MyDD :: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL

Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL

by oregonkcg, Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:44:55 PM EST

A particularly troubling and inaccurate meme on this site among Hillary Clinton supporters is that somehow if Hillary Clinton were to get the Michigan and Florida delegations seated in the proportions she won in both states, she would magically become the front-runner.

Take for instance:

"[I'm] thinking about how FL/MI will be seated and counted, and the implications of that (Sen. Clinton being the frontrunner again)." by SevenStrings

THE FACTS

Assumptions: For the sake of argument, let's assume the most likely of the unlikely scenarios:

(1) the Florida delegation is seated exactly as-is, according to the vote in Florida where no one was allowed to campaign; and

(2) the Michigan delegations are seated with Clinton getting the percentage that she received, in an election where only she left her name on the ballot, and Obama gets the delegates for the "uncommitted" votes.

POPULAR VOTE

Here are the popular vote numbers* from RealClearPolitics:

Popular Vote (w/o MI/FL):
  Obama: 13,689,293
  Clinton: 12,861,985
  Spread: Obama +827,308

Popular Vote (w MI/FL):
  Obama: 14,503,675
  Clinton: 14,061,280
  Spread: Obama +442,395

As you can see, even if MI and FL are included, Obama is still the frontrunner in the popular vote by more than 400,000 votes.

STATES WON

This is pretty simple, if MI and FL are counted, Clinton only picks up two states to add to her tally, bringing her from 13 to 15 (if you accept the notion that she "won" Texas and Nevada even though Obama received 3 and 1 more delegates, respectively.

This is compared to Obama's 29 states won.

DELEGATES

Here are the pledged delegate numbers from RealClearPolitics:

Pledged Delegates (w/o MI/FL):
  Obama: 1,415
  Clinton: 1,251
  Spread: Obama +164

Pledged Delegates (w MI/FL) !* (w/ MI uncommitted for Obama):
  Obama: 1,537
  Clinton: 1,429
  Spread: Obama +108

Pledged Delegates (w MI/FL) !* (w/o MI uncommitted for Obama):
  Obama: 1,482
  Clinton: 1,429
  Spread: Obama +53

As you can see from the above, depending on whether or not the MI uncommitteds are pledged to Obama, Obama is still head by either 53 or 108 pledged delegates.

CONCLUSION AND PLEA

As the above analysis shows, Obama will still be ahead in pledged delegates, popular vote and states won even if FL and MI are seated as described above.

As a result, can I make a personal plea to Hillary supporters here to simply debate on the facts and stop making the inaccurate claim that MI and FL would somehow magically make Sen. Clinton the "frontrunner"?

* Includes estimated numbers from IA, NV, ME, WA, which did not release official numbers. The estimate from these four Caucus states where there are not official popular vote numbers only increases Senator Obama's popular vote margin by 110,224. As a result, the results of the analysis above do not change.

!* In Michigan, Clinton would get 73 pledged delegates and "Uncommitted" would receive 55. In Florida, Obama would get 67 pledged delegates and Clinton would get 105.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Florida, Michigan, Frontrunner (all tags)

Permalink :: 61 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (2.00 / 0)

The truth is that they need uncertanity. If people see the truth that would be over for them.

McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future

by KathyM on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:47:34 PM EST

Get a clue, please! (none / 0)

Go to this site, with helpful projections about the popular vote after all is said and done.

It allows you to play along at home.

by frankly0 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:48:06 PM EST

Re: Get a clue, please! (2.00 / 0)

I did it I got Obama still winning the popular vote,

though I did give him the MI uncommitted, I am sorry but there is no way MI gets seated without Obama getting something from it

also I gave Hillary NO 20 point wins, the most I gave were 15 point wins, in WV and PR and KY

PA I gave at 8.

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get a clue, please! (none / 0)

You play the game the way you want to, others will play it the way they want to.

And of course there will be a reality test at the end.

But even as it's originally filled out, it shows Clinton winning the popular vote under plausible scenarios.

by frankly0 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Get a clue, please! (2.00 / 0)

well we disagree on the definition of plausible

20 point win in WV 30 in PR? I dont see that as plausible

Obama always closes when he campaigns, will he win the states? no

but they wont stay at 20 and 30 point margins

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (2.00 / 0)

seriously there have been so many diaries pointing this out.

