 2008-04-17 05:50PM | 0 recs

Obama has won 14 of them. Clinton has won 15. Clinton doesn't automatically win all of the primaries.

by Hatch 2008-04-17 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: The Democratic Race Will Be Over in June

Oh I see, the Clintons have been sandbagging their campaign and purposefully losing caucuses and the first 40 states since January so they could crush Obama's hopes with their political savvy down the stretch.  Could the Clintons please stop toying with Obama and end this race. And on top of that, how honorary of the Clintons not to "game the system" for the first three months so they can win on democratic principles in the end. It's so "pretty obvious" to me now, I can't believe I didn't see this coming.

by reggie23 2008-04-17 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamaites ignoring the lion in the living room

Exactly how did they stop the legislatures of FL and MI?

Exactly how did they get them to break the rules in the first place?

Exactly how did he get the CLinton camp to agree to the rules at the start?

Man, he's good if he can do all of that, and beating McCain will be a lot easier than beating Clinton.

Make rum for the new jujitsu master!

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamaites ignoring the lion in the living room

room that is....

what a brane phart.

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamaites ignoring the lion in the living room


by PatriotAct1984 2008-04-17 12:05PM | 0 recs
You wouldn't be good at doing homework anyway

I have asked you probably five or six times to bring some proof to your accusations. This is the best you can come up with. Its tangential to your main argument. Please show some us some real solid evidence that matches the crazy claims that you are making. Please do that. Or shut the fuck up.

by babbitt 2008-04-17 01:05PM | 0 recs
Have anything from a real newspaper?

Have anything that's not conjecture?

by babbitt 2008-04-17 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: boyo

So, you only have conjecture and a fine people skills. Dude, you are SOL.

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 04:14PM | 0 recs
A drive-by

Do you have a habit of just dissing people, and zeroing out comments because you don't agree with them.  You think that is cute?

Have a donut for your drive-by troll-rating.

by 4justice 2008-04-21 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Im not here to do YOUR homework

it has been held up in-part to concerns from the Obama campaign, in-part, not completely, doesn't even say mostly due to them (and if they are agreeing to a do over, wouldn't you want to make sure its at least fair).  Again, you don't think the repugs are standing in the way because they want disunity in the dem party? You don't think that there are people objecting to it because they don't want to pay for it?

Yes, this artcle is written looking for the Clinton/Obama angle, and they found some. But the other issues are also affecting the outcome.

And you still haven't addressed my other points.  Who caused the problem to begin with? The Clinton campaign agreed to it to begin with, even Terry Mc for the sanctions. They want to change the rules now, mid-stream, because they are losing. If you do a little homework on that, I'm sure you'll find that to be true as well (I won't do yours).

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Ridiculous. You all end up saying

The Clinton Campaign agreed to the rules and sanctions before hand, that is a fact. May be its because they thought the would destroy everyone come Super Tuesday, I don't know.

They only changed their minds after they realized they were losing.

Even if your belief is right, its further proof that they can't run a good campaign. They would have made  some noise before they realized they were losing.

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Its about the RE_VOTES

They are losing those about needing to catch up.

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Its about the RE_VOTES

Ooops, I thought you meant pop vote.

Go back up the thread, I think you got confused.

The re-votes are up to the legislatures.

The legislatures caused the problems.

The Clinton campaign voted for the sanctions before they were losing.

They complained about the sanctions after they realized they were losing.

Even if you include them, they are still losing.

Your conjecture and insulting attitude is ineffective and boring.

Whomever the nominee is in, I will work my ass off for them.
So stop being such a dweeb to those who disagree with you.

by IowaMike 2008-04-17 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamaites ignoring the lion in the living room

Enough Obama supporters, along with Repugs, to block re-votes.....

You know the Repugs have an interest in keeping him in this race.....

by sas 2008-04-17 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

This primary is simple.
Either we are the Party of the DLC
or we are not.

You cannot support both Clintons without supporting the DLC.

The clear majority of Dems, by any measure are rejecting the DLC approach.

by nogo war 2008-04-17 11:47AM | 0 recs

Many uncommitted supers have made clear that they don't believe they should influence this election. Many have seen value in the campaign going to all the states. It's had a whole lot of upside.

While many have not publicly committed to the Pelosi club, there is no doubt that many do not want to thwart the will of the voters, as expressed through the pledged delegate process. There are already 8 in the Pelosi club, which states that they will endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates.  

