Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality

by Todd Beeton, Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:29:00 PM EST

Mark Ambinder has been gaming out some delegate allocation scenarios and confirms that even the most optimistic projections for Hillary Clinton's performance on Tuesday won't allow her to significantly eat into Obama's pledged delegate lead.

So let's go state-by-state, again assuming that the full sanctions levied by the DNC are kept in place.

Ohio: Clinton wins by 4% and earns a net of 5 delegates
Rhode Island: Clinton wins by 10% and earns a net of 3 delegates
Texas: Obama wins by a net of 8% and earns a net of 15 delegates including those taken from the caucus portion of the contests
Vermont: Obama wins handily and nets 3 delegates.

We can fiddle with the numbers a bit, but winning by an extra percent in Texas is worth more than winning by an extra percent in Ohio. If Clinton wins by 8 percentage points in Ohio, she picks up a net of about 11 delegates compared to Obama's 15 in Texas. Let's be nice to Clinton and assume that she manages to eek out a win in Texas, giving her 3 extra delegates. For the day, she'd net only 8 delegates under this scenario -- with Texas and Vermont having cancelled each other out.

The reality of March 4th for Hillary Clinton is that winning the popular votes in Ohio and Texas is more about getting some wins under her belt and changing the narrative and possibly re-gaining some momentum than it is about really changing the delegate math in any significant way. But even if she's able to do all of that, there's a pledged delegate ceiling moving beyond March 4th:

So -- under these most rosy of scenarios -- since March 4, she'll have earned 520 delegates to Barack Obama's 461, having reduced his earned delegate total by about 80 -- or -- by about 60 percent -- but he'll still have a lead of approximately 100 delegates in total... and be that much closer to 2025.

We're looking at a best case scenario for Clinton of a 100 pledged delegate deficit after all states have voted. Which essentially means that if Clinton does turn things around on Tuesday, expect the real fight over superdelegates and Michigan and Florida to be joined.




Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, hillary clinton, delegates, texas, ohio (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 166 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

march 4th is more about wins than delegates that much should have been clear now.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:33:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Yes, game on!


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Unfortunately, it's delegates that matter, not wins.


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:46:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

MI, FL and superdelegates will matter.

Superdelegates are going to decide this thing; perhaps wins in electoral-rich Democratic-leaning states will matter to them.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

How do Michigan delegates get apportioned without a revote?


by goodnbad on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Best case scenario, and hopefully the one that they agree on: Hillary gets us, Edwards' and uncommitteds fall by the wayside. Obama should have stayed on the ballot. That was not part of the "no-campaigning" deal.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

And you're going to get anyone who isn't a Clinton supporter to agree to that how exactly?


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

What the DNC ultimately decides, is it up to us?


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

But you know that the decision will be ultimately made by the candidate with the most pledged delegates?


by marcotom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

No, I didn't know that, because according to the nominating rules, the nominee has to have 2,025 delegates, whether pledged or unpledged. So it seems to me that the decision of whether to seat would have been made by the time the nominee is chosen.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Wrong.  The default position is that the Michigan and Florida delegations are not seated.  In order for them to get seated, the matter must be put to a vote of the already pledged delegates.

DemConWatch had an article about this awhile back that I am currently trying to dig up.


by goodnbad on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 2)

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/ how-would-florida-and-michigan.html

Here it is.  A fine, detailed analysis regarding the  technical rules involved in getting Florida's and Michigan's delegations seated.

Bottom line:  If Obama is leading in delegates without counting FL and MI, and seating those delegations will throw the lead to Clinton - they will not be seated.  

Neither Florida nor Michigan will determine the nominee.  


by goodnbad on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Nice post.  I wonder how many times that link could be re-posted here.


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

... posted too early; reposted to kill the meme that FL and MI will decide it, I mean.


by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

ad infinitum


by haystax calhoun on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

That's rich.

Isn't this about the voters, and not the candidates?  Why don't you just come out and say that you could care less about enfranchising Michigan and Florida voters.  

You only care about enfranchising those who voted for Clinton.

Pathetic.


by goodnbad on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

The voters voted. Let's count their votes as Democrats, the party of the people, and move on.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Your answer is non-sensical.

According to how you would apportion the votes, only Clinton voters will have their votes actually counted.

