MyDD :: The lifeline strategy

The lifeline strategy

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:11:39 PM EST

Something wild? Watch this video and then think about what Clinton's implying:

Clinton sounds ready to throw down over MI and FL, all the way to the convention. The thing is, she may have an opening to go there.

Consider this, with the FL and MI delegates counted... Now, some of you immediately are wound up with just the thought but spare us from flipping out in the comments. Show me if my math doesn't add up, or if I'm missing something, but don't get worked up.

Including MI & FL, Clinton is only behind in pledged-delegates by 46-56 delegates, which could be halved in Pennsylvania alone. 46 is the number going off of DCW, but 56 is what I got when using the Obama counting of pledged delegates, and adding in the 67 Obama got from FL and the 178 that Clinton got from FL and MI, that results in a 1485-1429 difference of delegates. DCW has a 1473 to 1427 margin. I imagine that 46-56 number gets updated a bit up and down with further final results coming in from the previous contests. It also should be noted that there are, in addition, 55 uncommitted delegates from MI, and 31 delegates still aligned with Edwards.

Obama's got everything going for him right now, he's in position to claim a victory by nearly all the measurements, most importantly the pledged delegate lead and the popular vote. However, he may have left an opening to Clinton by not fully cooperating with Clinton and the DNC to find a way to let MI and FL re-vote. They don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states, but by not going along with it, they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand, and possibly, if Clinton manages to pick up enough pledged delegates, counting the FL and MI results from January, to claim she has the lead in pledged delegates.

The popular vote too, via RCP's numbers, has Clinton lifelines via FL's votes being counted, and less so (argumentatively at least), with MI's. Ironically, that might come down to whether Clinton is really strong in Puerto Rico, as some believe (Obama's online supporters have been touting the support of PR's Gov. but that ain't looking so hot right now). It's possible that 2 million could vote in that primary. On that note, you really have to go check out this nifty interactive counter by Jay Cost.

You are in denial of the potential reality of all that above? OK, then go and read another answer.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 321 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Jerome,
Since you understand sampling and polling, could you explain to linfar in the recommended diaries that there is no problem with oversampling and then reweighting a poll? The diarist seems to think there was a conspiracy or something to promulgate badly flawed data.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:13:58 PM EST

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Seriously, please. It's embarrassing that it is sitting on top of the rec list.

by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know they use that term "Obama-bots" (none / 0)

and its derogatory..

But the way they work it makes me think that they must have some kind of software that they use to get into these blogs and manipulate things like ratings..

And many of the pro-Obama postings seem, I don't know, weird..

I keep having this weird paranoid fantasy that the worst of them are like robots or something similar who are watching the real people, seeing how they react to things, and then trying to parrot them..

Of course, it isnt true.. BUT..

Watch the faux-outrage over this one.. (duck)

Obama Now Ahead by 86,705 Popular Votes, or 0.25% of Total! (incl. FL and MI)
Crowned King By MSM Because of Hillary's Real Universal Healthcare Program?

by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:21:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know they use that term "Obama-bots" (2.00 / 1)

I think you could use a zen moment...take a deep breath and then let it out slowly.

There is no secret software that Obama supporters are using to manipulate the ratings. He's just more popular.

Bring back the Wonk -- help beat McSame in November!

by GFORD on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:34:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

Bad polls are common, so is re-weighting. I went and looked at that polls numbers yesterday, and the only real problem was that they didn't actually report the findings. I suppose that was inevitable given they seemed to have a pre-ordained conclusion. Denying that Obama was hurt by Wright flies in the face of too many polls to be correct. Lasting damage? I don't know. National damage? Maybe not, because there are states where his numbers improved, like California. But rasmussen and susa polls at the state level have showed considerable damage to Obama in 6 different states-- red states and swing states, but not in some others too.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:20:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The memory of the American public (none / 0)

is around six seconds..

Obama Now Ahead by 86,705 Popular Votes, or 0.25% of Total! (incl. FL and MI)
Crowned King By MSM Because of Hillary's Real Universal Healthcare Program?

by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:22:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

How much damage do you guess that the Bosnia "lie" is going to cost her?

by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:44:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Check this out
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/27/ 212716/396

You think HRC is the only misspeaker? LOL

by nellre on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:12:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Let me see if I get this straight. You're accepting Karl Rove's take with absolutely no corroboration from any other source? You're doing this even when all of those claims can be debunked or placed in an appropriate context with some trivial googling.

Let's put this into perspective. There's a reason why the term "rovian" is used to refer to slanderous attack politics. The man used blatant lies to frame a war hero like John Kerry as a traitor and a coward. He eviscerated fellow Republican John McCain by--among other things--painting his adopted daughter as a mixed-race lovechild; this daughter is a rescued Bangladeshi orphan who was in desperate need of medical care. He took Al Gore's decades of Congressional work on Internet development and turned it into a false spin that the media swallowed whole. This spin stuck even after the father of the Internet, Vint Cerf, explained just how critical Gore's role was and that the actual statement (not the misquoted smear) was entirely true.