So when Obama reaches 50+% on May 20th, for many supers, the voters will have decided, through the pledged delegate process. And the supers can then confirm this process by endorsing the winning candidate.


by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Obama picked up FIVE superdelegates between today and yesterday.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-17 11:57AM | 0 recs
This post does not address potential conflict

between leads in the popular vote vs. pledged delegates on June 3.  If that is the case, which to me seems likely, after the debate last night even more than ever, McAuliffe's statement could be interpreted to mean that Obama will drop out if Clinton emerges with a lead in the popular vote totals - because the supers will flock to Clinton under those circumstances..  

by Molee 2008-04-17 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: This post does not address potential conflict

Even popular vote isn't going to help her.  I played around with the spreadsheet yesterday giving her 25 point wins in WV, KY, and PR, knocked Obama's lead to the low end of NC's polls while putting Clinton up to the average of her PA polls, had OR within 5 and gave her IN.

On top of that I gave her the Florida popular vote count.

She still was down 80k votes or so.  

Her problem is that NC and PA are largely going to cancel out and most of the other states are small.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: This post does not address potential conflict

Did you bump up the percentage voting? Those numbers are from Kerry...turnout needs to be pretty high when you do your figuring.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-04-17 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: This post does not address potential conflict

Why would I do that when a quick spot check of states (Alabama -> DC) shows that no election came close to getting the same number of combined votes as Kerry did in 2004?  Primaries will never get as many people as generals.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: This post does not address potential conflict

If we are talking about the real clear politics site, everyone else that has anyalyzed it says the turnout has been much greater. Check the more recent states like Texas.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-04-17 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: This post does not address potential conflict

I just checked going back to Wisconsin and Texas is the ONLY state where the combined votes were greater than Kerry's.  Probably some of that was the Limbaugh effect.  Every other state showed a drop off.

Factor in that many of the upcoming primaries are closed and it's unlikely to have greater than Kerry vote totals.

Besides, it's rare to have both incredibly high turnouts and huge blowouts.  

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: This post does not address potential conflict

Indiana you forgot - which will go to her bigtime over "clinggate"

by sas 2008-04-17 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: This post does not address potential conflict

Cute. Couldn't get much traction out of the contrived "bittergate" so you take to calling it "clinggate". Priceless.

by tommy 2008-04-17 05:57PM | 0 recs
The Clintons can't be any clearer

   you are right. When they thought they were winning, they supported the DNC and sold MI and FL out. When they started losing...all of a sudden, they care about MI and FL not counting.

  Textbook example of the old politics that we don't need anymore.

by southernman 2008-04-17 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: IF the Clintons can't be any clearer

   We also need to win MN, Missouri, IA, NV, WA and others...without them we can't win. According to Clinton's own logic, she doesn't have a prayer to win those states, since she lost the primaries there.

  Also IL, DC, MD, CO and others.

by southernman 2008-04-17 03:32PM | 0 recs
McAulife also says Clinton will be the nominee

in the very link that you provided:

'Despite some political pundits who say Clinton should drop out, McAuliffe said of the New York senator, "She is going to Denver as the nominee for the Democratic Party."'

He is daring Obama to live by this because he thinks Clinton will win.

Interesting - I suspect Obama is on record as agreeing that.

by Molee 2008-04-17 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Let us not ..for one second lose sight..
years ago this was a parody. But how true it was. Vw

We certainly can continue to dismiss/attack fellow Democrats through the prism of our bias...and yes I have done so. However,; we must keep our eyes on the prize. fM

by nogo war 2008-04-17 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: excuse me, I meant...disenfranchised.

actually, you were closer to explaining what happened in your first post.

by haystax calhoun 2008-04-17 12:07PM | 0 recs
Enfrancuied by famed rocker...

Ronnie James Dio?

Ever helpful,


by Progressive Witness 2008-04-17 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

Let's not forget the popular vote. Even Obama supporters that have been polled feel that the popular vote winner should be the nominee. If it's Obama, fine. If not, Clinton should get it since neither can get enough delegates.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-04-17 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

We need a definition of "popular vote" before we can say if it's fair.  If you exclude FL and MI and get the estimates for the caucus states that don't count votes, it's still pretty unsurmountable.

The only way Clinton has any chance with popular vote is if you throw out caucus states AND give him 0 votes in MI.

...or she starts winning everything by 30%.

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

You don't think if Obama is limping at the end that the Super D's will just ignore FL do you? They may not "count" delegate-wise, but they do know the popular vote result.

I'm not saying this will happen but it is certainly a possibility. Obama needs to win more than NC and Oregon so that he looks strong for November. I think the odds are very bad for Hillary but not impossible.