So no, the voters did not vote.

Are you really saying that only Clinton votes should count in Michigan?  

Really?  Shameless.


by goodnbad on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

It's not shameless. Why did Obama take his name off the ballot if the agreement was simply to not campaign in Michigan? Two reasons: 1) to appease Iowa, and 2) to create a non-competition.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

3) to trick Clinton and her supporters into believing that they could later claim these delegates so that he could expose their hypocrisy when it comes to Democracy later on.


by marcotom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

It's extremely shameless.  The point of elections is to give people a political voice.

You are seeking to give political voice only to the voters of your preferred candidate, and completely ignore the voters who voted for any other candidate.  What fault was it of Edwards or Obama supporters that they showed up to vote and their candidate's name wasn't on the ballot?  Did these voters do something wrong?  

How is it any more fair to only ignore the votes of non-Clinton voters than to simply toss the votes of all voters, hence treating them equally?

Not only is your position shameless, but it's downright totalitarian.


by goodnbad on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

No election oversight commission, except in the most backwater third world dictatorship would give any credence to an election where voters where told before the election that their vote would not be counted, where candidates could not campaign and that the only vote that would count would be for a proposition which would motivate one segment of voters (homeowners) to vote and provide no reason for young people, renters, minorities and the poor to bother to show up.

All the hand wringing over disenfranchisement is pure BS. If you care about voters votes have a revote run like a real election, let the voters know their vote will be counted and let the candidates campaign, but since a fairly contested election would end in a very different result not so advantageous to Hillary I don't expect she will support a revote.


by hankg on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Edwards was not on the ballot.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Well... The other part of the "no-campaigning" deal was the "your delegates won't count" deal.  Of which Hillary & company signed on to.


John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
by recusancy on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Here is what you don't get.  Most of these superdelagates are elected officials who could lose their job with Hillary at the top of the ticket.  They don't want her anywhere near the top of the ticket.


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:57:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Lose how? People everywhere would vote against their elected officials in GE's and primaries because of this one choice? When that happens, you can say, "I told you so," but until then let's not deal with hypothetical that have no basis in reality!


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

A lot of these superdelegates are in territory in which having Clinton on the ballot would lead to a surge in Republican turnout, putting an end to their political career.  This is why practically everybody in a competitive House race is supporting Obama.  I have heard that if Hillary gets the nomination, many will actually decline to endore her in order to save their seats.  


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Who are these "many"? And where did you this?


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

These 'many' are the various red/purple state politicians that have overwhelmingly endorsed Obama.  There have been numerous stories written about this issue.  Step outside the echo chamber and you might just see em.


by Brillobreaks on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Truth be told, I don't think a lot of these want any Democrat in the WH because whenever a Democrat in the WH makes a bold liberal move it would reflect badly on the Dem party in their conservative home state.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 1)

This is common knowledge. Why does everyone here always want links to the most basic of common sense points? Embattled Dems in competitive districts want Obama, not Hillary, on the top of the ticket. Would it be offensive if I said "duh"?


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Oooh, secret information!


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

People like Nancy Boyda, Nick Lampson, Baron Hill, and Chris Carney.  I heard Charlie Cook talking on C-SPAN about the fact that he heard the DCCC talking about how it is advising many of these candidates not to endorse Hillary if she is on the ballot.


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 1)

Have you noticed the superdelegate count today vs. three weeks ago? She once led by 90. Now she leads by about 50. Why do you think the supers are coming to Obama's side? Because they want to end this thing and rally behind the obvious nominee.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fantasy (none / 0)

After Tuesday it will be over. Pelosi and Reid will announce their support for Obama after he wins Texas, and at worst loses Ohio in a close contest. And that will open a floodgate of endorsements from uncommitted Senators, Congress people and DNC members. HRC can keep fighting, but Obama will hit the magic number right around the time the polls close in North Carolina on May 6th.

Florida and Michigan won't figure into the equation, regardless of whatever fantasies you and Jerome might have.


by johnnyappleseed on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

I will bet cash money the the superdelegates will not support the candidate behind in pledged delegates at the end of the count by any more than 55% -- that would be approximately 440-360.