1) they will doubt your Math

no they won't do their own math
if by chance they do, do the math then you get things like Hillary winning PA by 20 and WV by 40 with an argument that Polls are wrong, watch!

The DNC, the HRC campaign, and the BHO campaign know these numbers, thats all that is important,

let the people hear argue all they want, but just be damn sure there are people who know that just seating them is not enough, thats why Hillary is calling for re-votes she doesn't want the delegates, she wants the popular vote, and a new chance to run up the numbers hoping to over take him.

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:48:42 PM EST

Clinton's not the frontrunner (none / 0)

But what your numbers do point out is that she can very feasibly catch Obama in the popular vote, and narrow the PD gap to well under 100. Just carrying PA by 12pts on 2M votes cast gets her 240K. Assuming the rest of the states wash out as each candidate has an edge in some of them and turning to PR, is it possible that Clinton nets another 200K out of PR? I wouldn't say it's the likely outcome, but it's not improbable.

And if she catches him in the popular vote, the dynamics of the argument change dramatically. Then you have candidates who have split the electors and the people (kind of like Bush v. Gore), and Clinton's won the lion's share of the top 10 states that account for 50% of the US population (Obama won his home state and GA).

by activatedbybush on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST

Re: Clinton's not the frontrunner (2.00 / 0)

ah no NC will wash PA so we will be exactly where we are now give or take a few, as we are now with only
8 states left and them most likely splitting 4 to 4

so she would actually need to net the entire difference she is behind now out of PR and Indiana, because anything she gets out of PA Obama will counter with NC.

PR and Indiana to win by what 400,000 votes? well its possible, only to wait and see how probably

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's not the frontrunner (none / 0)

No nominee will be elected using the popular votes. The rules were decided at the beginning of the primaries that the nomination was to be decided on who won the most delegates. No super delegate in their right mind would overule these results. If they did, it would be the end of the democratic party. So, if Hillary cannot catch up on pledged delegates she loses, end of story. The Clintons should end the race gracefully when all the primaries have ended. If the Clintons go to the convention and fight it out they will still lose, and Bill Clinton's legacy will be mud.

by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The rules were that all delegates (none / 0)

make up their own minds. And there is nothing that says that pledged delegates has to be the basis of the superdelegates' decision.

I think there is a bigger problem for Clinton if she can't catch Obama in the popular vote inclusive of FL and MI (w/her votes over undecided).

NC won't cancel out PA, but it will mostly but not entirely cancel out her huge wins in WV, KY, and IN. So she needs to make up about 460K votes in PA and PR. With 2M votes in PA, and a 12 point win, that gets her over halfway there. PR could be good for another 200K so then we are in tossup land.

My guess is that if Clinton is close w/FL and MI included (with an offset to Obama for uncommitted) she will fight this to the convention nad have a good chance of getting the nomination. If on the other hand she only wins PA by a few points and gets creamed in NC, she could pull out by mid-may.

by activatedbybush on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:32:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

Your math doesn't match the math on the side of this very page. The delegate counts differ depending on source.

by americanincanada on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (2.00 / 0)

delegates only differ because mostly of caucus states, they haven't been certified so different news outlets and blogs, have different ways of estimating.

also when was the last time this site was updated for its total?

I would use MSNBC.coms totals, Chuck Todd basically updates his numbers after every delegate change in the totals and as caucuses get certified everyone else just gets closer to officially agreeing with Todd's numbers.

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary won't agree (2.00 / 0)

...to give Obama the Uncommitteds, at least, last I heard that was the case.

Anyone else with more info there?

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:03:28 PM EST

Re: Hillary won't agree (none / 0)

that can't possibly be the truth?

is it?

HRC supporters this is your candidate anyone know if this is true?

Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."

by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary won't agree (none / 0)

I wouldn't if I were her. Especially, at the negotiating table, I would begin from as is and probably try to settle on exit poll percentage of the Uncommitted's to Obama. I still think he should have said "go back to the original punishment". No super delegates and each delegate counts as half. This would remove the uncertainty and quash any possibility of Hillary catching up in delegates. If he started there wanting all Uncommitteds, he probably could have gotten his exit poll percentage. In the end, it would be a pyrrhic victory for Hillary Clinton, giving her some delegates but stripping the possibility of getting them all(which she needs).

I would imagine any public statements would be opening negotiating conditions.

by Tantris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MI vote ruled unconstitutional (none / 0)

..and I totally freaking agree.

