Hillary: I'm going all the way to the convention, Biatches!

[Turtleboy]

Well, that's not a direct quote, but close enough.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032901909.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

She also said that the eventual nominee will not have legitamcy without Florida and Michigan being "resolved." What she really means is that if the candidate is someone other than her, especially and upitty so and so who stole her birthright, he won't be legit, b/c she's 2 legit 2 quit. (Again, not a direct quote).


Clinton Pledges to Take Campaign All the Way to the Convention
By Perry Bacon Jr. and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 29, 2008; 7:42 PM

NEW ALBANY, Ind., March 29 -- In her most definitive comments to date, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton sought today to put to rest any notion that she will drop out of the presidential race, pledging in an interview to not only compete in all remaining primaries but to continue on until there is a resolution of the disqualified results in Florida and Michigan.

A day after Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to end the race by July 1, Clinton defied that call by declaring she would take her campaign all the way to the party's convention at the end of August, potentially setting up the prolonged and divisive contest that party leaders are increasingly desperate to avoid.

"I know some people want to shut this process down and I think they are wrong," Clinton said in an interview during a campaign stop here today. "I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention.

"We cannot go forward until Florida and Michigan are taken care of, otherwise the eventual nominee will not have the legitimacy that I think will haunt us," she added. "I can imagine the ads the Republicans and John McCain will run if we don't figure out how we can count the votes in Michigan and Florida."

Asked if there was any scenario in which she would leave the race before the end of the primaries on June 3, Clinton said "no." "I am committed to competing everywhere there is an election," she said.

The Clinton campaign requested the interview to talk about how she could win and to emphasize her focus on Michigan and Florida.

Her remarks come as Clinton faces a mounting drumbeat, driven by the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama and his supporters, for her to bow out and avert a crisis within the party. Obama backers argue that he is too far ahead in pledged delegates for Clinton to ever catch up -- a claim that Clinton has countered by saying that neither of them has secured the 2,024 delegates needed for the nomination.

At a news conference in Johnstown, Pa. today, Obama welcomed Clinton to continue campaigning. "My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said. "She is a fierce and formidable opponent and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president."

Central to Clinton's case that she can still win is solving the problems of Michigan and Florida, whose Democratic parties scheduled primaries in January in violation of national party rules, leading to their contests being invalidated.

Dean has said he would like to find a way to seat the two delegations, but no agreement has been reached between the state party, the Clinton and Obama campaigns and the DNC. The failure to find a way to hold a revote or to count the earlier results has been a major setback for Clinton, who won both primaries, though she was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan.

Clinton today accused Obama of blocking a proposed revote in Michigan. Party officials earlier this month cited a variety of problems with holding a new primary there, but Obama aides had previously put out a detailed memo laying out their concerns, which she called a "smokescreen."

"His campaign rejected the plan that was put forward," Clinton said. "For the life of me what Barack was afraid of in Michigan I will never understand."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded in an e-mail that, "Sen. Obama is actually interested in and working towards a solution, unlike Clinton, who is trying to change the rules she agreed to and is more interested in potshots than solving this problem."

Clinton hopes to overtake Obama in the overall popular vote in order to argue to superdelegates -- the nearly 800 party members and elected officials who will likely determine the outcome of the race -- that she is ahead where it matters. Including Florida and Michigan in that equation could boost her vote and delegate totals, as well as bolster her argument that she is better positioned to capture big general election swing states.

When asked how she could still win, Clinton immediately talked about wooing superdelegates, who she said "have a role and very important responsibility."

"They have to ask themselves who they believe would be the best president," Clinton said. "This is all for naught if we don't win in November."

But in the lull before ballots are cast in the next contest, in Pennsylvania on April 22, Clinton has been deluged with calls for her withdrawal, provoking a backlash among her supporters and defiance from the candidate, her family and staff.

Former president Bill Clinton sent out an e-mail, titled "Not big on quitting," on Saturday that reminded supporters that Clinton trails in the popular vote by less than 1 percentage point and that she trails by 130 delegates.

"But now we're hearing people -- elected officials, party members, and Obama campaign surrogates -- call for Hillary to pull out," the e-mail read. "With the race this close, it sure doesn't make sense to me that she'd leave now -- does it make sense to you?"

In the interview, Hillary Clinton brushed aside concerns from Democratic leaders that the campaign will hurt the party's chances against McCain, who launched his first general election television ad last week and who has spent the last month raising money and attacking the Democrats.

"General elections start where there is a nominee or a putative nominee," Clinton said. "They think they have theirs, we don't yet have ours . . . We have frozen this election."

Asked whether Obama could win in November, Clinton deflected the question, saying "I just think I have a better chance."

"You cannot as a Democrat win the White House without a very big women's vote," Clinton continued. "What I believe is that women will turn out for me."