Either they will be essentially irrelevant since they won't vote as a unified bloc; or one candidate will drop out; or an attempt to reverse the pledged delegate count will result in backlash.

Doesn't really matter in the end though.  It's just not going to happen.


by Rorgg on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If that's right, she should drop out now (none / 0)

"We're looking at a best case scenario for Clinton of a 100 pledged delegate deficit after all states have voted."

I hope the HRC campaign doesn't believe this. Her path to the nomination - if she has one - is entirely different.  She has to win some states, to cut into his pledged delegate lead and/or to catch up in the popular vote.

If she can't do that, she won't be the party's nominee and she shouldn't be.

Assume for the moment that the delegates from the contested states are seated.  Even so, she cannot make up the gap.  The supers are not going to give her the nomination on these circumstances - if she's behind in the pledged delegates and the popular vote.  And, let's underscore this - she wouldn't deserve the nomination on those facts.  

And all of this is leaving aside the very serious question of whether it makes any sense to seat those delegations.

The only way to win a nomination worth having is to win the pledged delegates.


by TL on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:11:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it's about whether Clinton would have a (none / 0)

legitimate case for continuing on beyond March 4th.

As the polls for 3/4 states stand today, they'll pull roughly even on pledged delegates on 3/4, meaning that she'd be left having to make up the current 160 pledged delegate deficit from after March 4th.

Around 623 delegates will be left after March 4th. In order for her to come ahead on PDs, she'd need to win them: Clinton 392 and Obama 232, an extraordinary margin for her to pull off as she'd need to score 25% margin wins in EVERY remaining state after 3/4 to get there. No realistic chance for her to do that.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 11:11:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

So for the sake of the party she must go down on Tueday

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Mccain.

Politics is very strange.


by dbeall on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:34:10 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (1.33 / 3)

For the sake of the party, Hillary needs to stay in the race to the end. As time goes by, we will learn more about Obama and it'll become clear that he is the worst candidate we could come up with. Hillary is the best and the only hope of having a Dem in the WH next year.

What the Republicans have been hoping for is Obama to run against. Lots of Repubs have been voting for Obama in a cynical attempt to sway the nominating process. Obama's record is bad, making him very easy to defeat in November. Make the mistake of nominating him and there's an excellent chance we lose the WH.

The purpose of the super delegates is to make sure the public doesn't get a chance to make a mistake that would be harmful to the party. Even if Obama has a majority of pledged delegates in June, if bad stuff comes out about Obama, the SDs can step in and make the right choice.


by Nobama on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:43:03 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Nominate Clinton and we likely lose the US House.  


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 1)

"Nominate Clinton and we likely lose the US House."

That's just ridiculous!


by Nobama on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

No it isnt.  We have a lot of tough seats to defend that include lots of Republican leaning independents that will come out and droves to vote against Hillary and then vote against our downballot candidates.  


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:50:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 1)

Really? Based on what poll do you say this? Because three polls this week show almost identical results for Clinton vs McCain and Obama vs McCain. So how does this show that independents will vote for a democrat or republican based on who they vote for president?

Interesting.


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Because angry Hillocrats will rally around Obama as the nominee just as angry Deaniacs rallies around Kerry after he got the nomination.  This always happens after a contested primary. But Independents will NEVER rally to Hillary Clinton. They have no party loyalty so they don't have a default reason to back Clinton against McCain. Obama will consolidate his base. Clinton has maxed out her base and cannot win over Independents.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

First is there any basis to your assertion that independents won't vote for Clinton? I have lots of anecdotal evidence that lots of republican woman will vote for Hillary, but for McCain if its Obama. Which may explain the poll numbers.

Also if what you said is true Obama would have a significant lead in the polls against McCain, which he doesn't. If anything independents will pick McCain over Obama.


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Clinton is radioactive among indepdents.  Even against Rick Lazio in 2000, she lost independents by double digits.  


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Again, can you please post something that proves or backs up this assertion? I mean I can say whatever I want, it won't make it true.

If she was as you say her GE numbers wouldn't match Obamas against McCain.


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)


And what if we do?  The system's supposed to be about checks and balances, not one-party dominated with one party in the exec/legislative branches.
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

You don't care about losing the House?  Do you want John Boehner, who would be the most right wing speaker in US history controlling the House and passing Social Security Privitization?