The poll I saw had a huge majority that chose the popular vote winner over the delegate leader if no one gets enough delegates. Even the Obama supporters chose popular vote.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-04-17 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

It's not just Florida though.  I ran a test where I gave Obama crushing defeats in multiple states and he still had the popular vote lead after Florida.

He'll come close at least in IN and will probably win SD and MT.  NC and PA will largely cancel each other out as will KY and OR.  That leaves WV and PR to cancel out a half million vote lead (after Florida is added).  

by thezzyzx 2008-04-17 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

Again, as the previous poster stated, it depends on what your definition of "popular vote" is.  The key is the caucus states and Florida.  I assume nobody is going to accept counting MI votes for Clinton.

How do you count caucus votes?  What about states that don't release their totals?

This whole popular vote argument hinges on putting apples (primary votes) and oranges (caucus 'votes') together into some sort of fruit salad that everyone can agree on.  Doesn't seem likely.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-17 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

If it does come down to popular vote mattering, they know the totals. Just because they haven't released them doesn't mean they don't exist. I realize vote totals for caucuses are hard to compare with primaries, but so are the delegate totals between the two. It's a mess waiting to happen.

by tabbycat in tenn 2008-04-17 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

He has to do no such thing.If he dows not die .he will be the nominee.This is fucking pathetic.Obama wrapped up the nomination after crushing Hillary in Wisconsin.This was apparent to anybody dealing with reality, yet two months later we still have abunch of dead-enders desperately clinging to the notion that she will be the nominee.You people need help.

by tommy 2008-04-17 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will

Only because he deals with, as does the DNC, voter suppression.

This is going to come back to bite them all in the arse.

by sas 2008-04-17 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will


In spite of the sturm und drang about FL, what kind of logic is counting FL and Michigan, two elections where vast swatches of voters stayed home because THEY WERE TOLD it didn't count..

And NOT counting my state, a Caucas state, cause there are NO legit popular vote numbers?

You going to disinfranchise ME and the rest of WA State?

Or, can we just MAKE UP some numbers for our popular vote tally?

IF the popular vote is some kind of legit tally, how can you and the rest of the Hillary supporters whine about FL and throw all of us in WA state in the dumper?

Answer, the Democratic Primary is about Delegates?

That is why the count THEM and the Popular vote is not such an important metric, because there is NOT away to balance caucus states with primary states?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-17 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Let's not kid ourselves. Obama is ahead in reality by like 2-3 million votes if you figure out the Caucuses.

That is the data the SDs are going to go with.

by Darknesse 2008-04-17 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Oops. It's 1-2 Million stensen/dont-be-fooled-obama-is-a_b_9611 8.html

by Darknesse 2008-04-17 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Shit! Damn it! I guess I'll have to jump ship
and vote for the enemy.

The Enemy of my Enemy is Friend.
Both McCain and Obama are assholes but I would be better off voting for McCain.

by bsavage 2008-04-17 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be
Is that a threat that Obama supporters are supposed to respond to? Fuck you. It's your vote, do what you want. In the GE Obama will get a huge influx of independants and a lot of GOPers and conservatives that are tired of Bush and don't want McBush.
We don't need the vengeful Hillbots, so you can all fuck off.
by danfromny 2008-04-17 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

I heard that.

by tommy 2008-04-17 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Its interesting to base the high hopes of a Hillary drop out on the slimmest of McAuliffe reeds. In any case, I've always thought that Hillary's point of going till June was to ensure every state gets to vote, and more importantly to have on record her voting strength among key blocks of the Democratic party as a "just-in-case" and future placeholder. Not wanting to be blamed for Barack's fall (it is clear he is not ready, an immature leader at best), Hillary may just step aside in June, pay lip service with a bit of support, and then watch from the sidelines. Two possibilities may well emerge: 1). McCain will win or 2). Barack is at best will be a one-term wonder. Folding her tent in June, if true, preserves Hillary's options in for the future.

by superetendar 2008-04-17 12:55PM | 0 recs
Hopeful thinking from you

I think that all TM means is that the Clinton campaign understands that it is not desireable to wait until the convention to decide this.  The governor of TN has put forth a proposal for a conference of SDs to come together in June to broker this.  It is in the interest of both candidates for this to happen.  We will know all we need to know about the state of the race, the pros/cons of each candidate by then for them to make the call.  And whoever gets the nomination, it is in their interest to have as much time as possible to campaign against McSame.