So, I'm not sure delegates can be seated as a proportion of what the court sees as a bogus picture of the will of the electorate--perhaps the DNC is not bound by that decision.

I wonder why it has not been considered--having, say, ten major, respected polling companies poll huge numbers in both states, toss away the outliers, and average the results together and apportion the delegates accordingly. It of course would skew Hillary, because Obama gets so many new voters who would not be on the "likely voter" rolls, but still, seems more accurate than the bogus elections where so many people stayed home or crossed over.

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary won't agree (none / 0)

The problem was that she agreed to a revote, the DNC approved it and Obama balked because DNC rules prohibit anyone who voted in the Republican primary from voting in a revote (which makes sense, since you can't vote in both parties' primaries in the same year).

by cmugirl90 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

If you add Super delegates Hillary would then be ahead of Obama when counting Michigan and Florida.

by karajan72 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:08:51 PM EST

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

Nope, you're wrong. Hillary is only up by around 31 supers according to RCP

Oregon Hussein KCG - Hussein means: "good; small handsome one" in Arabic.

by oregonkcg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

The votes will not be counted in Michigan because Obama was not on the ballot, period. Hillary could still get 300,000 out of PA, and 300,000 our of PR, WV, and Kentucky and still not catch up in the popular votes. Obama will win the nomination, and the Clintons are just delaying the inevitable. The Clintons are sore losers, and so are their supporters. If Obama was where Hillary is, I would tell him to get out of the race because we democrats need to win. The Clintons are rich, and are popular at this moment, and Hillary could do anything she wants, including running for NY governor, which would be perfect for the Clintons since they already live there.

by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:09:14 PM EST

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

He wasn't on the ballot because his campaign made a tactical decision to remove himself because he knew he was going to get his clock cleaned.

by cmugirl90 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look i supported Obama and voted for him (none / 0)

but what is troubling to me is the efforts exerted by his campaign to put tremendous hurdles to solving the mess in Florida and Michigan. They really put tremendous pressures on the Michigan local officials. This is not a secret and you can read about it in the med-western newspapers.

The bottom line to me is that it has to be some kind of re-vote or a fair solution to this mess. Other than that, Senator Obama will look bad.

by likelihood zero on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST

Re: Look i supported Obama and voted for him (none / 0)

On Huffington it was reported that Obama was trying to do something about Florida, but Hillary would not do anything but count the votes as they are. It is the Clintons who will not compromise. Check it out for yourself.

by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look i supported Obama and voted for him (none / 0)

Spanky, i have friends and family who live in Florida and i know for a fact that he did not raise a finger to do anything over there. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Senator Obama is not clean at all in this fight. As an Obama supporter, i have no problem calling a cat a cat. I like Senator Obama and i voted for him, but on this he is totally wrong. What his delegation of lawyers did in Michigan was just Bush-like behavior that reminded of Florida 2000. If Senator Clinton did the same, we would all have been completely OUTRAGED and running around screaming bloody murder. Well, i think we have to be fair here and i think we should call bloody murder too.

I am being very honest here. I like Obama, i voted for him, but he is not a prophet or a god. He is just another politician and in this FL/MI mess, his campaign behaved in despicable ways.

I am sorry if you cannot see that.

by likelihood zero on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is false information (none / 0)

"efforts exerted by his campaign to put tremendous hurdles to solving the mess in Florida and Michigan."

The only demand I'm aware of him making was not penalizing the MI voters who crossed over in the "didn't count" election.

Perhaps you can provide examples that are coming from someplace other than the Clinton campaign?

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:57:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is false information (none / 0)

Can we have an intelligent discussion without being accused of being a Clinton supporter. This is getting really getting old. How many times do i need to tell you that i support Obama and i voted for him. But i am also a fair guy and i will call it as i see it.

If you want sources, read newspapers from Midwest. There were a couple of articles about how the lawyers from the Obama campaign twisted arms until of the Michigan local elections (read the online edition of the St Louis Post-Dispatch/Kansas City Star and many others)

by likelihood zero on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

False again. (none / 0)

I did NOT call you a Clinton supporter. I believe that you support Obama. I simply asked for a source of your accusation that did not trace back to the Clinton campaign.

I found this in the Kansas City Star, but it doesn't refer to "arm twisting."