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Images/ ChksBalnces.gif

Checks: (Once again) Meet balances.  Do you really believe that would happen?  Really?


by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:20:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

I suppose you aren't a Democrat then.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 3)

I posted this in another thread, and no one responded, and I presume no on will respond here either. No one, from the allegations of Republicans supporting McGovern in 72, to voting Al Sharpton in 2004, no one has ever proven that anyone other than radio talk show jockeys ever believe in this political subterfuge bullshit. People simply don't do these types of things.

The purpose of the super delegates is to make sure the public doesn't get a chance to make a mistake that would be harmful to the party.

I was going to write a witty retort to this but its so damn hilarious anyways that it just stands on its own.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)


Hilarious only to the Obamatrons and the people who don't understand what Super Delegates are supposed to be doing.  But I guess that you didn't read Ferraro's essay about why Super Delegates exist...and even if you did, I'm sure you'd've written it off as hilarious as well.
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

I enjoy how you proceeded to counter my argument, with...an op-ed by someone else.  And you still haven't proven that, a primary season with the largest turnouts ever, that somehow Republican operatives have somehow sabotaged the vote. And I'm guessing no on else will.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)


The point is that the "op ed" wasn't by JUST "someone else", it was by one of the people who helped create the SDs, Einstein.  But I guess the horse's mouth doesn't exactly hold water for you in any argument, eh?
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

No, I don't find it surprising or important to see that a person who invented superdelegates and endorses Hillary Clinton thinks that superdelegates are a good idea and should vote for her no matter what the results of the vote.

Two other claims of her's that I think are questionable:

  • Since not all registered democrats vote in primaries, the result can provide "hardly a grassroots mandate".  I'm sorry - people who don't vote don't have their voice heard.  That's just how voting works in a democracy.  That doesn't mean that those who showed up were any less significant.  Otherwise, what's the point of holding the vote in the first place?
  • She talks about watching "with great disappointment" as superdelegates choose to endorse Obama "with the excuse that their constituents have spoken."  Except for some extreme circumstances, there is no better excuse for an elected official to have then, "it's what the people who put me in office want."

Are they technically allowed to do whatever they want?  Sure.  But would it be a good thing for the party if the vote winner was overturned?  Of course not.  A LOT of people would feel cheated by their party - the same party that's about to ask them to vote for the other candidate.  Don't you agree?

Now, I don't know if you would respond like this, but just in case - when this comes up, Clinton supporters will frequently dodge the above question, and change the subject to FL and MI.  That's a different topic though and they need to be addressed individually.  Assume that you get whatever outcome you want in FL and MI.  Do you still really think it would be ok if the superdelegates overturned the vote?  Try and think about it if you didn't care who won (or wanted the other candidate to win).


by syrinx on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

As for Republican operatives sabotaging the results...am I supposed to answer that?

""But if the Democrats think they've got something going here in Suffolk, they're whistling past a graveyard."

Trent pointed out, for example, that in the largely Republican Driver precinct, Obama picked up 757 votes compared with 387 for Huckabee and 370 for McCain.

The precinct's voting pattern could show that Republicans who would have voted for McCain crossed over to help sink Clinton's chances in Virginia, Trent said.

"A lot of people want to make sure Hillary Clinton doesn't get in there," he said."

From here and

In Democratic primary, expect a GOP turnout

There's more of that sentiment AND practice around if you care/bother to look. But as far as I've seen, Obamatrons just don't give a cr@p about facts (particularly the fact that these Republicans are just going to go right back to voting for McCain in the GE), they just care about winning NOW AGAINST CLINTON! and don't care to see the forest for the trees in the General Election.
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only part of the story (none / 0)

Those voting for Obama in the primary - and planning to vote for McCain in November are only part of the story. Right wing talk radio is encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary so McCain will have an easier time in the general election. But most crossovers - particular Independents - are voting for Obama because they like him and plan to vote for him in November.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:41:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Another REAL Obamacan (none / 0)

Here's a Texas Republican woman who is voting for Obama because she likes Obama and not just to derail Clinton.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-all ison_23edi.ART.State.Edition1.45e0862.ht ml


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The one poll that bothered to ask.. (none / 0)

found that 20% of the people who intend to vote in the Texas Democratic primary state they will vote Republican in the fall.


by ineedalife on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

So anecdotal evidence proves that Obama has gained his million person popular vote lead by...700 people in a Republican county? Please.