The fatal flaw in your argument is to presume that the nomination hinges solely on the PD leader or some vague notion of electability.  The popular vote will be pertinant as well.  And by early June, Clinton may very well have legitimate claim to that - including caucus estimates and FL.   The Obama campaign strategy of stonewalling on FL and MI may come back to bite them.  Chances are, if they had supported the revote, Clinton would have won these states but in by narrower margins than she carried them originally.  So if there is a split decision on PD and PV, who gets the nod?  I think that it up to debate.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-17 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hopeful thinking from you

Sorry, but they are not going to change the AGREED UPON rules in order to give her the edge.That is just silly and i suspect you know it.

by tommy 2008-04-17 01:23PM | 0 recs
Suggest you look at the rules again

Nothing in the rules says that the leader in pledged delegates shall be the nominee.  Period.  Nothing says that they can't look at other factors.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-17 02:23PM | 0 recs
Suggest you look at the rules again

Nothing in the rules says that the leader in pledged delegates shall be the nominee.  Period.  Nothing says that they can't look at other factors.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-17 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Suggest you look at the rules again

That is simply a disengenuous argument.Are you suggesting, that the concept of pledged delegates was placed in the process just for shits and giggles? Yeah, thats the ticket; Pledged delegates are mere decoy and the Obama campaign is feckless for falling for it. Really?

by tommy 2008-04-17 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Suggest you look at the rules again

You may believe that the Democrats have a fine tuned process here, honed after decades of refinement.

They don't. They have a pig, and they know it stinks.

After this election the whole process will be reworked and the number of superdelegates will be wittled down to maybe half. Do we really need 400 DNC members deciding the fate of our country.

The dems put part of this process together in the 70s after a bitter convention fight in 1972. Initially there weren't near as many superdelegates. But in several cycles they added and added.

It never mattered before because races never went this far.

So now it matters, and guess what, everybody realizes that we shouldn't have all these unaccountable DNC members deciding the future of our country. And you know what, many (130 still) are reluctant to chime in. They don't WANT the responsibility. They want the voters to decide.

If the Pledged delegate count were really close, then you better believe that they would want to take every factor into account, popular vote being front and center.

But the pledged delegate lead is not really close.  So despite the fact that they CAN look at other factors, there is not a huge motivation.

As it looks now, they will split the rest of the contests. Obama will have won 31 states to Clinton's 17. He will have amassed 140-150 additional pledged delegates. And at that point, the super delegate count will probably be about equal. (It was 97 on 2/10, 64 on 2/24, 36 on 3/16, and 22 today.)

So yes, you are right that there are no rules that the only have to look at the PD count. But they are making it up as they go along here. There are a lot of bad alternatives and they are trying to find the least bad. And right now, looking at the PDs is a safe way to follow the will of the people.


by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 04:52PM | 0 recs
I think he's up 100-125

w/o FL and MI, and w/o Edwards' delegates.   Maybe closer to 50-75.  And she has a chance to win the PV.  A chance w, FL and the caucuses included

by activatedbybush 2008-04-17 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I think he's up 100-125

There is no Santa Claus and for the purposes for deciding the democratic nominee, there is no Florida and there is no Michigan. All this talk of voter disenfranchisment is disengenuous,unless there is evidence that Hillary bought these issues up when the Dem candidates agreed to the DNC sanctions. This is not even a remotely complicated matter.

by tommy 2008-04-17 05:54PM | 0 recs
No Santa, but there are SuperDels

Odds are against Clinton now, but they are free to decide.  A PV lead gives them something to think about

by activatedbybush 2008-04-18 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hopeful thinking from you

I wouldn't be surprised if the Barney Frank announcement is one of several. The party elders are looking out over the next two months and gaining an understanding of what is possible.

PA is hugely important here. A small win will just not be enough. Pelosi is firmly on record to say it should be decided on pledged delegates only. Reid and now Carter are hinting the same way. They are setting the stage. Barney Frank is part of this process. The needs of the party outweigh the needs of one candidate.

Without a big PA win, Clintan's just not going to make it, and the polls are showing her 20 pt lead now down to single digits, which translates into net gains of 5-10 delegates. Forget about MI and FL for a moment. If Hillary can only pick up 11 PDs in OH and 8 in PA, that is just not enough to eat into Obama's current 163 lead.

I think what the gets overlooked is how this would play out if the pledged delegates were neck and neck.Then a plausible argument would be to consider the popular vote as well.

And before Texas and Ohio, that was a good argument. But Clinton could not close the gap then, and it looks now like she can close it by at most 20 pts. The remaining 143 pledged delegates is a huge lead.