It mentioned Obama concerned with security for a hastily thrown together mail-in campaign (that is, too fast for workers to be properly trained). I've read other accounts where Obama was concerned about penalizing folks who crossed over (which would have been his supporters like me, since he wasn't on the ballot).

Both of those concerns are entirely legit. However, MI's legislature recessed without solving the issue, and in MI, 2/3rds of the legislature must agree to a re-vote. Obama hardly deserves to be tarred for this.

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:49:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOT False again. (none / 0)

I am talking about the efforts of his campaign to kill every attempt to have a re-vote.

Can we say that we agree to disagree with this?

Look this is a very close primary where every vote should and must be counted. The difference between the 2 is very close and dismissing this fact is not looking that the whole picture. Moreover, dismissing the fact the FL/MI should revote is going to split the party on the ground. You need those organizers on the ground in FL/MI to put 100% effort in order to win in November, and if you tell them that your vote is not going to count and devise some kind of other formula (such as dividing the votes and all that jazz) is not going to play well with them. If you have people who are party organizers on the ground in MI and FL talk to them and they will tell you exactly what i am telling you. Furthermore, any effort by any campaign to get to a solution otherwise than re-vote is going to be highly suspicious. Senator Obama campaign killed every effort to have a revote in that state (MI). They twisted arms and they played and are playing the clock until the possibility of a re-vote is totally unfeasible (by the way, Howard Dean is not innocent either and he is the one who created this freaking mess with his idiotic little rules). That is my honest opinion and assessment. I know that us supporters of Senator Obama like to depict Clinton as this evil-doer, but in this fight, she is looking way better and way cleaner than Senator Obama.

I have nothing to add to this discussion and as i said, let us agree to disagree on this issue.

by likelihood zero on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 05:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh come ON (none / 0)

Having a presumptive nominee without every state having weighed in is in fact typical of most races. In fact, nominees in other races with fewer resources who got clobbered on Super Tuesday as hard as Hillary did have had to drop out for lack of funds. (She was broke too--she had to loan her own campaign 5 million bucks. Not every candidate can afford to do that.)

Having a "presumptive nominee" has never suppressed the vote. This case, where so many states are voting, is very rare. I am a Michigander and I'm telling you, I don't know one voter who doesn't understand that when a state cuts in line, it gets thrown out of line. Rules and consequences exist because if they didn't, everyone would be scrambling to vote ahead of everyone else, and it would be pandemonium.

Obama is not to blame for this mess. MI and FL did this to themselves. Action, consequence.

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:24:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rhetoricus, tdo you think that this is a (none / 0)

typical race? Oh really, this is faaaaaaaar from being a "typical" race? I have been watching races since 1980s (the Kennedy v. Cater one) and this is by far the most instable and least typical one by all standards.

I am from MO and i have many friends organizers in MI and i am telling you that they are pissed.

Well as i said, let us agree to disagree on this one.

by likelihood zero on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We can disagree. (none / 0)

And your pissed off MI friends should at least broaden their perspective about who is to blame, since there is a lot of blame to go around.

I know I'm already pounding the ground to get Dems to vote Dem in November.

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We can disagree. (none / 0)

Actually they voted for Obama or whatever that was (uncommitted), but they are pissed of.

Anyway, we are not getting anywhere. You are not going to convince me and i am not going to do that either. You do not see anything with the Senator's tactics, i see it as wrong and i call it as i see it maybe because i am older than you and i worked in campaigns before or maybe because deep down i am cynic.

So, have a good day. Bye Bye

by likelihood zero on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: NOT False again. (none / 0)

"They twisted arms and they played and are playing the clock until the possibility of a re-vote is totally unfeasible"

This is ridiculous. Your "beliefs" should at least partly conform to the facts. The clock ran out last Friday, when the GOP MI legislature went on its recess without having achieved the 2/3rds vote necessary to run another election. Obama had legit concerns (why go to the expense and headache of another vote if it too will be unfair and fraught with problems, and risk having that one too declared unconstitutional by the state court?), and the DNC did not work to solve them, and neither did Hillary, because the problems worked in her favor.

You are actively promoting the ludicrous talking points from the Clinton campaign that falsely blame Obama for this mess, and that seek to whip up the resentments of Michiganders against him.

Now, a one way to poll the MI Dem electorate would be to run, say, 10 large polls from respected polling institutions, drop the outliers, average the results, and apportion the delegates that way, since few races' results have strayed too far from the polls. Such polling would skew for Hillary, since Obama pulls in new voters who wouldn't be on the roll already, but it would be fairer than the current mess.

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False again. (none / 0)

"I've read other accounts where Obama was concerned about penalizing folks who crossed over (which would have been his supporters like me, since he wasn't on the ballot)."

This is a specious argument. You CHOSE to cross over and your vote has been counted by the Republicans. Why should YOU get to vote twice?

by cmugirl90 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False again. (none / 0)

The MI voting fiasco was declared unconstitutional all the way around by the state court. I think that's reason enough to void the results.

If we're going to be so harsh about choices, MI and FL "chose" to defy the rules, knowing the consequences. Why should they get special treatment?

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:37:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

get you facts straight! can you read? (none / 0)

using you own source from RCP:

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**
Obama: 13,931,423 47.6%
Clinton: 13,837,418 47.2%
Obama +94,005 +0.4%

This 94005 advantage will disappear as soon as PA will vote: check line 5 on
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST

Re: get you facts straight! can you read? (none / 0)

You did not count the caucus votes. Also, Michigan will never be counted as is.

by Spanky on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get you facts straight! can you read? (none / 0)

Counting the caucuses:

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*

OBAMA 14,265,507 47.6%
Clinton 14,061,280 47.0%

Obama +204,227 0.6%

Still to close to call. Let the race continue.

"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"

by RedstateLib on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get you facts straight! can you read? (none / 0)

1. You have to acknowledge that original Diary is wrong.

2. I tend to discount ALL Caucus votes; I participated in one and read about many - they are all fraud. Democracy is when "one democrat = one vote" as oppose to "one activist = one vote"
plus a lot of yelling and ridicolous rules and need to talk with idiots for 6 hours.
But for this particular exersise we can use caucuses votes - it is line 6 from RCP:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA, FL, MI*
Obama 14,265,507 47.6%
Clinton 14,061,280 47.0% Obama advantage is +204,227 +0.6%, which WILL
disappear after PA will vote.

3. Michigan will be counted, no matter what you say or do.
4. All votes have to be counted if you want legitimate nominee, don't even think otherwise.
If rules needs to be change - they will be; if Dean has to go - he will be fired or resigned because huge mistakes he did.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just silly. (none / 0)

Wow, you're just making up rules as you go along, aren't you?

The fact is, nominees are commonly chosen without all the states weighing in, simply because their voting date is so late in the primary. Nobody has ever screamed about the "disenfranchisement" of those states.

MI and FL blew their already prime voting position being greedy, and the penalty was known ahead of time. Why give MI and FL more special treatment than late-voting states get when a nominee is decided early, especially given that such late-voting states commonly didn't defy the rules, as MI and FL did?

Howard Dean needs to re-locate his balls and call the MI and FL question closed.

by rhetoricus on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no caucus votes in that count (none / 0)

plus you say PA like its the last contest.

There will be other contests after PA which Obama will win.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no caucus votes in that count (none / 0)

you wish; Obama may win NC, and if he lucky SD.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oregon too (none / 0)

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oregon too (none / 0)

OR is a pipe dream for Obama: it is CLOSED PRIMARIES, see list of open primaries here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primar y#States_with_an_open_primary
All Obama wom 15 caucuses (fraud), 9 Open Primaries (GOPs and independents gamed it), his home state, MD (30% blacks) and only 2 real, but small wins: CT & DE.
OR will go Hillary, if she will do what she usually does and what she did in OH, CA, MA etc.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Montana... (none / 0)

Seriously, though... South Dakota if he's LUCKY?

Besides Montana, which votes the same day, South Dakota borders...

North Dakota: Obama won
Minnesota: Obama won
Iowa: Obama won
Nebraska: Obama won
Wyoming: Obama won

And it's a caucus. What possible reason do you have to think that he won't win South Dakota?

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Montana... (none / 0)

these 2 links said that SD is not a caucus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primar y#States_with_an_open_primary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_ Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_p rimaries%2C_2008#April_and_beyond
if you have diff. info please share.

ND was the caucus;
MN was the caucus;
IA was the caucus;
NB was the caucus;
WY was the caucus.

Can you see the correlation?

I am making (repeating) for you a simple statement:
if SD is not a caucus and not an Open Primary THAN Hillary has a good chance, because democrats like her, as oppose to activists, GOPs and independents.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Montana... (none / 0)

I concede the point that South Dakota is a primary, not a caucus. Thank you for the information.