Like I've pointed out before, if people plan on winning the fall election by appealing only to Democrats, or people who have only ever voted for Democrats, I say good luck with winning a majority with 48%.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:42:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Your assuming the super delegates are going to anoint Hillary. Which based on the events of the last couple of weeks is about as realistic a wish as Hillary anointing herself the "incumbent" and next in line.

If Hillary can't turn it around Mar 4 the super delegates will be the ones that force her out of the race on Mar 5th.


by hankg on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:39:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

We've been learning about Obama for over a year now (longer than that for those of us who've been paying attention), so I think we're good to go. In fact, in every single state that has had the opportunity to get to know him (as opposed to, say, California or Mass), he has experienced a massive bump.


by pcjnyc on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)


LOL, say what now?  You're now trying to say that California and Massachusetts "didn't get to know him", despite having mouthpieces in both states for him (massive rally with Hoprah/Maria Shriver, support from Kerry and Teddy in Mass).  Right.
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

yes, exactly, that's what he is trying to say. They didn't get to know him. Mouthpieces can only do so much.


by marcotom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Praytell, HOW did they not get to know him here in California? Are you trying to say that he didn't campaign enough in California?
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:32:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Yes, exactly, that's what I'm trying to say.


by marcotom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

ditto.  I live hear, and worried aloud why he wasn't in CA enough.


by haystax calhoun on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Because he was actually trying to compete in all 22 states at once.

In terms of actually winning the nomination, it turned out to be a wise choice in retrospect.

He still made up enormous ground with what he did do with a couple weeks before the CA election -- a hefty chunk of Clinton's victory margin came from early votes.


by Rorgg on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 0)

California is HUGE and so is NY. The key to Obama's strategy is spending enough time in a state so that the people can hear the message. For Super Tuesday he couldn't get to all the small states and the two huge ones as well. So he hit as many smaller ones as he could and let the surrogates handle the two big fish. You know what? IT WORKED! Hillary won CA and NY, but Obama picked up more there than she did in the smaller states, because she didn't play the 'proportional delegate' game properly.
Obama has had enough time to focus on TX and OH. Being that I just spent a week in Dayton, I can assure that IF Hillary wins, it won't be by much.

And she can forget about TX.

I don't like talking bad about any Democrat. But Hillary underestimated her opponent drastically, hired the wrong people, mismanaged funds and was  inferior in her campaign strategy.

Barack had no qualms about hiring the best people for the job (even though they were Clinton folk), he did a TRUE 50-state strategy, he opened up the South to the Democrats and he is building a war chest for the GE that is enormous.

All this without riling up the conservatives, like Hillary would have.

I shouldn't vote for this guy
, why?


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 0)

I don't understand your point. Your retort is to say that because Obama did not win CA and MA, that the commenter you responded to is wrong?

You DID NOT respond to the commenter. You did not respond to the fact that the longer Obama campaigns in most states, the better he does in the polls. He has done this in virtually every state - there are only a few exceptions. And yes, he did this in MA and CA by narrowing a huge gap in a matter of weeks.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eleven straight states got to know him (none / 0)

and crushed Hillary by an average of 33 percent.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:41:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Sorry can't take you seriously with your "sky is falling" rhetoric and your hill-arious name.


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

These people that are zero rating you are violating the rules of this blog. Nothing you said was a personal attack, nor did you say anything objectionable in the extreme about Obama or his supporters. These folks are only interested in hiding anything they disagree with. That is what Republicans do, not Democrats.


by Fleaflicker on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

So if Clinton loses in Texas I presume it doesn't count then? Check. Got the memo.


by Sean Siberio on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:43:26 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Todd Beeton is bending over backwards to find a rationale for Hillary - but thinking she can win at this point is irrational and his efforts are rather sad

Blaming Todd Beeton however is akin to a Mother Hen eating her own offspring.

Get a grip - do the Maths, and imagine what destruction would need to occurr for Hillary to steal enough delegates.

Game set and Match to Mcain.


by dbeall on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:44:26 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (2.00 / 1)

There is no stealing, if SD break one way or another NO ONE STOLE anything. Stop these silly talking points. No matter what happens on March 4, no matter who wins, no matter when and if one of the candidates drop out, accept this fact and move on:

Super-delegates will choose the winner. There is no math that avoid this for EITHER candidate.

Now come back to reality, accept this, and move on.

Don't you feel better already?


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Come back to reality? That would imply that you are there already? Hmm... that kind of reality I don't like. I prefer the real reality, where 85% of the people bet on Obama to win the nomination (intrade).


by marcotom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)


I sure hope you weren't one of the people who put their bets in Tradesports for the Patriots to win, then.
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Well, odds are the superdelegates will back the pledged delegate leader. I'd bet money on it. Would you rather the opposite? Would you rather the SDs back the loser of the pledged delegate race?


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:18:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (1.00 / 2)

I would rather they do their jobs, stop listening to the Obama rhetoric about how they think they're supposed to do their jobs, and vote for the good of the party. Obama has not at all put it across that his purpose is working for core Democratic values. He's puffed himself up as some sort of Gloriful Peacekeeper that will "unite" everyone in a giant Kumbaya moment and his campaign focuses on HIM as an individual, not as Obama: Representative of the Democratic Party. Unless you'd like to point out where in his statement about how he's sure that he'd get Clinton's votes but unsure that his voters would vote for Clinton he states that WORM (What Obama Really Meant) was that this is true "party unity".
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Obama's not good for the Democratic Party ?

The first candidate that has run a REAL 50-State strategy?
The first candidate that can open up the South to the Democratic Party?
The only candidate that is registering NEW voters as Democrats? And before you say they are loyal only to him, do you think any downticket Democrat candidate really cares WHY a newly registered Democratic voter is pulling the handle for Barack and will vote the party ticket??
The only Democratic candidate that has a GROWING war chest?
 All this and he still has many conservatives not too riled up?


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

I would agree that the odds are as you say. All I was saying is that the SDs will choose, NOT who has the most pledged delegates, etc. My entire point was let's stop pretending either one wins this from the pledged delegates.


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Funny you say that because the Superdelegates have been sending a loud message since February 5. Clinton once led by 90 among Supers, now she leads by 50.  Clinton is losing her superdelegate support every day. After March 4 she will lose more and more until it becomes impossible for her.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

That is more what you wish than what will happen. Obviously Sen Obama is gaining, as well he should. He has been winning, he is ahead, he will get unpledged SDs.

But keep in mind this still may change. If Hillary wins on tuesday, and Obama runs into more fire anything may happens.

Not likely, but possible.


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

No I dot feel better at thought of having a President with no better integrity than Bush
being  not elected like Bush in 2000 and 2004.
by dbeall on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

He's being more than generous.  An 8 point Obama win in the Texas primary would give him far more than a total primary+caucus edge of 15 (104-89) ... it would be more along the lines of 112-81, unless something happens in this caucus that's totally out of line with all the others.


by Rorgg on Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

No, he is well-entrenched in reality.

Please:  come up with a scenario where she has more pledged delegates.  I can't.

And the superdelegates:  HRC's lead has gone from 100 on 2/5 to roughly 49 today, according to demcon watch (a terrific site, btw).  They aren't going to bail her out.


by ChrisR on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:44:54 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

You are right.  They are not going to bail her out. The reason is that 535 of these superdelegates are Congresspeople and they could well be out of a job after November with Hillary at the top of the ticket.  


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Well, I agree with you that if right now Hillary was the nominee and not Obama some would lose their jobs.

Why?  Imagine the lowered turnout among Obama voters if HRC was the nominee despite the fact that Obama won more delegates.


by ChrisR on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Ummmm.... When did we win all 435 House seats and all 100 Senate seats?

I don't think you have a very good grasp on who the 'superdelegates' are.


by zonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Im sorry, about 283 superdelagates.  


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:17:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Sorry too for being so snarky, I was mixed in the middle of several comments responsnes and didn't mean to come off so harshly.

