How much more convincing do Obama's victories have to be before Hillary calls it quits?

[ORDem]

http://www.dailykos.com (read the whole post, especially how keeping Hillary in for OH and TX is a good thing for all of us)

...
People accused me of not playing the expectations game, and they were right. I wasn't. The thought of closing out the month with 20 point victories seemed pretty silly, but that's what I thought it would take to close the deal. So let's see how February ended up looking, post-Super Tuesday:

Louisiana: +21
Nebraska: +36
Washington: +37
Maine: +19
Virgin Islands: +82
DC: +51
Maryland: +23
Virginia: +29
Wisconsin: +17
Hawaii: +52

Look at those numbers. We've got white states, we've got "black" states. We've got southern states. We've got western states. We've got northern states. We've got cheeseheads. We've got caucuses. We've got primaries. We've got rich states. We've got working class states. We've got Blue states. We have Red States. (We've got the start of a Doctor Seuss rhyme here...)


...


:dem:

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. He doesn't have to win TX and OH convincingly

If he simple wins them he will have me convinced.

[ORDem]

5. Read the article please. That's not the point...

Kos is saying that Obama will win TX and OH, but keeping the race on in those states will help us (all Dems) build a terrific ground organization for the GE.

:dem:

[phantom power]

2. I'm pretty sure Clinton would not quit unless a victory was numerically impossible.

Which is fine with me. Why should she quit now? They're still in a dead heat.

[ORDem]

7. "Numerically"?

Statistically, probability-wise, she's already lost. It's no dead heat. At this point she'd have to win every single remaining race with 65% voting for her to overcome Obama's lead. She can't catch him at this point.

:dem:

[JuniperLea]

9. You're still guessing...

Unless your crystal ball is far more reliable than most.

[ORDem]

10. Am I? Obviously you didn't do so well in math in school...

Others have run the numbers with similar results. No one is saying it's impossible, it's just highly, highly improbable for Hillary. If you want to believe in 5% probabilities, fine.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684156.aspx


*** The Delegate math: After last night’s contests, here’s where things stand: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,168, Clinton 1,018. There are 53 delegates unallocated, including 19 in MD, 10 each in CO and GA, 6 in WI, 4 in HI, and one each in DC, TN, NY and IL. We estimate a conservative 27-26 split here. The Superdelegate Count: Clinton 257 versus Obama 185. That’s a grand total of: Obama 1,355, Clinton 1,276. Counting only the superdelegates he has now, plus his pledged delegates, Obama needs 65% of remaining PLEDGED delegates to hit the magic 2025 number. Reaching that is probably unrealistic, but when you add in the unaffiliated 353 superdelegates (76 of whom are not yet known yet and won't be appointed until April, May and June), his magic percentage number is down to 48%. On the flip side, Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get the pledged delegate lead back. Forget 2025. And if you assume Obama wins Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then the magic percentage number in the states Clinton wins rises to 65% -- SIMPLY TO GET THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD BACK...

:dem:

[JuniperLea]

30. Insult all you like, if it makes you feel like a big man...

You said it yourself, it's NOT impossible! Jeez! Why drop out UNTIL it's impossible?! That is all I said, and it's all the poster said to whom I was commenting! Get a grip, stop with the insults, try to think clearly, and try to keep up before you go trying to knock someone else down a few pegs. It's the smart thing to do, and this is very good advice you should consider.

[iconocrastic]

53. "Try to think clearly" so you can swallow some nonsense

[JuniperLea]

61. That's just ignorant... eom

[snooper2]

57. Now that's just Huckabee math...

" but we don't do no math, we just do miracles! "

That's what she needs now...Either Obama to say he is really a under-cover terror warrior raised with this secret from birth so he can destroy the U.S.A. ; or a miracle...

[JuniperLea]

62. Yawn...

No matter how your spin it, it's NOT impossible.

[anigbrowl]

65. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely

The comment that Hillary needs 65% wins is not based on guessing, but on just math. Yes, it's possible, but the probability of her doing so is low. This is a legitimate observation.

[JuniperLea]

72. Why do y'all rail against those of us who say it's not impossible

So vehemently, then prove our point??

Why would anyone give up their dream until it was utterly impossible for them to succeed???