[grondramb]

Why would someone with 47% of the delegates quit with three of the largest 8 states left +20% of delegates not having to commit at all?

[TheIndependent]

Why would someone with 47% of the delegates quit with three of the largest 8 states left +20% of delegates not having to commit at all?

because Howard Dean knows everything and she should listen to him :2funny:

[Philosofy]

Can someone photoshop a pic of Hillary with the words "Im in yur primaries, ripping apart yur party!"?

[Turtleboy]

Why would someone with 47% of the delegates quit with three of the largest 8 states left +20% of delegates not having to commit at all?

Because she can't win.

She can't catch up in pledged delegates. It's impossible.

She can't catch up in the popular vote.

She can't win more states.

Her only hope is to somehow convince the superdelegates, most of which are elected officials who have their own constituencies back home to contend with, to go against the will of the populace and to vote for her instead.

And the only way she can do that is to destroy Obama, by making him not just the "not as good" candidate, but a despicable unelectble bastard. And that's what's she trying to do, which is why she's so hatable.

[grondramb]

I have to say that Obama supporters have done an excellent job of claiming that the rules of the 20% super delegates voting freely should not apply and the 40 million people in the states that ave not been counted cannot
make up a 3% deficit.

Its been masterful. And I should hope they continue. The more they send the message that Hillary has no right to continue competing the better the chance for John McCain to be President

But it doesn't feel right.

[BrettStah]

I have to say that Obama supporters have done an excellent job of claiming that the rules of the 20% super delegates voting freely should not apply and the 40 million people in the states that ave not been counted cannot
make up a 3% deficit.

Its been masterful. And I should hope they continue. The more they send the message that Hillary has no right to continue competing the better the chance for John McCain to be President

But it doesn't feel right.
It's simple - there's ~17% of the pledged delegates still left to be decided on by the remaining 10 elections, and Obama has a ~6% lead after the previous ~83% of the delegates have been doled out. The way the math works out is that she'd need to win by blowout proportions, larger than she won New York by, in order to surpass him. The last time I checked, she was only favored in about half of those 10 elections, so it's EXTREMELY unlikely that she can achieve such margins, because every state where she does not win by those margins, she needs to do even better in other states. It's like being behind 4 touchdowns with 5 minutes left in a football game - it's simple, just score a touchdown quickly, then successfully recover an on-side kick, score again quickly, recover another on-side kick, etc. But in reality, that just does not happen.

I have not seen many if any superdelegates quoted (not named Clinton) who have said that they think it's a swell idea for the ~800 party bigwigs to overturn the pledged delegates, which would in effect be telling the voters that they should just go fuck off, because the superdelegates know better. That will go over REAL well at the convention in Denver, and for the general election! Hillary would just have TONS of enthusiastic young voters, plus a HUGE African-American turnout after that!

[smak]

I have to say that Obama supporters have done an excellent job of claiming that the rules of the 20% super delegates voting freely should not apply and the 40 million people in the states that ave not been counted cannot
make up a 3% deficit.

Its been masterful. And I should hope they continue. The more they send the message that Hillary has no right to continue competing the better the chance for John McCain to be President

But it doesn't feel right.

Right, because the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party this year would be for party insiders to vote against the first black man to ever have a shot at becoming President. And one that won the most states, pledged delegates and popular vote.

That would do wonders for the Democratic party for say, the next 50 years.

She has to win 65% to 70% of the remaining delegates to win.

She has no chance. It's simple math, and nothing more.

Why did John Edwards drop out after only 4 states, when 46 states didn't vote yet?

Maybe because he didn't think he was bigger than the party, and since he knew he couldn't win, he dropped out.

-smak-

[JP]

I have to say that Obama supporters have done an excellent job of claiming that the rules of the 20% super delegates voting freely should not apply and the 40 million people in the states that ave not been counted cannot make up a 3% deficit.

Its been masterful. Nobody's been saying the SDs can't vote freely or demanding the SD rules shouldn't be applied. They've been saying that them overturning the pledged delegate count will cause so much disaster that the SDs simply won't do it.

And it's not a 3% deficit in pledged delegates, it's more like 13%. With 83% of the pledged delegates already awarded. She needs to win the remaining pledged delegates 64/36 to catch up. She didn't do that well even in New York. That's not "masterful", it's math.

The states left to vote may have 40 million people in them, but when you start eliminating people too young to vote, people who can't vote (not registered as Dems in the non-open primaries) and people who just don't vote (turnouts have set records everywhere, but I don't think any state hit 50% of eligible voters) the math starts creeping in there, too.

If she doesn't want to drop out before the convention, that's her right. But I predict it won't go down to the convention. It'll end within a week or two of the last primaries on June 3rd, when the SDs pile up behind Obama to end it. It'll then be her choice to keep agitating until August and threatening to cause a ruckus at the convention, but it'll be over and everyone will know it.