These are just a few gems from the same Karl Rove that you're quoting as a sole authoritative source. Doesn't that seem a little disturbing to you?

by noop on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Jerome you fail to realize that RCP even acknowledges that their popular vote total doesn't count Iowa, Maine, Washington State. So even when you count florida and then add all of these states, Obama is still ahead. Nice try.

by kristannab on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary agrees with Markos (none / 0)

Taka a look at my Kos diary.

by gaf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

Interesting that it is Hillary and not Obama calling for unity after a nominee is selected.

Maybe she knows something...

by DTaylor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:16:27 PM EST

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

like how to have some class?

by zerosumgame on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is making the same mistake Gore made (none / 0)

Obama is making the same mistake Gore made in 2000

Obama Now Ahead by 86,705 Popular Votes, or 0.25% of Total! (incl. FL and MI)
Crowned King By MSM Because of Hillary's Real Universal Healthcare Program?

by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

"Interesting that it is Hillary and not Obama calling for unity after a nominee is selected.

Maybe she knows something..."

....like her negatives are going through the roof.
or
....like she doesn't have a realistic chance.

Hillary is now running for vanity and ego.

by Kobi on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at that video again.. (none / 0)

I think that Hillary is a winner and our candidate..

She can stand up to all they got, and they got a LOT.

She's our gal...

Obama Now Ahead by 86,705 Popular Votes, or 0.25% of Total! (incl. FL and MI)
Crowned King By MSM Because of Hillary's Real Universal Healthcare Program?

by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look at that video again.. (none / 0)

That's sweet.

Hillary is now running for vanity and ego.

by Kobi on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:19:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Except he is...

""There are going to be some bruised feelings, whoever the nominee is. We are going to have to come together and remind ourselves that there is a heck of a lot bigger difference between either Senator Clinton or myself, and John McCain," Obama said.

He said the protracted contest would not harm the party in the long run.

"I think short term, there is going to be work to do for the nominee to bring the party back together again. People feel pretty passionate about their respective candidates. I appreciate that, and I understand it," Obama said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires 20080327/democrats-party-unity

by leshrac55 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:27:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

Oh sure, link to Huffpo.
We are bruising each other big time, and it has nothing to do with the campaigns of either candidate. It's the blogs.
I am an old woman, and I have never seen anything like this. The extremely bias and hateful (and untruthful) post found about on the "progressive" blogosphere make some of us look a lot like Limbaugh. I thought we were better than that.

by nellre on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:19:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Is the quote inaccurate? Was it reported by Huffpo improperly? Did they make it up?

No... they didn't. It's just something over the AP wire that I picked up from Huffpo. Just because it's a source you don't like doesn't make it false.

by leshrac55 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I still can't see Gore (none / 0)

For all the complaints folks have on the HRC and the supers, I'm just not sure I can see enough of them gathering up the gumption to force this hand. But that's me, and only time (about a month) or so will clarify that picture).

by toonsterwu on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:19:24 PM EST

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

So the answer, from the crowd that has been harping on the importance of not disenfranchising people...is to count primary elections that were not contested.

Yeah...sorry for flipping out in the comments, but you are joking, right?

by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:19:34 PM EST

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 2)

I wish that the candidates would have blown off the DNC to begin with-- that's what I advocated for last August.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:22:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Things looked different then, (none / 0)

but there were a lot of us Hillary supporters who at the time believed it was a bad deal. Tigercourse at daily kos is as committed a Hillary supporter as there is, and he was absolutely livid that Hillary signed on to the deal.

Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:26:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wish they had blown them off too (none / 0)

But they didn't. Again, you aren't seriously suggesting they count those elections, are you?

by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 5)

I leaned heavily for it before, then against it, and now with Obama blocking the re-voting, I'm inclined to support their seating as is again if they don't get a re-vote. Obama took his gamble by pulling off the ballot and then blocking the re-votes, you can't hold it against Clinton for placing her bet too.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (none / 0)

He didn't block it, even if he advocated against them, it wasn't in his power to make the final decision.

Regardless, it makes no sense to punish Obama when the results of such a move are more far reaching. It punishes the states who followed the rules and didn't move their dates forward, it punishes the voters in MI and FL who would have voted differently, it punishes the rest of the country by messing with the results of their election with an invalid uncontested vote.

You look at the big picture, and you realize it just isn't something you can do. It isn't a game of football where we give Hillary a 15 yard advance because Obama did something wrong, the ramifications are real and far reaching.

by furiousxgeorge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 4)

Won't Obama control the credentials committee by convention time? I think this is in the league of wishful thinking.

by ArkansasLib on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 4)

Obama miscalculated by taking himself off the MI ballot just as Hilary miscalculated by not putting more effort into caucuses.