Jeez. This is incredibly ridiculous.

[phantom power]

22. Numerically impossible means...

even if she got all the remaining delegates, she can't win. I'm simply saying that I personally doubt she would quit until that happens, and it hasn't happened yet.

[AlertLurker]

27. WTF? Obviously, you have a LOT to learn about statistics and probability.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Dead heat?

No, if Clinton won Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in unrealistic landslides- THEN it would be a dead heat.

[phantom power]

17. My teevee said this morning that it was 1319 Obama to 1245 Clinton.

Discussion about momentum aside, the actual delegate counts currently very close.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. And my TV said last night...

that 150 pledged delegates is the number that Obama has to have over Clinton in order to make it essentially impossible to catch up.

As of this morning Obama has 159 more pledged delegates than Clinton.

[XemaSab]

23. Depends on who you look to for the counts....

Some news orgs are adding superdelegates, and some aren't. Also, some are adding in MI and FL and some aren't.

:shrug:

[phantom power]

25. As long as it "depends," she's not going to concede.

I'm just offering that as a prediction about her behavior.

On balance, I consider this a good quality in a politician. Politicians who concede prematurely don't generally win elections. I assume nobody would want Obama to quit, if their numbers were inverted.

[JuniperLea]

31. This is where the Obama Kool-Aid kicked in...

They don't accept logic, have no idea how to put the perspective on the other foot, it's just about spewing rhetoric in an attempt to belittle Clinton's obvious good choice to remain in the race until it truly IS impossible for her to win!

The Obama spinners are making me dizzy.

[XemaSab]

3. I've been saying this for weeks:

These aren't just Obama victories, they're Obama blowouts.

She's only beat him by more than 20 points in Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Add to Obama's major victories:

Idaho 62
Alaska 49
Colorado 34
Kansas 48
North Dakota 25
Minnesota 34
Illinois 32
Georgia 35
South Carolina 29

He's certainly running a competitive race out there.... :D

[TheDebbieDee]

4. I'm not backing a "quitter" this time.

Hang in there, Hillary! Stay in the race until you are mathematically eliminated.

[JuniperLea]

8. I agree completely...

I don't know why people find that so hard to understand. It's still a horse race. People were saying she should drop out after Iowa... :eyes: This rhetoric needs a rest.

[cali]

14. no, it's really not a horse race

anymore. Ten losses by double digits rules that out. She's hanging by the proverbial thread and she's behind by every single measure.

[JuniperLea]

35. When it's totally impossible for her to win

I'll agree that the race is over. It's not to that point as yet. It IS still a horse race. There IS still a chance, no matter how small.

[hogwyld]

37. I also have a chance of going to 7 eleven

and buying the winning powerball ticket. But it PROBABLY ain't goin' ta happen.

[JuniperLea]

59. That doesn't make it impossible...

Y'all need to back away from the Kool-Aid... it's dulling the senses:) I don't know how much more clear I can be. Impossible is the key word. Why should ANYONE quit their dream until it is completely and utterly IMPOSSIBLE for them to succeed??? That makes no sense whatsoever! Not to Clinton, not to Obama, not to you and your dream of winning the lotto. If any of you decides to drop out of the dream before it is impossible, that's your business. I wouldn't suggest anyone do that. Success is a game of inches.

[nolabels]

86. I kind of like that strategy too

Continue with the attempted smears so the blow-outs can become even larger. Thank goodness they have winning focus going for them :shrug:

[Avalux]

13. There's nothing for Hillary to hang on to at this point.

It is mathematically impossible for her to catch Obama in pledged delegates; winning all remaining states by 65% or more will not happen.

[JuniperLea]

36. Got links? Got proof?

And your crystal ball doesn't count.

No political pundit, no political analyst, regardless of camp, is able to say that with certainty.

[kristopher]

71. I'm sorry, but you are using the same argument as those who attempt to deny climate change.

[JuniperLea]

73. Oh bull..

It's not impossible for Hillary to win. NOT IMPOSSIBLE! Until then, it's just plain stupid to give up a dream. Jeez.

[kristopher]

80. No bull.

You are ignoring the proofs in favor of a reality you want to believe.

I think she should stay until after tx & ohio, but not because I think she has the ability to win...