[grondramb]

And it's not a 3% deficit in pledged delegates, it's more like 13%.Lets clarify that first, please. That would mean a 56.5/43.5 split or that Obama would have 30% more pledged delegates. Is that really right? I just eyeballed my number for the gap in total delegates.

A 3% in total delegates gap would be 51.5/48.5 or 6% more total delegates.

I guess we first need to agree on the delegate count.

---------------
Math:
56.5 / 43.5 = 1.29885057

51.5 / 48.5 = 1.06185567

[Turtleboy]

Start here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[grondramb]

Start here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Thank you TB.
JPriller are you ok with these delegate numbers?


Pledged
1414 / 1248 = 1.13301282

Total
1631 / 1499 = 1.08805871

So Jpriller number makes sense if you are talking about a ratio instead of a spread.

My number was off. Its more like a 4% spread in total delegates.

52 / 48 = 1.08333333


And a 6% spread in pledged delgates

53 / 47 = 1.12765957

[JP]

And it's not a 3% deficit in pledged delegates, it's more like 13%.Lets clarify that first, please. That would mean a 56.5/43.5 split or that Obama would have 30% more pledged delegates. Is that really right? I just eyeballed my number for the gap in total delegates.

A 3% in total delegates gap would be 51.5/48.5 or 6% more total delegates.

I guess we first need to agree on the delegate count.

---------------
Math:
56.5 / 43.5 = 1.29885057

51.5 / 48.5 = 1.06185567I ran the delegate totals through a percent difference calculation:

perc diff = (B-H)/H

If H were 100 and B were 103, that'd be a difference of 3%. Using pledged delegate totals of 1251 for H and 1418 for B (what the Obama campaign has on its website (http://www.barackobama.com/resultscenter/)) this results in a percentage difference of 13.35%. Obama has 13.35% more pledged delegates than Hillary does.

Calculated another way, what percentage is the lead Obama has over Hillary of the total pledged delegates awarded thus far, you'd get

(B-H)/(B+H) = 6.25%

But no matter how you slice it, Hillary still needs to whomp Obama 64/36 over the remaining 566 pledged delegates to tie him in pledged delegates. In New York she only beat him 60/40, in Ohio only 53/47.

If you've got any money on Hillary having a 1 in 4 shot or even a 1 in 10 shot at the nomination, I hope you're prepared to lose it.

[grondramb]

So personally I would not quit with with a 4-6% spread. Hillary being much more power hungry than I am is not likely to quit either.

And Obama's camp mainly hurts Obama by insisting she quit.

[grondramb]

I ran the delegate totals through a percent difference calculation:

perc diff = (B-H)/H...


Sounds like we do not have a math disagreement.


If you've got any money on Hillary having a 1 in 4 shot or even a 1 in 10 shot at the nomination, I hope you're prepared to lose it.



If you are that certain, you should put some money on Obama - Hillary is at 5:1 on Intrade.

[JP]

So personally I would not quit with with a 4-6% spread. Hillary being much more power hungry than I am is not likely to quit either.If your question is "will Hillary quit", I agree with you. But this is a different question than "should Hillary quit" or "does Hillary actually have any reasonable shot at winning".

And Obama's camp mainly hurts Obama by insisting she quit.Where has his camp insisted that she quit? He just said yesterday she can run "for as long as she wants". Even pro-Obama Senator Leahy didn't insist that she quit, he said "Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out."

And he's right, and the SDs and the party leadership know he's right. I don't see how this does any damage to Obama. Could you explain why you think it does?

If you are that certain, you should put some money on Obama - Hillary is at 5:1 on Intrade.I might, if I wasn't too lazy to figure out how. I should. Taking advantage of ignorant suckers is not only my right but my duty as a member of a capitalist society. :)

[busyba]

I have to say that Obama supporters have done an excellent job of claiming that the rules of the 20% super delegates voting freely should not apply and the 40 million people in the states that ave not been counted cannot make up a 3% deficit.

Its been masterful. Nobody's been saying the SDs can't vote freely or demanding the SD rules shouldn't be applied. They've been saying that them overturning the pledged delegate count will cause so much disaster that the SDs simply won't do it.

And it's not a 3% deficit in pledged delegates, it's more like 13%. With 83% of the pledged delegates already awarded. She needs to win the remaining pledged delegates 64/36 to catch up. She didn't do that well even in New York. That's not "masterful", it's math.

The states left to vote may have 40 million people in them, but when you start eliminating people too young to vote, people who can't vote (not registered as Dems in the non-open primaries) and people who just don't vote (turnouts have set records everywhere, but I don't think any state hit 50% of eligible voters) the math starts creeping in there, too.

If she doesn't want to drop out before the convention, that's her right. But I predict it won't go down to the convention. It'll end within a week or two of the last primaries on June 3rd, when the SDs pile up behind Obama to end it. It'll then be her choice to keep agitating until August and threatening to cause a ruckus at the convention, but it'll be over and everyone will know it.


When you mess up someone's rhetoric with facts, is that considered thread-crapping? :2funny:

[grondramb]

Oh, Jesus.. just look at the quotes on this board.

[pgogborn]

And Obama's camp mainly hurts Obama by insisting she quit.Although for the record Obama went on the record to disagree with Senator Leahy's call for her to quit and said My attitude is that Sen. Clinton can run as long as she wants. Her name is on the ballot. And she is a fierce and formidable competitor, and she obviously believes that she would make the best nominee and the best opponent... I think that you know she should be able to compete and her supporters should be able to support her for as long as they are willing or able." >
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/30/842094.aspx

(an additional possibility is that it will mainly hurt Hillary if she does not quit)

[JP]

Oh, Jesus.. just look at the quotes on this board.Let us assume I have. What is it these quotes should show me?

Plenty of us think Hillary should drop out, yes. But this isn't some "masterful" plan to put something over on Hillary and her supporters when she's got every chance of winning, it's recognition of the fact that nothing but an Obama head-on collision with a bus or a bimbo is going to give her the nomination.

Imagine for a moment that things were reversed. That Hillary was ahead of Obama right now by 160+ pledged delegates, by 700K to 900K in the popular vote, by almost 2 to 1 in states won, up by 7 points in the national polls, beating McCain in most of the state-by-state matchups. The agitating for Obama to drop out wouldn't be just a Senator here and there suggesting she should face facts, would it? No. It'd be a deafening roar that he get out of her way, with Hillary's campaign roaring the loudest.

Anybody doubt that? She's not getting worse treatment than another candidate would in this situation because she's Hillary. She's being given better treatment because she's Hillary. The Dem establishment may be able to see the writing on the wall, but they're still wary of crossing the Clintons.

[HeyItsCory]

For pete's sake man, why can't she do a Dean Yodel and gracefully bow out?

[grondramb]

So 1300 delegates not firmly committed versus a 160 delegate gap and Obama supporters don't see why its odd to demand that opponent quit without a fight.

Or why, when women represent the majority of Democratic voters are women it might not be wise to try to bully the first serious woman candidate out of the race.

Again, I'm happy with the result - electing McCain, but its not a clean way to win. Its bad for the country.

Edit, for that matter doesn't Edwards have 60 or so delegates?

[dcheesi]

So 1300 delegates not firmly committed versus a 160 delegate gap and Obama supporters don't see why its odd to demand that opponent quit without a fight.

Or why, when women represent the majority of Democratic voters are women it might not be wise to try to bully the first serious woman candidate out of the race.

Again, I'm happy with the result - electing McCain, but its not a clean way to win. Its bad for the country.

Edit, for that matter doesn't Edwards have 60 or so delegates?What you don't seem to get is that there's no way she would get even a strong majority of those 1300 delegates, since the Dems use a proportional allocation system. It's not winner-take-all like in the GOP primaries or the national election. She would have to get 100% of the vote to get all of a state's delegates, which is of course practically impossible. Even if she wins in each and every remaining state, she'll won't gain very many delegates (relative to Obama) unless it's a landslide in each of those states --and that's extremely unlikely.

ETA: I'm not necessarily saying that she should actually drop out. But she should at least read the writing on the wall and stop going negative on Obama. The only thing that could derail him now is a prostitute scandal or something; anything less will not help her, but might help McCain in the national election...

[TheIndependent]

if she wins the big states from here on out, cuts into his lead, AND manages to get Florida and Michigan on her side as well (where she won both), she has an argument to make that she should be the nominee. the vote totals / delegate totals will be close enough, and with no one winning the outright nomination, she's got a chance.

i agree with one of the analysts i heard today on MTP, she has about a 10% or less chance now, but if she gets the above, she approaches the 30-40% chance range and then the Clintons can work their behind-the-scenes magic.

[busyba]

electing McCain...Its bad for the country.

Quoted out of context for truth. ;)

[grondramb]

What you don't seem to get is that there's no way she would get even a strong majority of those 1300 delegates, since the Dems use a proportional allocation system.

She doesn't need a strong majority. Just 50 more than half plus Edwards support or 80 more than half if Edwards frees his delegates.

But even if you are right, if there is no way she can win then there is no point in trying to force her out of the race.

I'm sure they didn't listen to me but I wrote to the McCain campaign with similar advice when they were putting pressure on Huckabee to quit before he was actually eliminated. McCain's campaign backed off and now he is a clean winner who didn't fight dirty.

Generally I don't care how the primaries of candidates I don't support vote but it would send a bad signal about the country to force either the first woman or black out of the race without actually losing.

[TheIndependent]

electing McCain...Its bad for the country.

Quoted out of context for truth. ;)

outline what would be bad about it.

[grondramb]

electing McCain...Its bad for the country.

Quoted out of context for truth. ;)

No problem... I'll try to return the favor some day. :)

Seriously, I have no great love for McCain as a candidate for President. He doesn't have Presidential temperament. He squelched freedom of speech with McCain Feingold. McCain Kennedy on immigration is an abomination.

Those things would disqualify him if I an alternative without worse flaws.

[pgogborn]

electing McCain...Its bad for the country.

Quoted out of context for truth. ;)

outline what would be bad about it.O.K. I am starting to lose the plot here. pdjplano asking why electing a Democrat or a Republican would be bad for the country?

[JP]

So 1300 delegates not firmly committed versus a 160 delegate gap and Obama supporters don't see why its odd to demand that opponent quit without a fight.But it's NOT "1300 delegates not firmly committed". Convention delegates are selected from among the most fanatical loyalists of a candidate's followers. They're "not firmly committed" in the same way William F. Buckley wasn't firmly committed to conservatism. They'd vote against their pledge to Hillary or Obama only if their candidate ordered them to or had been indicted.

Or why, when women represent the majority of Democratic voters are women it might not be wise to try to bully the first serious woman candidate out of the race.Somebody's gotta lose. Who's likely to be alienated and stay alienated in November - women, or the new idealistic young voters that favor Obama? It's not women. Come November the choices they face are the pro-Life pro-War anti-Healthcare-plan McCain or somebody whose positions on all those issues important to women are a matchstick-width away from Hillary's. And nobody can say Hillary was shoved aside, she's simply behind in what the rules say matters - pledged delegates.

Edit, for that matter doesn't Edwards have 60 or so delegates?18, pledged. It was 26 but Obama got 8 of them in the Iowa state caucus a few weeks back.

[Skanter]

if she wins the big states from here on out, cuts into his lead, AND manages to get Florida and Michigan on her side as well (where she won both), she has an argument to make that she should be the nominee. the vote totals / delegate totals will be close enough, and with no one winning the outright nomination, she's got a chance.

i agree with one of the analysts i heard today on MTP, she has about a 10% or less chance now, but if she gets the above, she approaches the 30-40% chance range and then the Clintons can work their behind-the-scenes magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

[smak]

What you don't seem to get is that there's no way she would get even a strong majority of those 1300 delegates, since the Dems use a proportional allocation system.

She doesn't need a strong majority. Just 50 more than half plus Edwards support or 80 more than half if Edwards frees his delegates.

But even if you are right, if there is no way she can win then there is no point in trying to force her out of the race.

I'm sure they didn't listen to me but I wrote to the McCain campaign with similar advice when they were putting pressure on Huckabee to quit before he was actually eliminated. McCain's campaign backed off and now he is a clean winner who didn't fight dirty.

Generally I don't care how the primaries of candidates I don't support vote but it would send a bad signal about the country to force either the first woman or black out of the race without actually losing.

Who is forcing? Opinions aren't forcing. Saying that it would be bad for the Democratic party for the super delegates to overturn the clear winner of the pledged delegates is true. Saying her continuing negativity helps McCain is true.

I know you want her to stay in the race because it helps McCain, but you're not a Democrat, so I don't really take much stock in you saying how horrible it would be for her to drop out. Thanks anyway :)

-smak-

[grondramb]

But it's NOT "1300 delegates not firmly committed". Convention delegates are selected from among the most fanatical loyalists of a candidate's followers. They're "not firmly committed" in the same way William F. Buckley wasn't firmly committed to conservatism. They'd vote against their pledge to Hillary or Obama only if their candidate ordered them to or had been indicted.

I got the 1300 number by adding Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the super delegates.

She needs 80 more than half to catch up, yes?

[grondramb]

I know you want her to stay in the race because it helps McCain, but you're not a Democrat, so I don't really take much stock in you saying how horrible it would be for her to drop out. Thanks anyway :)

-smak-

I didn't say it would be bad for her to drop out. I said it would be bad for the country for her to get bullied out the way some are trying.

I would have no problem with her dropping out of politics in general. I've just never liked her as a person. In contrast I like and respect her husband even when I disagree with him.

As you say, Dems don't want my advice.

But here it is: Dems should nominate Obama even if he loses to McCain. He can be the Democratic future if he runs a clean campaign. Or he can win and be President now (which I oppose, of course).

But the more his supporters try to disenfranchise half of your party the worse Obama looks.

[JP]

I got the 1300 number by adding Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania to the super delegates. If there's no deal beforehand for divvying up MI and FL, they aren't going to be decided until the convention. Where Obama will control the creditials committee by virtue of having won the most pledged delegates and the most states. Dean is against seating them, and he controls 20-some of the 180-some committee delegates, so even if Hillary were somehow able to make the pledged delegate count close MI and FL will get seated as-is only if they can't help her. The best she can hope for is a floor vote (which only requires 20% of the committee to request) and then she loses because Obama's delegates outnumber hers on the floor, and will only vote for seating if it can't help Hillary enough to give her the nomination.

Hillary will probably win PA, but she needs to beat Obama 64/36 in pledged delegates and due to the proportional allocation that means winning the popular vote by about 70/30 - that's about 3 to 4 times bigger than her current lead, and minus the bus or the bimbo a 40-point win is next to impossible. And to catch Obama in pledged delegates she has to win by that much not just in PA, but in every remaining contest, including NC and OR which now favor Obama.

The SDs aren't going to all rally behind Hillary if she's behind in pledged delegates, not without the Obama collision with the bimbo or the bus. They want the divisiveness to be over, they do NOT want nearly another 3 months of infighting between June 3rd and the convention August 25, and after the last contest June 3rd will in all likelihood put a stop to it by piling up behind Obama.

She needs 80 more than half to catch up, yes?Depends on which Obama lead you're talking about. If pledged delegates only, where he currently leads by about 167, she needs to win 367 of the remaining 566 to Obama's 199 - that's 168 more than half. [edit - nope, math error, you were right as that's 84 more than half]

And without catching up in pledged delegates, or achieving the miracle of the Obama+bus/bimbo event, she won't attract SDs. They simple aren't going to pile up behind the loser of the pledged delegate race, that will cause disaster.

I can appreciate how much you'd like to see the race as still a toss-up, but it's anything but. Your eventualities all depend on things that have almost no chance of happening (Hillary blowing out Obama 64/36 in remaining pledged delegates, MI and FL being seated as-is, etc) or the SDs deciding a convention disaster that fractures the party going into November is just what they wanted for an early Christmas present this year.

[TheIndependent]

Quoted out of context for truth. ;)

outline what would be bad about it.O.K. I am starting to lose the plot here. pdjplano asking why electing a Democrat or a Republican would be bad for the country?

i know my reasons, was asking for yours :)

[grondramb]

I can appreciate how much you'd like to see the race as still a toss-up, but it's anything but. Your eventualities all depend on things that have almost no chance of happening (Hillary blowing out Obama 64/36 in remaining pledged delegates, MI and FL being seated as-is, etc) or the SDs deciding a convention disaster that fractures the party going into November is just what they wanted for an early Christmas present this year.

Toss up? Nope, Obama is winning and is the best choice for the Dems. I'm saying its not over and not wise to bully either out of the race.

If he's that confident about the SD's then Obama could ask for the SD primary that's been discussed. If he holds his own then he could concede the Florida and Michigan primaries as voted and seal it up.

It sounds like Dean would support that since he's demanding a quick settlement.

Any other scenario leaves the SD's free to vote at the convention and the margin close enough that they could tip the balance.

[JP]

Toss up? Nope, Obama is winning and is the best choice for the Dems. I'm saying its not over and not wise to bully either out of the race.

If he's that confident about the SD's then Obama could ask for the SD primary that's been discussed. If he holds his own then he could concede the Florida and Michigan primaries as voted and seal it up.

It sounds like Dean would support that since he's demanding a quick settlement.

Any other scenario leaves the SD's free to vote at the convention and the margin close enough that they could tip the balance.No, it doesn't. You seem to ignore the fact that while SDs are indeed free to vote however they want, they aren't about to vote for convention disaster by taking the nomination from the winner of the pledged delegate race.

In order for Hillary to get the nomination a number of things have to happen, and happen in order. First she has to blow Obama out across the remaining ten contests, and blow him out HUGE in order to close the gap in pledged delegates. Then she has to get FL and MI seated as-is or in a deal highly favorable to her.

If she can't close the pledged delegate gap then she can't get MI and FL seated favorably to her, because Obama and Dean will control the convention credentials committee. So it's no good talking about MI and FL helping her unless she first accomplishes the HUGE blow-outs in the remaining contests.

And if she's not the winner of the pledged delegate race then the SDs are not going to vote for convention/party implosion. So it's no good talking about the SDs giving her the nod unless she first gets the HUGE blow-out wins, bigger than her New York win across every single remaining contest.

There are only two paths open to her for the nomination. She has to hope Obama gets hit by a bus or a bimbo, or she has to beat him by about 40 points in every one of the remaining 10 contests including the ones now favorable to him. MI+FL, SD freedom to vote however, those won't come into play for her unless one of those two things happens first.

[Mikkel_Knight]

if she wins the big states from here on out, cuts into his lead, AND manages to get Florida and Michigan on her side as well (where she won both), she has an argument to make that she should be the nominee. the vote totals / delegate totals will be close enough, and with no one winning the outright nomination, she's got a chance.

i agree with one of the analysts i heard today on MTP, she has about a 10% or less chance now, but if she gets the above, she approaches the 30-40% chance range and then the Clintons can work their behind-the-scenes magic.
Then the argument becomes Obama wasn't even on the ballots in FL and MI, so what about all those people who wanted to vote for him, but couldn't? What about the comment Hillary made that those states don't/won't matter anyway?

Hillary is being an uber-bitch and should she win the nomination by some miracle of Satan, she'll be vilified and could potentially create a super-rift in the Democratic party when they see the damage that she's done to their organization and the insults she makes to the individual voters by going this scorched earth route.

[TheIndependent]

Hillary is being an uber-bitch and should she win the nomination by some miracle of Satan, she'll be vilified and could potentially create a super-rift in the Democratic party when they see the damage that she's done to their organization and the insults she makes to the individual voters by going this scorched earth route.

stop, you're making me excited :)

[Mikkel_Knight]

I'm wondering what the Clintons have over/on the Democratic Party that they continue to be allowed to do this in the fashion she's doing it...

I think it's good for the country, but it's extremely divisive and bad for the Party as a whole...

[BrettStah]

Then the argument becomes Obama wasn't even on the ballots in FL and MI, so what about all those people who wanted to vote for him, but couldn't?To be accurate, he WAS on the ballot in Florida - but the normal campaigning did not occur.

Here's the irony... the biggest obstacle to getting the Florida and Michigan delegate issue resolved is Hillary - once she finally steps aside, an agreement of some sort will be reached by the Obama campaign, the DNC, and those two states. The key is that those states will NOT be allowed to have a decisive effect on the nomination process.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Then the argument becomes Obama wasn't even on the ballots in FL and MI, so what about all those people who wanted to vote for him, but couldn't?To be accurate, he WAS on the ballot in Florida - but the normal campaigning did not occur.
Ah - I thought that he had been removed... I stand corrected

[Philosofy]

I have a feeling that Hillary will deliver a fatal blow... to the Democratic Party. She doesn't give one shit about her party, only her rise to power. I just wish the Libertarians had been smart enough to position themselves as a third choice. The country's been wanting a third choice (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) since Ross Perot. But nobody's had the brains to actually put it together. With the melt down of the Democrats, this would have been a great time.

[TheIndependent]

latest figures i just saw on the MSNBC crawl had February's funding and spending #s. Hillary raised like 11mil and was 2mil in debt, Obama 32mil and no debt.

[BrettStah]

I'm feeling more and more that Hillary cannot deliver a fatal blow - the perception is that she and her husband have all of this power behind the scenes, but all signs point to that being overblown. Obama is about to pick up another 7-8 superdelegates, by the way. Then there are at least 9-10 other superdelegates who are officially neutral or early Hillary commits who on the record as saying that the pledged delegate leader should get the nomination. And then there are persistent rumors that there are 20 or so superdelegates who are strongly leaning towards Obama, but the Obama camp is asking them to hold off at the moment in publicly endorsing him. They probably think that the best impact to have them publicly support him would be shortly after Hillary picks up 10-15 delegates in Pennsylvania, thereby wiping out her gains.

[pgogborn]

latest figures i just saw on the MSNBC crawl had February's funding and spending #s. Hillary raised like 11mil and was 2mil in debt, Obama 32mil and no debt.For the next few hours after this post it will be interesting to watch Hillary's current donor clock and see if she hits her target >
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

At the time of this post - Target $3m, raised so far $2,206,438, donors this drive 28,463, 8 hours 38 minutes to go.

(my guess is that some of that money will go to paying debts rather than new campaigning - has she got back the $5m she personally lent the campaign yet)

[JP]

I'm feeling more and more that Hillary cannot deliver a fatal blow - the perception is that she and her husband have all of this power behind the scenes, but all signs point to that being overblown. I think that power is real, it's just that we've already seen the extent of what it can do for them.

Those 100 or 200 SDs she had near the beginning of the race, before Obama started putting her away in February, were pretty much all the SDs they could call in favors from or pressure into supporting her without her having the lead. She's gained only 9 new SDs since Super Dooper Tuesday to Obama's 64, I read somewhere this morning.

She's already had the party machinery in most states behind her, Rendell in PA and my own Governor Jenny here in MI for example, she's not been picking up much new support there the way Obama has. The ones she can get are already on her side, and what they can do for her is already being done.

[TreborPugly]

Any politician from any party, always publicly refuses to drop out of an election or primary, until the day they actually do it. Every candidate who has dropped out in this primary so far would have said 2 days before they actually dropped out. "I have no intention of dropping out - I'm going to the finish." What else can they say?