Hilary has paid a price for her miscalculation and Obama may pay a price for his.

The fact that Hilary is willing to have a re-vote in MI, even though she'll do worse since Obama will get more votes than zero, is to her credit.

by FireLight on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (none / 0)

It's only to her credit if one thinks that there's any serious chance that a credentials committee would seat Michigan as-is.

Seating an election in which 45% of the voters were denied a chance to vote for a candidate of their choice is just plain undemocratic. And it doesn't matter if Obama took his name off intentionally (as he and all the others pledged to do -- "not participate", remember?) -- this is supposed to be about the voters. The voters didn't take his name off the ballot. They're disenfranchised.

On the other hand, a compromise delegation with the 45% uncommitted turned into Obama delegates, and possibly seated with the original DNC 50%-vote penalty? That might well fly. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (none / 0)

It would have been to her credit if she had been for it from the start, but coming out strongly for counting the invalid election was a hindrance to developing support for a valid election, not a support for it. Eventually, she switched around to supporting a new election, but it would have helped if she had started out in favor of that, rather than trying the "Oh, the invalid election that I won should count" line of attack first.

by alephnul on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:15:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Convention floor fight would be disaster (2.00 / 2)

now with Obama blocking the re-voting, I'm inclined to support their seating as is again if they don't get a re-vote.

What you and Hillary are really calling for is a floor fight at the convention on a motion to overturn the majority of the credentials committee. This is a prescription for turning the convention into a bitter public fight a few months before the election. It sounds more like suicide terrorism than some sort of election strategy.

And this line that Obama somehow "blocked" a revote that was never even advanced by either state is just a way to blame the planned fratricidal floor fight on Obama.

To me it sounds like the prelude to a Hillary '12 strategy to make McCain a one-term president.

by Fred in Vermont on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's remember what we are talking about (2.00 / 2)

Obama has the tiniest lead in delegates. You probably remember Rube Goldberg. That is how Obama got this lead, with the craziest events happening. If there were no caucuses, Hillary would definitely been ahead now. If Howard Dean didn't try to remove two Hillary states from the primary season, Hillary would be winning by now or it would be a lot closer. These are all disenfranchisements that Obama needed to get this tiny lead.

Obama doesn't win the big states and if Hillary beat Obama in Ohio, McCain would too. Add another thing to the Rube Goldberg model, that the primaries were distorted as compared to the general election because the percentage of blacks and students are as high in the primaries as they would be in the GE. However, the non-blacks and non students who will vote in overwhelmingly larger percentages in the general election, especially in states where there were caucuses.

That is just the numbers and with Obama being the one who prevented Florida and Michigan residents to have their both candidates, he is toast and the super-delegates better wake the hell up and know that.

I seriously dislike Obama's tactics and I rather see a drag out floor fight in August than see Obama the candidate.

by cpa1a on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Let's remember what we are talking about (2.00 / 2)

Clinton blocked revotes for six weeks. Her stance that the original elections counted blocked revote work during the time that something could have been done.

Obama "blocked" revotes for two. Blocked is in quotes because

He agreed to revotes and had no power to block them
Revotes were in fact blocked by Michigan Republicans, who blamed Obama as a way of furthering the Democratic party feud
There was never any serious revote proposal for Florida that would work; no one blocked it, because nothing workable never materialized.
The Michigan revote plan that was blocked by the Republicans would never have worked anyway, because the means to implement it were the voter lists from the first primary, and the law allowing those to be provided has been struck down.

So in the absolute worst case, if you deny all of 1-4 (and that's really hard to do, since they're all true), Obama blocked revotes for 1/3 the time Clinton did, and on top of that it was the least important 2 weeks out of the 8, since the one thing revotes needed was time to get things to come together.

by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 1)

Care to bet on if they get seated as is? Because I'll tell you now... 100% no chance in hell that will happen. They will get seated, but MI will NOT get seated as is.

"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours!" - Sen. Barack Obama

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (none / 0)

Florida most likely at the original DNC 50%-voting-strength, no-SD penalty, if there's the slightest doubt as to the nominee.

Michigan, possibly, as a compromise delegation, the uncommitteds turned into Obama delegates, original DNC penalty. Alternately, 50/50 split.

by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:56:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 1)

I leaned heavily for it before, then against it, and now with Obama blocking the re-voting

We've heard this from lots of people without any kind of evidence being presented.

But finally someone with credibility is saying it -- someone who can and will back it up?

(Holding my breath here.)