To put the current 163 PD lead in perspective, if you you take all the states that Obama won, and add up his net gain in PDs, and then take all the states the Clinton won, and add up all her net gain in PDs, Obama's is net gain is nearly double Clinton's.

Here's a graph to show this difference (it does  mislabel AZ as AR, and NE as NB. DA is dems abroad, AS is American Samoa.) php?img_id=doJ8pXlbehSDzv1206844070

The supers are seeing these numbers. They understand the process and their role. At this point, PDs are going to have far more weight than popular vote if for no other reason than counting the popular vote in caucus states is not a trivial task.


by PatrickBradish 2008-04-17 01:30PM | 0 recs
She needs PA by double digits

Because if she doesn't achieve that, then she won't be able to catch him in the popular vote.  Simple as that.   I can see her getting PD count down to 100-125 at the end and a PV lead, but PA is all important.  

Caucus state counting is pretty good - see RCP site for estimates.  Not a reason not to look at the PV.

I suspect that there is an orchestrated "Chinese water torture campaign" by the party elders to slowly drip drip SD endorsements for Obama.  They can't make it look like a rush to the gates or it will alienate Clinton backers.  They just want to continually undermine her argument that she can win.  

Perhaps it will work, or perhaps, despite being outspent 4:1, despite having the establishment against her, she will continue to win.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-17 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: She needs PA by double digits

Despite having the entire establishment against her???.Did you really just say this?? This is getting ridiculous.

by tommy 2008-04-17 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: She needs PA by double digits

In case no one has told you yet, you need to read the site guidelines and stop troll rating people just because you disagree with them.

by LakersFan 2008-04-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: She needs PA by double digits

Thanks for the tip. Ive been a member of this site for four years and have rarely troll-rated. Having said that, i do think it is warranted to troll rate when the comment isnt constructive , and the fact of the matter is, that at this point,it is no longer constructive to treat Clintons canidacy as viable. We have bigger fish to fry this election cycle and we ought not waste our energies pissing and moaning that our preferred candidate lost.The Clinton campaign and some of its supporters have become a destructive force in progressive politics and the sooner we face that reality the better our movement will be.

by tommy 2008-04-17 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: She needs PA by double digits

Your unique definition of "not constructive" is absurd considering there are still elections going on, and it's not the same as the site admins definition of the term. Just stop troll rating comments you don't agree with. This is a site for differing opinions and troll rating is not constructive.

by LakersFan 2008-04-18 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamaites ignoring the lion in the living room

Big yawn..This fantasy world that some Clinton supporters live in is tiresome.

by tommy 2008-04-17 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be
At this point in time...
Regardless how anyone perceived last night's debate, it sent a clear signal
there is no way the Supers want this through the summer.
Anything less than 15% for Clinton (as predicted a month ago)will be the first message.
This should and will go through 6/3.
Remember, many Supers are not just looking at the Presidential race. Many will wait until 6/3 to better justify their endorsement.
That is fine...
But after 6/3?
Buckle up!
until then...tap yer toes dI
by nogo war 2008-04-17 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Campaign: The Democratic Race Will Be

Absolutely correct!

Many Supers are running for re-election, and do they want a super-charged John McCain running with a Republic electorate happy to come to the polls having gotten a free pass all the way through summer, against EITHER Hillary or Obama limping out of the most bruising convention battle in modern times?

If you think the numbers of either Obama folks not voting for Clinton or Clinton folks not voting for Obama is big now, THINK ABOUT IT after the bloodiest convention in history, covered WALL TO WALL by the MSM!

The Supers may be Chickenshits, but they are not personally all suicidal.

This ends before the convention, either way.

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-17 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamaites ignoring the lion in the living room


MI and Fl WILL be seated...

As is...Probably agree on 2-3 weeks before the convention?

After enough Supers (including Hillary ones that switch) give enough numbers to put Obama over the top.  I would agree with the folks here, after Oregon at the latest?

Then, what will you complain about?

by WashStateBlue 2008-04-17 01:46PM | 0 recs
"I Think it will be Over in June"

is not a pronouncement that it will be over in June, it's a guess. It will be over when one candidate gets 2,024 delegates.

As far as Obama being done after the various scandals and mistatements, no, he's not finished in the Democratic primary, but he is hurt, perhaps fatally, in the general election. That doesn't mean that Democrats can't nominate him anyway even though they expect him to lose.

The man certainly hangs out with many odd figures:

Rezco the indicted slum lord
Wright "God Damn America"
The friendly couple who blew up buildings and killed people

by mmorang 2008-04-17 03:52PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads