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...topnews&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]

Originally Posted by 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?

because Howard Dean knows everything and she should listen to him

[Philosofy]

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

[Turtleboy]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/epo...ate_count.html

[grondramb]

Originally Posted by Turtleboy

Start here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_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]

Originally Posted by grondramb

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

I 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) 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]

Originally Posted by JPriller

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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".

Originally Posted by grondramb

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?

Originally Posted by grondramb

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]

Originally Posted by JPriller

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?

[grondramb]

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

[pgogborn]

Originally Posted by grondramb

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/archi...30/842094.aspx

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

[JP]

Originally Posted by grondramb

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by grondramb

electing McCain...Its bad for the country.

Quoted out of context for truth.