Hillary is now running for vanity and ego.

by Kobi on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 0)

Marc Ambinder covered it, go and read his reporting.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 1)

The same Ambinder that just runs rightwing viral videos embedded right into his page? Yeah, I'll trust him.

by brimur on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:27:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (none / 0)

That isn't an answer worthy of you.

Hillary is now running for vanity and ego.

by Kobi on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:24:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 1)

Tell you what - I'll grant you your numbers if you'll grant me two things.

First, the numbers depend on Democrats recognizing the results of the MI and FL contests.

and

Second, they depend on awarding Barack Obama zero delegates in Michigan.

Unless Obama is caught with a live boy or a dead girl, there is zero chance that a majority of the Democratic party (or its supers) would go for that result. Not a chance.

You're trying to change the rules halfway through the game.

by TL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:00:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (none / 0)

Give me a good reason why Obama would block a revote. It's a virtual tie in the polling and if he went in an campaigned he'd probably win it. So what is his sinister motive?

Bring back the Wonk -- help beat McSame in November!

by GFORD on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:37:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wish they had blown them off too (2.00 / 1)

he might probably win the delegate count if he remained within 5 points of Hillary in MI. Seeing that many detroit city precincts would come in huge for him.

by alex100 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:48:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's gamble. (none / 0)

Hillary's gamble was (through Harold Ickes) decertifying Michigan. She isn't innocent in this at all.

I like the non-judgmental way this is rephrased in terms of gambles. Hillary took a gamble that she could decertify the Michigan election, but leave her name on it, and then claim victory afterwards as if she hadn't moved to decertify it.

Let's see. This is like the following:

War Admiral and Sea Biscuit have a race on Tuesday, but War Admiral tells Sea Biscuit, "The race is off, dude."

But War Admiral still shows up on Tuesday, runs all by himself on an empty racetrack, and claims victory. When other people point out that this isn't really a race, War Admiral says, "I made my gamble, and Sea Biscuit made his."

As if that makes any sense at all.

by Dumbo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:24:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 2)

am i missing something? are you in your piece counting Michigan as 81 delegates for Hillary and 0 for Obama as per the beauty contest results? even you must admit THAT will never pass, lol its simply not fair and would never pass the smell test anywhere. The best that is going to happen for Michigan is 50/50 how is it fair to count the current Michigan beauty contest with Obama getting no delegates from there? really?

As for Florida i'm pretty sure i saw a report today about the Obama campaign talking to the Florida democratic team to try and work out a solution and that in-fact the HRC camp hadn't yet responded to those discussions.

The only way FL and Michigan gets seated is FL get "punished" by losing half their delegates same as what happened on the republican side, and Michigan being split 50/50.

FL and Michigan broke the rules, there is no way most of the country will accept for their delegations to be seated as is no matter what the HRC campaign of the supporters do. Since the re-do's are dead and the BO camp will have a say in the credentials committee, the only way is a fair settlement.

i also suspect by the time Indiana votes if BO is ahead in delegates and popular votes he'll come up and say MI and FL get seated as is. I also suspect by that time most of the super delegates will have come out to make their choices so we should have a pretty clear picture on who's the nominee.

But to suggest that HRC will go to the convention to fight to get MI and FL seated AS IS to give her a victory won't happen. The supers won't let such a fight at the convention happen all this is going to work out by early June i suspect they won't risk a split democratic party because that's a sure way for McCain winning. That's one thing both sides and the democratic party does not want to see happen regardless of who you support.

by jax8 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (1.50 / 2)

Hillary won 55% of the votes in MI. To split the delegates 50/50 is to take 5% from her. This is called 'vote theft'. Any candidate that does so, destroys the legitimacy of the nomination.

by DaleA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 0)

Ladies and gentlemen -- look! A perfect circle!

Someone tell the Strom Thurmondgeist to stop haunting the Clintons: upending chairs, opening creaky doors, possessing during USA Today interviews.

by Lettuce on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

The fact that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot doesn't bother you at all? Do you really believe that out of the 55%, at least 5% wouldn't have voted for Barack if he was on the ballot?
The point is, we will never know. Edwards was in teh race as well. Maybe if his name was on the ballot, then he would have drawn votes from Hillary as well.

Do you see how invalid the entire primary is when everybody's name is not on the ballot?

I'm not even going to start with how MI demographics favor Obama, and how people stayed home because his name wasn't on the ballot.....

A PROUD Hopium user!

by xodus1914 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Fine, 55/45... That will net her a couple more delegates.. it still isn't going to change anything...

by LordMike on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I love Hillary the Fighter (1.90 / 10)

She is willing to fight for the rights of fellow Citizens in Florida and Michigan. I believe she will fight for my rights too. I love someone who isn't afraid to do what is right.

The disenfranchisement of Florida in 2008 would be much worse than the Republican Disenfranchisement in 2000. The DNC rules are much slighter and make less sense than the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris. 1.7 million votes in Florida tossed out. Incredible that anyone can suggest that in America. The Omamaniacs have learned a lot from Rove and W. They are worse.

And they disenfranchise one of the Gayest States in the Union and make the least Gay state, Iowa, #1. Iowa is 50th out of 50 States in Gay percentage of the Population. I don't know who these Obamaniacs in the middle of the country are, but he is not winning the big Blue States that are full of a rich diversity of different types of people.

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/state s/iowa/2000Census_state_ia.htm

by maxstar on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:21:57 PM EST

Re: I love Hillary the Fighter (1.83 / 6)

Yes, she is, when it's in her self-interest to do so. Otherwise, not so much.

by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:25:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't belong (2.00 / 2)

The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't belong to Obama or Clinton or Gore or Bush--they belong to the Citizens of Florida. We are a free people in the United States, we should remember what it means to be Americans.

by maxstar on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:45:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't bel (2.00 / 1)

"The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't belong to Obama or Clinton or Gore or Bush--they belong to the Citizens of Florida. We are a free people in the United States, we should remember what it means to be Americans."

Before you start clearing your throat to sing "God Bless America," it should probably be pointed out that all FL and MI had to do was follow the rules like everybody else and there would be no problem counting their votes. The rules were clearly explained. Both FL and MI were told that they would lose all delegates if they didn't follow them. And they were told this months -- MONTHS -- before the elections. Where was all the patriotic spirit then? Why didn't they comply when they still could?

They didn't budge. Because they thought they were too good to be told what to do by the DNC. The figured that because they were big states, that they would simply "big time" the DNC and force their will on the rest of us. Well, they were wrong. And its not the DNC's fault. And its certainly not Obama's.

In fact, most of the politicians crying the loudest in MI and FL are the primary culprits. You want somebody to blame, blame them.

by davey jones on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The votes of the Citizens of Florida don't bel (none / 0)

Actually, the rules stated they would lose half their delegates and all of their supers.
The rules allow for further sanctions if necessary, but some DNC members wanted to make an "example" of these states to prevent further chaos, never thinking how important they would be in the primaries.
Stupid move on the part of the DNC, because they failed to control the first four states from moving their primaries and other states were punished for doing the same thing.

by skohayes on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The votes of the Citizens of Florida (2.00 / 1)

I never said otherwise, though thank you for putting words into my mouth. My point is that Clinton is all about "enfranchisement" precisely because it serves her political self-interest, just as she was initially against "enfranchisement" back in January because that position suited her self-interest back then. Just as having Ickes on her campaign staff continues to serve her political self-interest, even though he did more to "disenfranchise" those two states than either Clinton or Obama. She's seizing a political opportunity, not getting religion about the importance of "enfranchisement."

by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you know she (2.00 / 3)

only started doing that Feb 12th.

Before there was not a peep out of her.

I really wish people stop pretending its not about politics.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you know she (2.00 / 1)

More like March 12. She spent all of February claiming the original delegations should be seated, which is just calling for a different type of disenfranchisement.

by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I love her spunk (2.00 / 6)

You go, Hillary! Seat the Florida and Michigan delegations!

Hillary Clinton: America's First Woman President!

by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:22:35 PM EST

Re: I love her spunk (2.00 / 2)

Absolutely, you gotta love her spunk..

The gloves are coming off.

What is politics without some guts and arm-to-arm combat?

I am pumped .. enough of this MSM-surrogates fighting the battle for Obama. Let's see what he is made of. Frankly, better now than when he faces the Republicans.

by loser on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I love her spunk (2.00 / 0)

Go Hillary, destroy the party, elect McCain!

Rah! Rah!

by alephnul on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I love her spunk (none / 0)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with fighting. I wish Al Gore felt the same way in 2000, or Kerry in 2004. I absolutely do not agree that the party will be destroyed. Enough with the hyperbole. It's so childish. Let's fight this out and stop being so polite. That's the real reason democrats haven't been winning. What milquetoasts(sp?).

by moonheart on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:47:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I love her spunk (none / 0)

Well, at the end of that segment, she is basically saying that she will force the party to choose between her and crippling damage going into the general election.

Fighting hard against your opponents (as we all wish Kerrey and Gore had done) is one thing. Attacking your own party if it doesn't choose you is another thing entirely. Pushing a floor fight at the convention is the second thing, not the first.

by alephnul on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 5)

Go Hillary, Go.

See you at the convention!!!!!!!!

by loser on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:22:45 PM EST

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

And the award for most apt alias goes to . . .

The Washington Post gave Mrs Clinton four Pinocchios for [the sniper story], which is like three Michelin stars, only for lying. -- The Economist

by BITNPB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:08:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

he he he..

Ever lived in Chicago and followed the Cubs? :)

by loser on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 2)

These scenarios are getting awfully convoluted. The number of steps required make it very unlikely. Plus, one would have to consider what the effect of a completely fractured party as late as August is going to accomplish. If that were to happen, it would almost require a joint ticket to heal everybody's feelings in time to have any hope of defeating McCain.

by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:23:01 PM EST

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Well I've always been for Clintoon/Obama.

still am.

unless Hillary loses in Pa, its the only solution.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 2)

You want a guy you've savaged as unqualified to be president and unelectable to be VP? Interesting, since the first requirement for any VP is their ability to take over the presidency at a moments notice.

by HSTruman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:43:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, that's something I don't understand. Our friend here was fond of posting a sinking ship with "Obama" plastered across it, but now we're to understand that a joint ticket would be totally awesome? There's either a very high level of disingenuousness on display on this website or a cynical ploy for the votes that a joint ticket would bring.

by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:01:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hate his campaign, know he CANT win (1.00 / 1)

but Ive always been for Clinton/Obama.

ask my buddy Luke in Obamaland.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hate his campaign, know he CANT win (1.00 / 1)

but Ive always been for Clinton/Obama.

ask my buddy Luke in Obamaland.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (1.00 / 2)

The guy was a state asssemblyman a couple of years ago, he sure as hell hasnt proved to me or anybody i know who has been around the WH that he's ready to be Prez.

but, with some time in office, he may show he REALLY has the stuff.

but that moments notice bit is hype. All hype.

ask dan quayle or just about any other VP in history.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (none / 0)

The Bosnia lies make Clinton unelectable. No other politician this season has made a mind-blowing mistake like that.

It's a ridiculous assumption anyway, that the likely nominee would agree to the VP slot.

by mcgish on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (1.00 / 3)

you guys dont even know media hype from actual big deals.

hill didnt lose one vote over this. not one.

newsflash! people and politicans exagerate.

OH NO! CALL A PRIEST!

Hell, Obamas lied a slew of times so far in this race, big deal.

whats shocking is one dem's campaign callng another dem a liar in the media.

only one other dem has ever done that before this.

that slime bradley in 2000.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (none / 0)

That's really not a consistent argument. I know the VP slot in the past has been treated like it was training wheels, or at least that is the perception in some quarters. The problem is that's just not a responsible position to advocate for. The VP should be just as ready as the President from the first day in office. That's one position I don't think it's wise to gamble with however politically appealing you might think the option.

Either Obama is suited for one office and therefore both or not.

by tessellated on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:42:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (none / 0)

hey guess what?

I dont accept, nor am I impressed with that obama wicked lil word trap.

the cable media bought it, but ive worked and fought with those folks and think theyre basically half witted, well tanned idiots.

im talking real here. its clinton/obama or le deluge.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:52:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (none / 0)

It's not a word trap, and it's irrelevant what the media thinks.

The point is the VP is one heartbeat away from the presidency and if you don't think the VP is good enough to be president how do you justify putting that person in the VP slot to begin with?

I suppose you are looking at the problem as purely one of political calculation and that is your justification. Ok, fine, I am just not sure why it's ok to do a political calculation with the VP slot and not with the top of the ticket as well. You might point out that the chance of something going wrong and needing the VP to step up is small, but I don't think that's an appropriate risk to take. Just my opinion.

I'm also not sure I buy the line that a unity ticket is necessary to avert disaster. It might turn out to be the case, but it's still early.

by tessellated on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:14:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (none / 0)

without the media obama would be planing his run for gov.

its a word trap, nothing more.

but guess what? you arent the media, im annonymous, I dont have to pretend.

You can, do as you wish.

Its got to be both or Gore.

Id love it to be al, but that aint happening.

and I worked for the clinons persoally, trust this, its not gonna be barry/hillary, be sure of that....

so...

he amazg thimg is that hill/bo is A GREAT PLACE for obama, better than if he were 1...

but id and ego... id and ego...

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:47:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is unelectable at the top of the ticket (none / 0)

Do you really think for one minute that VP's are chosen for their readiness to take over on minute 1? I believe they are chosen for the votes they can bring. I've seen Richardson posited many times with the cynical reason to bring in the latinos. Most of the time a VP is chosen to round out a weakness of the presidential nominee. Come on give me a break!

In the case of a unity ticket, it serves the purpose of giving Obama the time to gain the actual experience needed, and brings the party together. Just think of the overwhelming traditional democratic support of HRC married to the new and super enthusiastic democrats that BO would bring to the ticket. Come on, you can't say that isn't really attractive.

That's an absolute winner for the Democratic Party and the American people.

by moonheart on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

Who said Obama does not have the potential.. he has. It is just that he needs good apprenticeship under Hillary.
BTW, Hillary is not going to die soon.. Reagan lived till mid-80s and women live longer than men :)

by loser on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 1)

LOL....Barack Obama doesn't need ANYTHING from Hillary. What's she going to do, teach him how to run a campaign? Underestimate your political opponent?
I got it. She'll teach him how to not compete in all 50 states, along with picking inept advisers.