BTW - some state level Dems (Governors, certain state level elected officials -- even some mayors) are also superDs'


by zonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

it seems like he is the bearer of bad news...
i disagree. he is just stating the facts. it may seem like bad news for hillary supporters or good news for obama supporters but it is just the facts.


by supsupsup on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Todd voted for Hillary in California.


by DPW on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:49:28 PM EST

Seems like these past few weeks... (2.00 / 2)

reality has had a well-known anti-Clinton bias.  


by telephasic on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST

According to Mark Penn (none / 0)

Days that end in 'Y' don't count... the bad news cycles, the elections -- none of them count.

Now if Penn and company could just figure out to add another.... measurement of a period of time.... to the week.


by zonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not all about Delegates (none / 0)

Some of you are not grounded in reality.


by mefck on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:51:40 PM EST

Re: Its not all about Delegates (2.00 / 1)

Hey, those of us who support Hillary could say the same of the Obama supporters, but we are apparently a little more polite.


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not all about Delegates (none / 0)

no, no, marvin. you most definitely are not more polite. especially here on MyDD.


by Cobalt on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not all about Delegates (none / 0)

Really, what have I said that has been offensive? Because I can list the never ending bile and glee from Obama supporters if you'd like.


by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

math (none / 0)


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Says who? (none / 0)

The electorate in Maryland, Virginia, DC, Maine, Washington, Wisconsin, Hawaii,Louisiana, Nebraska and the Virgin Islands.

That's who.


by johnnyappleseed on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not all about Delegates (none / 0)

Tell me about it. Hillary needs home runs in TX and OH  to be viable.
Even if she wins by one vote in both states , by the delegate count she is finished.
A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not all about Delegates (none / 0)

The problem for Hillary is that Ohio and Rhode Island are probably the last states Hillary has a chance to carry.  The only future states where she has much of a chance are Kentucky, West Virginia, and of course, Pennsylvania.  


by Toddwell on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM EST

Re: Its not all about Delegates (none / 0)

And she's already losing her lead in PA. At this rate he'll blow her out in Pennsylvania too.

Come to think of it, though, a contested race in WV and KY would be good for Obama because he needs to campaign here in Appalachia to convince core white Democrats that he's no Jesse Jackson.


by elrod on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:46:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I havent seen anyone counter (2.00 / 1)

The Original post. Show me how Hillary gains enough pledged delegates to win.


by highgrade on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:05:17 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

At what point are all you virulent Obama detractors going to start supporting the candidate who in all likelihood will be the democratic nominee?  Or are you content aiding the republicans trying tooth-and-nail to tear him dowm, by any means necessary?  Do you really want McCain to be president?!


by Democrat in Chicago on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Most of them aren't Democrats.


by Brillobreaks on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:14:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Or are you content aiding the republicans trying tooth-and-nail to tear him dowm, by any means necessary?

Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Obama has done nothing for the Democratic party but tear one of his own apart. Of course, who didn't see this cr@p coming with his history of scorched earth against anyone who gets in his way.
by BrandingIron17 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aaaccckkk! (none / 0)

The hyperbole, it burns!


by zonk on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

Obama said he didn't want to "refight the fights of the nineties" didn't he? Well, those of us who are veterans are going to take him at his word. He'll just have to figure it out himself. He hasn't been doing such a good job. Maybe he can ask for some training or something.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

This thing is going to the convention.  I don't believe there is any way Obama can get mathematically get the 2,025 before the convention unless she drops out.  I could be wrong, but she has to stay in and then fight it out.

Besides, as it has been pointed out by others on this and other blogs - it's better for him for her to stay in because the media will continue to ignore his past and his foibles.


by cmugirl90 on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

How is that logical? Ignore his past? They are all over it but haven't found anything yet - but I will let you your conspiracy theory.

I agree that she should stay in for a bit - as long as she does not do McCain's job in raising his negatives. As long as she keeps it positive, she may very well stay in. Oh wait, she can't win staying positive, bugger...


by marcotom on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Unfortunate Delegate Reality (none / 0)

That is the dream of Clinton supporters but it differs sharply from reality and what is likely to happen fairly soon.

Superdelegates are going to want to end this thing very soon. What has been a steady trickle to Obama will soon be a raging flood.

If she doesn't quit of her own accord (a courtesy I am sure many in the party would like to give her), the superdelegates will make it very clear that her campaign is over.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The last time there was a convention fight (none / 0)

The Democrats lost badly.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]