After Texas and Ohio - Page 3 - Political Forum

AzTeK · 03-06-2008, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

It's really not that hard to close though. There are many super delegates who are unfledged at the moment, and she could easily take 75% of the remaining ones and get the nomination.

With ~800 total super delegates, and only around half of them pledged... 100 is not an insurmountable lead.

I wasn't talking about superdelegates but about pledged delegates, and I stand by my comment that 100 pledged delegates is a very strong lead. The tuesday primaries where a huge success for Hillary, and yet she only managed to close the gap by like 20 pledged delegates.

Honestly, IF Obama wound up with a similar advantage of pledged delegates in the end and the DNC ignored the will of the people and just overturned the whole primary results by throwing super delegate support behind Clinton, I'd go to the streets if I was an American citizen. Same goes the other way around though, eventhough I hope it will not come to that scenario. And it will surely be a crushing blow to the DNC as a whole. If the DNC wants to win the election in November, it better stick to the popular vote/pledged delegate count.

Troianii · 03-06-2008, 03:48 PM

Who said that the Hillary campaign was over? Oh yeah, almost everyone.

Well, her chances aren't all that great. She's behind, but what really could bring her out front is the Michigan-Florida case. If they reschedule their primaries I expect to see Hillary win Michigan, perhaps narrowly, and to win Florida by large margins. Hillary has all of the advantages over Obama in Florida. The most signifigant minority there is Hispanic, where Hillary wins by large margins. The population in Flordida is just about the oldest in the country (and Florida has the oldest county), and Obama's advantage with the youth won't do him much good, as this is an old state and Hillary has an advantage with the elderly.

I say that Hillary can win it, namely because of Michigan and Florida.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-06-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

It's really not that hard to close though. There are many super delegates who are unfledged at the moment, and she could easily take 75% of the remaining ones and get the nomination.

With ~800 total super delegates, and only around half of them pledged... 100 is not an insurmountable lead.

At the very least, that means overturning Obama's pledged delegates lead. Kiss the black vote goodbye forever. Hillary goes on to lose the general election. The rightwing attack machine ends their brief honeymoon with Hillary and launches an all out assault saying how undemocratic the Democratic Party is.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-06-2008, 09:56 PM

I will paraphrase Pat Buchannon in talking about Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is even more Ohio than Ohio. More Catholic, older and less educated. It's total Hillary country. Obama is going to get smacked down in Pennsylvania. His best bet is to make the biggest possible showing that he can so that he can retain the national popular vote that he has, even if it means going down in flames in PA. Just fight as hard as you fucking can, Obama.

For Obama, an Uphill Battle in Pennsylvania | The Trail | washingtonpost.com

Obama Explains Why He Lost

ABC News

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-07-2008, 09:50 AM

I highly recommend this site. It's my boy (Chuck Todd's) site

:

First Read - msnbc.com

Quote:

*** A compromise for Michigan? The big papers today are flush with stories about what to do with Florida and Michigan. A top Democrat in Michigan tells NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that both campaigns are communicating through Michigan party leaders and zeroing in on a plan for so-called "firehouse caucuses" or caucus-primaries in May or June to redo the Michigan voting. Democrats in Michigan say they have a tradition of voting this way in the past. And since people come to firehouses, vote and leave in a closed way, it would not violate Hillary Clinton's opposition to traditional caucuses where people have only a set time to show up and openly discuss their preferences. But how does the state get around Gov. Granholm's objection that Michigan taxpayers foot the bill? Per Mitchell, sources say the candidates would be asked to raise the money, and there is no legal obstacle to them finding private funds for the redo. If Michigan does agree to a redo -- and because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot before, it's probably a given it will -- what kind of pressure will Florida feel to follow suit?

*** The DNC’s money woes: One reason why we shouldn’t expect the DNC to foot the bill for do-overs in Florida and Michigan? It doesn’t have that much money. As the New York Times writes, the DNC “ended 2007 nearly flat broke, with cash of $2.9 million and debts of $2.2 million. Since then it has raised some money, paid down debt and managed to put $3.7 million in its piggy bank. This compares, however, with $25 million that the Republican National Committee has in cash on hand, after having raised $97 million since the beginning of 2007.” With the Clinton-Obama race perhaps going on until the convention, the DNC will have to be the principle vehicle to take on McCain, and so it will need every cent it has. The lack of money for the DNC is a real head-scratcher. Check out how flush the DSCC and the DCCC are, as well as the two presidential candidates. Why can't the DNC raise any money? It's mind-boggling, frankly, and the only thing keeping the GOP in the game financially. Meanwhile, McCain's putting his imprint on the RNC by naming three finance operatives and one political operative.

Guess what. The DNC WON'T pay for a re-do in Michigan and Florida.......

.....

THEY'RE FLAT BROKE TOO.

It's caucuses or nothing (not the type where you can discuss things, as Hillary likes them).

Caltex · 03-07-2008, 09:55 AM

I really think this election could get interesting if, Clinton takes the popular vote, but Obama takes the pledged delegates, and who will win.

If Obama wins under those circumstances, it completely discredits all of the many Democrats who were up in arms over the electoral college and the 2000 election. And if Clinton wins, then everyone will be up in arms over the party elite choosing the winner.

If that scenario happens, there can be only one result: President John McCain.

If Clinton takes Pennsylvania by a good margin, and if Florida and Michigan re-vote, I think this scenario is highly likely.

Troianii · 03-07-2008, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltex

I really think this election could get interesting if, Clinton takes the popular vote, but Obama takes the pledged delegates, and who will win.

If Obama wins under those circumstances, it completely discredits all of the many Democrats who were up in arms over the electoral college and the 2000 election. And if Clinton wins, then everyone will be up in arms over the party elite choosing the winner.

If that scenario happens, there can be only one result: President John McCain.

If Clinton takes Pennsylvania by a good margin, and if Florida and Michigan re-vote, I think this scenario is highly likely.

I think that, for the most part, the people who complained in 2000 did so not because (they thought) the election was stolen, but because the guy they wanted to win didn't. If the results came in reverse, I don't think that the same people would have been up in arms.

Good post.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 03-07-2008, 11:42 AM

Matthews on the future of Pennsylvania, the race and the superdelegates.