[JuniperLea]

89. Yes... bovine excrement...

It's not impossible. Period. Whether YOU think she has the ability to pull it off or not has no bearing on the matter, it is still possible. It may not be likely, but it's still possible.

[kristopher]

91. As I said, you are using the same argument as those who attempt to deny climate change.

Exactly.

Do you respect them when they do it?

[JuniperLea]

99. Show me how that is...

Because I say you are completely wrong... on both counts.



A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).<1> A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.<2>

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.<3> It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

[kristopher]

105. I'm proud of you

We now know you are willing to explore the use of logic. Unfortunately, your application of the definition of straw man is inappropriate. I'd be making a straw man argument if, for example, I claimed you said it would be a cakewalk for Hillary to win the primary. It is easy to show that should she win, it would be by overcoming huge odds. In that case I would have exaggerated your position and claims in order to more easily knock them down.

What I did was draw a perfectly acceptable parallel between the argument you are using and the argument that opponents of climate change make. That argument exploits the difference between practical certainty and absolute certainty by claiming that since absolute certainty isn't demonstrable, then practical certainty also doesn't exist.

Since absolute certainty is extremely rare, objective analysis works by assigning varying degrees of certainty to predictions or explanations of events. In this case all indicators of future performance for Hillary tell us that there is a high degree of certainty (80+%) that she cannot prevail. ( http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/# ) That degree of probability is high enough for most decisions. After Texas and Ohio, I suspect we will see the degree of certainty rise to a level above 90%. I'm comfortable with that as a cutoff for the label of practical certainty.

Your approach discards the entire concept of probability and deals only in absolutes - you say that unless there is an absolute impossibility demonstrated, then the chances of success for each are equal. That is exactly the approach favored by climate change deniers (and the tobacco industry before them). This "bifurcation" is itself, a logical fallacy.

I would also suggest that you're employing Argumentum ad nauseam: "This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it."

[dansolo]

101. How much damage will she do in order to pursue the dream

I find it interesting that Hillary's "dream" is more important than the party or the country.

[JuniperLea]

103. I've yet to see one solid argument

That shows what you are saying is true. Not one.

[scheming daemons]

6. None of those states matter......

...get with the program.

:eyes:

[Rageneau]

11. Okay, it's 48 to 24 in the 4th quarter, and you want Hillary to QUIT?

Not much of a fighter, are you?

Well, Hillary is, and you may as well get used to the fact that she is in this contest until she is officially declared the loser of it, if indeed, she eventually is.

One of the best reasons to support Hillary is because, unlike Kerry or Gore, she won't roll over and give up just because it's easier to.

Don't want her to keep campaigning? Tough. Like I keep hearing about Florida and Michigan, she's playing by the rules everyone agreed to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Good point n/t

[ORDem]

16. 4th quarter with 10 seconds to go...

This ain't a football game, this is our nation we're talking about. If you want to be McCain's ass and re-gain filibuster-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress, then we need to start kickin' Gooper ass, right now. Playing out the Dem primary into April and beyond is not going to help us do what we really need to do. Quit hanging on to your favorite team and see the big picture.

:dem:

[Renew Deal]

19. At 48-24 in the 4th quarter, you put in the scrubs.

Until te clock runs out.

[cliffordu]

28. KEEP FIGHTING!!

I want her to fight to the bitter end so she will positively, absolutely be sooooooooo defeated she never runs for any office on my teevee, ever again.

I used to love her and Bill. Now, not so much.

[Johnny__Motown]

33. DIVIDE THE PARTY JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT THE IMPOSSIBLE, nice

[cliffordu]

52. You're right -

She'll never stop running for something on my TeeVee.....Sorry.

[JuniperLea]

60. How is it impossible?

That's just ignorant.

[cliffordu]

97. ignorant??

That's mister ignorant to you, pal

[JuniperLea]

104. How is she dividing the party any more than Obama is?

Or his rabid, Kool-Aid swilling supporters for that matter?

[taught_me_patience]

39. Do you want her to look like Huckabee?

Fighting on when there is no chance?

[BeyondGeography]

18. He's still disturbingly weak with white women 65 and over

Maybe by the time Puerto Rico comes around, he'll have shown us something there.

[ORDem]

40. ROTFLMAO! That's a good one! You made my day.

Thanks!

Though, you might want to clarify for the sarcastically challenged.

:headbang:

[Vinca]

21. But those are the states that "don't count," silly.

Something tells me Texas isn't going to count pretty soon, too.

[ShortnFiery]

24. The Clintons will require nothing short of "a political exorcism" in order to cut bait.

I can envision Bubba now at The Democratic Convention squealing "Don't taze me, Bro?!?" :crazy: :(

They will do ANYTHING to win this nomination and GE: score a 3rd DLC stacked Executive Branch and secure their God Almighty Clintonian Legacy as an inherent part of the Presidential BUSH/CLINTON turnstile. :wow:

[billyoc]

26. Apparently, he'll have to win Puerto Rico.

Yes, *that* Puerto Rico:

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-campaign-starts-talking-puerto-rico-2008-02-20.html

:wtf:

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Honest question for Obama supporters

If Hillary does well in both debates, and if she wins both the Texas and Ohio primaries, do you honestly think she should withdraw from the race then before Pennsylvania votes?

And if the answer is no to the above question, do you think it reasonable to expect her to withraw now when the results of those two debates and primaries will be known in only two weeks?

[Johnny__Motown]

32. We know she won't but do the math, she needs 58% of remaining pledged delegates...

just to pull even. If she splits OH and TX in any percentage lower than that then it gets harder. Say she wins both and the split is 53-47, then she needs to win approx. 60% of remaining delegates to pull even.

Every time she does less than a 58-42 split she is falling farther behind and it keeps getting harder.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. What if Super Delegates take into account

who gets the most popular votes in all the contests combined - and Clinton ends up ahead there? What if she by far wins the most registered Democratic voters in the Democratic Primaries and caucuses? What if she does better than Obama in the contests when results are tabulated by secret ballots at polling stations that are open for a full 12 to 14 hours on Election day ? What if some stuff comes out in the news from reporting that tarnishs Obama in some way between now and the end of the primaries? What if Clinton pulls ahead in the national polling again and keeps building on that lead heading into the convention? What if some super delegates think they should at least take into consideration the wishs of the disenfranchised boters of FL and MI? What if neither candidate comes close to winning enough pledged delegates and all the final momentum belongs to Clinton?

If enough of those things happened, as unlikly as you might feel that would be, I don't think Obama limping into the convention with a very slim lead in pledged delegates automatically should guarentee him the nomination.

[ORDem]

44. BIG IFS! And, what IF Hillary insists on dragging this through the mud

until June? Meanwhile, McCain and the Goopers are piling up hoardes of cash, honing their messages, building their ground organizations, funding 527s, etc., etc.

All the latter seems 99% likely to me, regardless of who's the nominee, while Hillary's chances are in the < 5% category.

Let's pull together and focus on the prize!

:dem:

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. I agree that they are big If's

But there will be no contest going on in June unless those If's come to pass - and then it would be a legitimate contest to be having. Obama is no more entitled to the nomination now than anyone might have presumed Clinton was to it before. It has to be earned. Right now Obama is well on his way toward earning it.

[babylonsister]

34. I think she should stay in until March 4. If she does poorly,

I would hope she'd bow out gracefully, but even that doesn't appear likely.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/clinton-campaign-starts-talking-puerto-rico-2008-02-20.html

Clinton campaign starts talking Puerto Rico
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 02/20/08 11:50 AM


Just hours after the dust settled from her 10th consecutive loss to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), embattled Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) campaign said she will be in a position to “clinch the nomination” at about the time Puerto Rico votes.

Puerto Rico, the last contest in the primary and caucus season, will not vote until June 7.

Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Clinton, said on a conference call with reporters that while the camp of the former first lady sees Obama as the frontrunner, the campaign continues to believe it will narrow the gap with the Illinois senator and pick up delegates in the coming weeks and months.

“We think that Mrs. Clinton will be able to get those and clinch the nomination about the time of Puerto Rico or shortly thereafter,” Ickes said.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. I agree with you about March 4th

If she lost both of those primaries for example, I will join with others in asking her to drop out. I couldn't open your link - it said the story is not there, but from what you quote it isn't clear that Clinton would stay in the race if she did poorly on March 4th - just that she expects to fight the contest through Puerto Rico and ultimately win. That might be based on the assumption that she will do well on March 4th.