There is a reason why he outplayed, outwitted and outlasted her, people. Don't minimize his accomplishments by perpetuating this fairy tale about him being her veep so he can be mentored by her. Or him picking her up as veep so she can be the brains of the outfit.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton if she steals the nomination only because John MCCain is a freaking idiot.
But do not for one minute think that she was the best (or even second best) foreign policy wonk, security wonk, experience wonK in the field. Her credentials were never competitive against most of the other SERIOUS Democratic candidates except for Obama and Edwards. That's why the whole 'Ready from Day one' is nonsense because it wouldn't have flown against the likes of Dodd and Richardson, and McCain will laugh in her face if she tries it.
Hillary never had the vision to come up with a campaign strategy that would win her both the primary and give a her a shot in the GE.
Obama's message of vision and change, contrasted nicely against the other candidates (with the possible exception of Edwards) and can only pick up steam in November against a candidate who is going to be bringing more of the same.
I contend that Barack may be able to teach Hillary a thing or two.

A PROUD Hopium user!

by xodus1914 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 0)

Actually, I think it contrasted nicely against Edwards theme of righteous anger and change.

Personally, I liked righteous anger and change better, but I can understand why others liked hope and change better.

But yes, Clinton's experience theme was pretty dubious up against Richardson or even Dodd or Biden, and she's already admitted that it would be completely useless against McCain.

by alephnul on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:34:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

It's also a strategy in which she still doesn't have the votes, particularly if you consider that the uncommitted delegates in Michigan are the anyone but Clinton delegates. Once you put the 55 uncommitteds in the Obama count then, even with MI and FL, Obama leads by around 100 pledged delegates. While Clinton may make up 20 delegates in PA, she will lose them back in IN, NC, and OR, so she'll make it into the convention down by 150 or so and then she'll have a brutal floor fight so that she can overturn the seating committee's recommendation, all so that she can push down her deficit to 100 delegates, and then the super delegates will be so happy with the humiliation she has put the party through on live television that they will swing overwhelmingly to her (even though she has only been able to score a handful of super delegates in the past several, and many super delegates have started speaking out against her party damaging tactics), thus giving her the nomination?

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a sane strategy or a viable strategy, but I guess it is the only raft of hope she has left to hold onto, particularly since her shameful last ditch attempt to race bait Obama over Wright seems to have been treated as the shameless ploy it was.

by alephnul on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:28:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 3)

Listening to the two campaigns it's almost like they're talking about two entirely different topics.

Obama: "Rules are rules!"
Clinton: "Democracy now! Credentials fight later!"

They're two entirely different arguments. I think this whole thing will be a lot closer than anyone expects at the beginning of June, and then we'll see what happens. Clinton going down without MI & FL though, that will bitterize a lot of people, especially in Florida.

by VAAlex on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:23:58 PM EST

erm (2.00 / 4)

Seating Michigan as it is now, would be BLATANTLY unfair.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:27:43 PM EST

Re: erm (none / 0)

Nno it wouldn't be at all unfair.

Obama gave up on that state and decided not to put his name on the ballot.

That was his choice.

Choices have consequences.

Obama needs to be accountable for his choices.

The citizens need not be punished for a choice he and he alone made.

by Caliman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow (2.00 / 2)

thats like a stream of non-sense.

Obama pulled his name along with Edwards because of the pledge he made.

Hillary by not pulling hers has violated the pledge in spirit if not in letter.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bs myth (1.00 / 3)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bs myth (1.00 / 3)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wow (2.00 / 1)

I love how the only reply to this is "BS Myth", repeated twice, with absolutely no justification given at all.

The candidates signed a plenty to "not participate" in the Florida or Michigan primaries. It was too late for anyone's name to be removed from Florida, but not Michigan.

I'd love to hear an argument as to how having one's name on the ballot is "not participating", just for the sheer fun of watching language get tortured that far.

In any case, the entire thing is absurd. This is supposed to be about the voters, remember? Enfranchisement is a voter right, not a campaign right.

45% of Michigan's voters did not have an opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice. That they trudged to the polls to say they were denied that right is quite a statement in itself.

Those voters were disenfranchised. Seating them is seating the results of a blatantly undemocratic election.

Seating them will not reenfranchise nearly half the state of Michigan. In fact, all it'll do is say that, in America, it's just fine for us to say that your vote only counts if you vote for the "right" person. Not only that, but if you vote for the "wrong" person, we'll just go ahead and award the delegates that should've resulted from your vote to the "right" person anyway. If you don't like the "right" person, your vote is meaningless.