However, let me say that wins in the surrounding states of 24 (ND), 34 (MN), 10 (IA, 3-way), 36 (NE -- NB is New Brunswick), and 23 (WY) are more significant than can be expressed by "well, Clinton people aren't caucus people."

Connecticut wasn't a caucus. Georgia wasn't a caucus. Mississippi wasn't a caucus, Missouri wasn't a caucus -- there's no correlation between "primary" and "Hillary wins."

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:58:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Montana... (none / 0)

As you you can see from my other posts, I conceded both CT & DE as only 2 real wins for Obama.

For Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri and some others (AL and LA for sure) I will argue it was just a vote alone racial lines (blacks 9:1) and had nothing to do with merits of candidates. In other words, it has nothing to do with who is the better democrat or better candidate.

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Montana... (none / 0)

Can you clarify what you mean by this? As I'm reading it, your statement really comes close to being offensive.

can't rec or rate

by quimby10 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Montana... (none / 0)

oh sorry baby; i did not mean to offend you. but i said what i said and i don't see any room for misinterpretation of it. i know that Obama supporters will twist this, but they cannot escape the truth...

Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties

by engels on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:57:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Montana... (none / 0)

Your comment infers blacks aren't "real democrats,"
otherwise your comment makes no sense.

Would you care to explain?

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get you facts straight! can you read? (none / 0)

So this race is a dead heat. Well we have 10 more primaries for one of them to pull out some sort of lead.

"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"

by RedstateLib on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get you facts straight! can you read? (none / 0)

And as I note in my footnote:

!* In Michigan, Clinton would get 73 pledged delegates and "Uncommitted" would receive 55. In Florida, Obama would get 67 pledged delegates and Clinton would get 105.

Oregon Hussein KCG - Hussein means: "good; small handsome one" in Arabic.

by oregonkcg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get you facts straight! can you read? (none / 0)

Sigh. Nice try there sharpster. If you'll notice from my note, my numbers address the second line. Don't be an ass.

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* 13,931,423 47.6% 13,837,418 47.2% Obama +94,005 +0.4%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA 14,265,507 47.6% 14,061,280 47.0% Obama +204,227 +0.6%

Oregon Hussein KCG - Hussein means: "good; small handsome one" in Arabic.

by oregonkcg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

As a result, can I make a personal plea to Hillary supporters here to simply debate on the facts and stop making the inaccurate claim that MI and FL would somehow magically make Sen. Clinton the "frontrunner"?

I think you're kind of inventing that. Short of the one person you quoted, I do not believe that is a widespread belief here. Obviously Clinton's supporters want anything to happen that will help her close the gap... but it's dishonest to imply that their mainstream opinion is that MI & FL would put her out front. It's also inaccurate to say that "only" Clinton left her name on the ballot in Michigan. Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel also left their names on.

by TooFolkGR on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

Fine, "only viable candidate".

Oregon Hussein KCG - Hussein means: "good; small handsome one" in Arabic.

by oregonkcg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (2.00 / 1)

Then won't Obama agree to allowing the people of MI and FL be heard and have the votes count????? What is he so afraid of!??

by alvic63 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:05:39 PM EST

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

Where have you been? He did agree. He's said that if the state parties can run a certified election, he'll be happy to compete in it.

by Rorgg on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

I happen to disagree with your numbers, but let's say for the sake of the argument you are right. Well, then Obama should immediately agree to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. That way he can win an untainted nomination.

Now why doesn't he agree to that? Because he knows you are wrong. His only chance of winning is through denying the Michigan and Florida votes.

However, that's going to be fools gold, if it occurs. He has absolutely no chance of unifying the Democratic Party and winning the presidency if he wins by excluding two large state.

by markjay on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:29:51 PM EST

if you look at RCP chart for Pop vote, there are (none / 0)

still scenarios where Sen Clinton could win it, if you include FL, not even necessarily MI, and use WA primary results, so its possible, though not likely. That said, this is about the Del and S.D, and she will either be able to win enough to overcome his pled. del lead, or she wont, there are still 10 contests, we wait for those, then see...

DEMOCRATIC 08!

by rigsoHC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST

Re: Fact Check: Clinton Behind Even With MI and FL (none / 0)

So then what's the harm in counting them?

by nikkid on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:43:11 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.