[babylonsister]

47. Thanks; link fixed, but what I posted is the whole story. I think her

camp is assuming she'll do better in the next primaries. Maybe tunes will change if she doesn't.

[ORDem]

46. I agree she should stay in until March 4th.

We want TX and OH energized and the ground organizations built there for the GE.

It is destructive to Dem's hopes to gain the Presidency and increase our margins in both Houses after that date. It will be 6 friggin' weeks after TX and OH until PA votes. We can't afford to wait that long to start tearing down McCain and his band of Goopers!

For god's sake HRC supporters, can't you see that we need to end this GOP nightmare we're in now and all pull behind our nominee!? It's going to be a hard slog in the GE as it is without all this in-fighting.

I predict Obama's going to win TX and OH if for no other reason than Hillary fatigue and good sense taking over that we need to focus on the GE now.

:dem: :dem:

[thoughtcrime1984]

56. I don't think she should drop out now

But after March 4th, I might change my tune. It is not about mathematically possible, it is about what gives the Democrats the best chance of getting back in the WH. I doubt that it is continuing a race until August that appears to be finished much earlier. Again, though, let us see what March 4th brings. I feel pretty good about it from an Obama supporter standpoint.

[Major Hogwash]

41. This is "the" question on everyone's lips.

Nobody thinks it will get any prettier from here on out.

The longer she stays in the race, the more damage she does to the party's chances this fall.

Her false sense of entitlement is an outrage.

[MindMatter]

50. Chill. She's fixin' to open a big can of ass-whoop in TX

She might squeak out a victory in OH, although that looks much more doubtful every day. But she will lose TX by at least a dozen points. Staying in the race too long doesn't hurt the party one little bit. It only hurts her. If I were her adviser, I'd tell her to wake up and smell the coffee. It is over. And staying in for a Texas humiliation might just destroy any credibility she will have on the national stage in the future.

[Major Hogwash]

54. It hurts the party because McCain will also use many of the same tactics as Hilllary.

The only one she is helping now is McCain.

Obama doesn't need "friends" like that.

[MindMatter]

92. Better to get that all out early

Let Hillary wear out all those lines now so they won't have as much impact ALMOST A FREAKING YEAR FROM NOW when McCain tries to use them in the general election

[MindMatter]

42. At some point,, Clinton's refusal to accept the obvious becomes a racial thing

As in, "but but but we really can't elect a black man."

Yes we can.

And that's coming from a pasty while northern European.

Yes, Hillary. Sure America has a racial history, and plenty of lingering vestiges of racism. That will be a factor for a long time to come. But what the moneyed and powered elite -- AND THAT INCLUDES YOU -- have done to our country is much bigger than any racial issue.

You and your friends have screwed all of us, black and white. Thank you very much, but we're going with the skinny black guy.

[trueblue2007]

45. Well.....you don't have me

I **HATE** Obama's stance on giving illegal aliens drivers licenses. These people should not be driving. Just like what Oregon just did.

Come on Obama...stop pandering to the illegal aliens.

[MindMatter]

48. Seriously, is that a make or break issue?

That one wouldn't make my top 25 list of things that need to be fixed with this country.

[nomorewhopper]

49. i hope to dear god that this will be over soon

she'll fight through ohio and texas. if she doesn't win decisively there, it's over. the money will dry up \



the superdelegates are not going to go against the will of the people, no matter how hard she tries.

[Independent-Voter]

55. Hell - I hope she stays in. I've already won about $8K from her trainwreck of a campaign

Cashed out earlier this week, but left a couple hundred in for play money. That's already gone up in less than 4 days.

Hillary - the local burn center, my bartender, and Obama have all benefited from your shrill, corrosive personality. You go girl!

[Yurovsky]

107. Classic!

Shrill is the one word that comes to mind when I hear her on the stump. She gets all worked up, and then her voice shifts from sweet old schoolmarm to mother-in-law-from-hell.

Good Lord I have 10X more understanding for Bill's tomcattin' after being forced to listen to her voice throughout this campaign. I'm just surprised he never slit his wrists.