Does anyone want that to be a standard upon which the Democratic party is based?

by Texas Gray Wolf on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:10:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wow (none / 0)

Obama made a choice to take his name off the ballot.

Choices have consequences.

Obama should man up and face the consequences of this choice.

Just because he made a bad choice is no reason to punish the voters of Michigan who voted on election day.

by Caliman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

redux (none / 0)

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: wow (none / 0)

The pledge he made did not say to strip his name from the ballot. He did so because he was afraid of upsetting New Hampshire. That was his call to make. The uncommitted delegates can all go to him for all we know.

Words are not action. ~ Hillary Clinton

by bowiegeek on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:32:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: erm (2.00 / 1)

Umm, you do realize that he was following the rules, right?
People should be penalized for following the rules?

WOW.

A PROUD Hopium user!

by xodus1914 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: erm (none / 0)

If "choices have consequences" what's the consequence of Hillary's pledge supposedly not to participate in the Michigan primary?

Other than her being revealed as an unashamed liar, I mean.

by Aris Katsaris on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:26:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 4)

I agree not revoting MI and FLA gives HRC the path to get the SDs at the convention, BO will have shown he cannot win the base Dems in big blue states if he cant get PA and shutting out FLA and Mi makes his nomination look illegitimate in the eyes of HRC supporters who feel the party leaders have had this thing framed this way since Aug 07 when Brazil and the rules cmte cut FLA and MI out...

ginaswo

by ginaswo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:28:45 PM EST

Re: The lifeline strategy (1.50 / 8)

I THOUGHT THE DUMBEST THING THE OBAMAS COULD DO WOULD BE TO STOP THE REVOTES,CAUSE THEN WE'D END UP WITH MORE DELEGATES, MAYBE ALL.

I KNOW HILLARY PRETTY WELL, LOTS BETTER THAN A DODD, THESE FOLKS DONT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND DOROTHY'S DAUGHTER ONE BIT...

SHE'S TAKING THIS TO DENVER, NO ON WILL STOP HER OR US.

THIS IS HUGE NEWS.

(oops caps. btw, doing this with Greta shows how special this statement was. good eye Jerome!)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:29:05 PM EST

well thank you (none / 0)

for you CAPITALIZED rant.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DIDYA MISS THE (1.50 / 2)

oops caps?

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no (2.00 / 2)

maybe you should have retyped it instead of apologizing cause that kinda weird.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:05:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no (1.00 / 3)

why?

did it hurt your ears?

you people look to insult others over ANYTHING!

Thats Sad, so Sad...

{caps on purpose)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no (1.50 / 2)

why?

did it hurt your ears?

you people look to insult others over ANYTHING!

Thats Sad, so Sad...

{caps on purpose)

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

it really isn't huge news. Really.

by alex100 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 2)

Sorry if you don't see what she's an announcing.

I guess the geniuses on MSNBC are still talking about how important Sinbad and Bosnia are.

Jerome got it, I bet Axelrod does too.

I expect a further fury of Hillary get outs.

But that AHD. (aint happenin'dude)

Im very glad there will be no revoting.

Now no one can say she didnt try.....

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

you and other Hillary supporters can make all the noise in the world regarding this topic and you might have limited success. But if you believe the numbers Jerome is tabulating in his post are accurate, assuming Hillary get's her way, then you're severely mistaken.

by alex100 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

you just dont even get it at all.

this wasnt about jeromes numbers..

Hillary went to Greta to announce how her role in this will ALL PLAY OUT, but you Obamaites are believing for what - will this be the 5th time now(?) that somehow hillary will be forced out of this race.

She just announced she's going to denver and she will demand and fight to seat mi and fl.

and you think this is minor thing?

I know her, you only think you do.

She's not leaving this race. Bet on it.
If you had sense, youd even bet on her.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

okay. I hear what you're saying. I understand what you believe.

I believe this thinking is wrong. it is a minor thing. regardless if these states get seated, it won't do anything to get her all that much closer.

by alex100 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:06:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (2.00 / 2)

my god, watch the vid again.

se has the right to argue in front of rules.

her supporters will back her.

she cant be pushed out before then.

if she wins pa, ky, wv, pr etc...and in commitee, she'll be ahead even without the supers.

obama blundered huge in stopping revotes in fl and mi.

huge.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:14:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The lifeline strategy (none / 0)

she has the right to argue but she won't control the credentials committee. Obama will. Therefore, while FL might get seated at 1/2 strength, Michigan will be split in half. Each candidate getting their fair split.

and her supporters (the DLC corporateCons) have been backing her these past few days and weeks and months. This isn't exactly brand new news (as you may think).

and no, she can't be ahead without supers if she wins PA, KY, WV and PR. That would be an absolute impossibility. If you truly believe that you're in for a huge let down.

insanely insignificant. Unless you think such desperation is a