If they say, "Well, I'm nearly to the point of dropping out, but I hope to turn things around," they'll lose the vote of half the people who were going to vote for them, who see or hear that quote. This kind of lie I can accept from a politician.

Everyone who hates Hillary likes to use these bold claims of hers, that she'll be there to the end against her, but when she really has NO chance, rather than a SMALL chance, she'll drop out and throw her support behind Obama.

[JP]

Everyone who hates Hillary likes to use these bold claims of hers, that she'll be there to the end against her, but when she really has NO chance, rather than a SMALL chance, she'll drop out and throw her support behind Obama.But she won't have NO chance until the convention. Not even if the SDs rally around him in June and he tops 2025 delegates. Until the final floor vote at the convention that nominates him she has dwindling chances, but not no chance. Heck, she isn't even completely out then, he could get assassinated in October and she might be the nominee.

I think she will stop fighting, it's a matter of when her small chance becomes too small to keep going. After June 3rd, when there's nobody left to vote, we'll know more.

[TreborPugly]

I'm pretty sure that if he got assassinated after everyone else had dropped out, the Dems could still put forward one of those drop-outs as the presidential candidate.

I think my point still stands however. Until she decides it's over, she'll keep saying "it will never be over until the convention." She can't really say anything else, other than, "I've considered the situation, and am dropping out of the race TODAY."

[smak]

latest figures i just saw on the MSNBC crawl had February's funding and spending #s. Hillary raised like 11mil and was 2mil in debt, Obama 32mil and no debt.

That's wrong, unless it was March. She raised like 35 million in February.

The debt is right thnough, and she has a long list of debts, including a 2 month old $300,000 insurance bill for her paid staff (ouch).

-smak-

[TheIndependent]

latest figures i just saw on the MSNBC crawl had February's funding and spending #s. Hillary raised like 11mil and was 2mil in debt, Obama 32mil and no debt.

That's wrong, unless it was March. She raised like 35 million in February.

The debt is right thnough, and she has a long list of debts, including a 2 month old $300,000 insurance bill for her paid staff (ouch).

-smak-

hmm, could have been 'last month' and i just assumed February, maybe they meant March to date. one of the crawl items was "clinton campaign stiffs vendors" which i found comical.

[grondramb]

Whatever the exact numbers, all indications are that Obama is doing much better at fund raising than either Hillary or McCain.

[smak]

latest figures i just saw on the MSNBC crawl had February's funding and spending #s. Hillary raised like 11mil and was 2mil in debt, Obama 32mil and no debt.

That's wrong, unless it was March. She raised like 35 million in February.

The debt is right thnough, and she has a long list of debts, including a 2 month old $300,000 insurance bill for her paid staff (ouch).

-smak-

hmm, could have been 'last month' and i just assumed February, maybe they meant March to date. one of the crawl items was "clinton campaign stiffs vendors" which i found comical.

I believe it about March. Bill Clinton said at an event on Friday, that it was very important for everybody to donate now, because the month is almost over, and the press will make Hillary look bad if she doesn't hit a good number.

Paraphrasing, i can't find the quote. But the gist was, they aren't doing so well, so let's try to sneak up to a respectable number.

-smak-

[JP]

latest figures i just saw on the MSNBC crawl had February's funding and spending #s. Hillary raised like 11mil and was 2mil in debt, Obama 32mil and no debt.

That's wrong, unless it was March. She raised like 35 million in February.

The debt is right thnough, and she has a long list of debts, including a 2 month old $300,000 insurance bill for her paid staff (ouch).

-smak-I don't know for sure, but it's possible that $11M number could be correct. I recall reading that about 2/3rds of the money Hillary raised was for the general election, not the primary, so she can't touch it until after the convention. Whereas Obama's intake is almost all primary campaign intake.

[edit] found this:
Cash-Strapped Clinton Fails To Pay Bills (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/31/politics/politico/main3981095.shtml)
The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $33 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $11 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.

The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.

By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million.

The presidential campaign of presumptive Republican nominee Arizona Sen. John McCain reported $4.3 million in debt at the end of February, but only $1.3 million of that was in the form of unpaid bills to a dozen vendors. The rest was a bank loan, which the campaign says it paid off last week.

[smak]

It is true that when they announce the amounts per month, they usually don't specify if it's for the primary or the general. I always assumed it's the primary, but maybe not.

The fact is, Obama has way way more donators, who have donated way way less. He easily can maintain his 30 million a month, because hardly anybody has maxed out.

Hillary on the other hand gets far few donators who donate fare more money each, so she is going to have problems maintaining the amount, because a lot of her people are maxed out.

-smak-

[BrettStah]

http://i30.tinypic.com/2q30o6v.jpg