[Egnever]

58. One

Texas should end this thing once and for all.

[Iris]

63. If Obama is a shoo-in, why are his supporters so intent on Clinton dropping out before TX & OH?

[anigbrowl]

68. So we can concentrate our fire on McCain and the GOP

...who is, after all, the candidate we have to beat in the election. The longer the race continues, the longer the Republicans can point a the Democrats and say things like 'a house divided' and so on.

Please note that I have NOT been posting 'Hillary should drop out' messages, though I do think her chance of winning is gone at this point. She did a little better than Obama on Super Tuesday (though not by as big a margin as I had feared), and since then she's lost every single contest.

Edwards' delegates aren't enough to make a big difference in the outcome. Obama's lead has grown to the point where seating MI and FL will change the outcome either. Obviously she hopes to crush him in Ohio and Texas, but I don't think that's going to happen.

[Iris]

106. So the people in OH and TX should be denied the right to vote in the primary

so we can get a few weeks jump on tearing down the other side?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

64. when Obama wins with real Dem votes instead of the 1 time Repblican crossover votes and he ....

stops this shit:

[slick8790]

66. Because god forbid, we wouldn't want those dirty crossover voters in November. Perish the thought.

:eyes:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

67. did you even read it? "Everyone you can be a Dem for ONE day""

[slick8790]

69. Aside from the fact that these were unauthorized and officially condemned by the Obama campaign

at the time, what's the difference? My parents are both officially independent until primary day comes around, where they register Dem and vote, then re-register independent later. Doesn't mean they're not going to vote for the dem nominee, it just means they don't want to be officially declared members of a party they don't always agree with.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

70. again read "Republicans" you can be a Democrat for ONE day vote for Obama and go back to your party"

[slick8790]

76. And republicans aren't allowed to vote for a non-republican in the general election?

I think you have a far too negative view of the everyday republican. i live in a heavily republican area, and most people are starting to come around and realize they fucked up by voting for bush and the republicans. The reality is Obama is winning the popular vote by almost a million votes. Are you saying over a million republicans voted for him because he'd be easiest to beat? That also assumes zero republicans voted for hillary for the same reason, which is a ridiculous assumption.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

81. we are discussing the "flyer" would you care to remark on its content?

[slick8790]

83. It was officially condemned by the Obama campaign. End of story. n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

84. hahaha of course ....AFTER they had already served their purpose..it's called "dirty polittics"

[slick8790]

96. Funny you should bring that up, considering you're a hillary supporter. n/t

[Alexander]

78. You don't have to be a Dem to vote that way in the GE.

And statistically, most crossover primary voters give their votes to the same person in the GE.

Nice try, though.

[ZombieHorde]

74. Delegates can vote however they want. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

75. delegates are suppose to vote for who won their district but superdelegates are suppose to vote for

the good of the party and the nation

[jackson_dem]

77. Has Obama reached 2,025 delegates?

[mudesi]

79. bookmarking...(nm)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/112833/162/588/460131

[ElsewheresDaughter]

82. another cicada

[Medusa]

85. Why do I get the feeling that on Inaguration Day, 2009

when Obama is sworn in, she'll insist upon being introduced as presiden too? I don't think her campaign has the balls to tell her she's losing and apparently she's too busy(?) to notice.

[THUNDER HANDS]

87. Obam will be running for re-election in 2012 and Hillary will still want to claim she's viable

[Florida22ndDistrict]

88. re: How much more convincing do Obama's victories have to be before Hillary calls it quits?

I'm sure Clinton knows just as well as anyone willing to do the math, that it's not up to the voters at this point. If either of the candidates were to win this by the electorate alone they would need very high numbers (Obama 83% / Clinton 96%). Neither will realistically achieve those numbers, so there is no reason to give up. Its a campaign to see who can acquire the most supper delegates at this point. No matter how the cookie crumbles it will be decided at the convention.

[JuniperLea]

90. Finally! The voice of reason!

Very well said!

:applause:

[MindMatter]

93. Only a Clinton could think that way

One candidate is winning 10 elections in a row, mostly by landslides, and will probably continue that trend the next 3. That candidate is packing arenas with 20,000 people

The other candidate thinks she can get her beltway buddies to rig the convention for her. And suffer no consequences?

It take a truly insane person to think that way. She starts with 40-some percent of the people who will never vote for her. if by some collective mental breakdown, the Party were to give her the nomination, there's another 20% of the public that would walk away from her. It is absolutely impossible to win that game.

Bill never thought he'd get caught getting BJs in the WH and lying about it. It takes a different kind of ethics for a person to think this way. Not the kind of ethics I want in my leaders, that's for sure.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

94. RE: Only a Clinton could think that way

There's no reason to smear people. Do the math and it's quite clear. This year is not about democracy, it is about the rules. If democracy was in play, my vote along with all of those cast in both Florida and Michigan would count. When it comes down to it, we may end up with neither of them. Neither has the full trust of the democratic party. Neither was able to unit the party successfully. The question is how the party is going to react to the result, and what they are going to do to reform the system that got us into this mess to begin with.

P.S. I'm not a Clinton, or a Clinton supporter either. I'm just level headed and can look at the situation without emotional outrage.

[MindMatter]

95. I'm sorry your local party bosses ...

decided to throw away your chance to have a say in this process. But that surely is none of Obama's doing. He had nothing to do with it. And short of holding a fresh election after a reasonable period when the candidates can campaign, I don't see any fairer solution than requiring the the Floridians suffer the consequences of their decisions.

There is a consistent theme here. Obama is winning the right way. He didn't cajole or strong-arm any of those 20,000 people to fill the stadium in Houston last night. In every case, it is the Clintons who keep trying to come up with new and imaginative ways to cheat those of us who participate according to the published rules. To somehow speak of this as a balanced proposition is utterly disingenuous. It is all coming from the Clinton side. Obama doesn't need to manipulate the rules. He's got the people with him.

I am an Edwards supporter who has always been a little uncomfortable with Obama. But the Clinton duplicity since Super Tuesday has been absolutely disgusting. There was a time that I would have held my nose and voted for her in the fall if she were the nominee. That time passed a few weeks ago for me.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

98. RE: I'm sorry your local party bosses ...

Funny that people always repeat its a local problem. When it comes down to it the DNC made the final decision to sanction the states and remove our delegates. Neither of the two candidates protested it either. Saying things enough times may drill it into most people, but not me.

Being that you are not outraged about Florida and Michigan losing their delegates, you have no grounds to be outraged if Obama does not come away with the nomination. Whoever get the delegates within the rules, gets it. My hope, is that Al Gore gets it in the second vote. Then we can all laugh about “the rule are the rules” argument so many have defended so adamantly. :rofl:

[MindMatter]

100. In a democracy, let's start with

who gets the most votes in a fairly contested, accurately counted election. If the selected candidate is not the one who got the most votes, then there is reason for concern.

Florida and Michigan were not fairly contested. The Party told candidates to stay away. The fact that the states went through the motions anyway does not make it a worthy contest. What is really ironic is that if your state had not flaunted Party rules, then Florida would have been in a position to play a HUGE role this time.

Even though Florida held a bogus event that cannot possibly count, I'd be in favor of allowing Floridians to hold a proper contest so that voters like you are not penalized by the mistakes of your party officials.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

102. RE: In a democracy, let's start with

“If the selected candidate is not the one who got the most votes, then there is reason for concern”.

If millions of voters are disenfranchised from the get go, then any count that is conducted is flawed to begin with. A majority under such circumstance is moot. You should recognize this and try to fix the situation rather then excusing it. Maybe in 2012 we can have a national primary based on popular vote. Then we can talk about majority.

[MindMatter]

108. On the FL election day

virtually every voter knew that the votes were not going to count. This was announced many weeks in advance. So there is no logic in counting the votes of the people who cast votes anyway. That would misrepresent the people who took the announcement at face value. The only way to correct this situation is to hold a proper election. If that isn't feasible, then Florida should petition the Party to allow it to conduct proper caucuses. There is plenty of time between now and the convention for Florida and Michigan to announce they will hold caucuses, give the candidates an opportunity to organize and campaign, and then hold the event.

I don't care much for caucuses, but if thats good enough for dozens of other states, it should be an acceptable solution for Florida and Michigan this time.