I see all these posts saying Clinton supporters are in denial

[BzaDem]

and that the race has already been won by Obama. That Clinton supporters are delusional, in denial, and need to get to the "acceptance" stage of grieving.

For those who post as above, why are you afraid of letting voters in Texas and Ohio have their say? The polls could be completely wrong; one poll had Clinton down 13 in California the day before the primary. She won by 10. She could win both Texas and Ohio (even by small margins) and then win the next several contests due to the "comeback" momentum. Who knows what will happen to either candidate over the next six weeks if that happens.

Or maybe the polls aren't wrong. Maybe she'll win Ohio and lose Texas. Who knows.

But why are you afraid of finding out? If the entire schedule were reversed, and Texas, Ohio, and other states that had favorable demographics to Clinton came first, Clinton would probably have a lead of 100 pledged delegates and Clinton supporters would probably be saying the same thing about Obama. That his supporters are delusional.

All of that's rediculous. When this primary is really over, it will be so obvious that there won't be a single post saying so. The more I see posts saying Clinton supporters are in denial, before the critical contests of Texas and Ohio, the more I realize that this is still a close race.

[NashVegas]

1. I Was Thinking About That This Morning

The simple fact Hillary is still in it, to me, says she thinks she can win.

After all, women are very choosy about their battles.

[skipos]

4. Does the simple fact that Huckabee is in it say he thinks he can win, to you?

What about Nader? People stay in races they are guaranteed to lose all the time.

[Political Heretic]

2. I'm not afraid at all. But Obama already had the nomination in hand.

So I'm ready to get on to the general.

Most years a nominee is obvious long before all the voters of all states "have their say" - and I see no reason why now, with a clear frontrunner ahead in pledged delegates beyond possibility of Clinton catchup up, who is out raising her in money and far, far ahead in national polls, we shouldn't start planning for the general.

[WVRevy]

6. MTE...

We're wasting time fending off attacks from a fellow Democrat instead of focusing on McCain. It's a waste of time and resources to continue to run against a candidate that can no longer win the nomination.

I'll grant her Tuesday, because if she was to somehow pull off a 65% miracle, she'd have a pulse. But if she doesn't win by that margin, she needs to drop out. Period.

[BlackVelvet04]

9. They aren't YOUR time and resources.....

she'll drop out IF and WHEN she decides to drop out.

[anamandujano]

18. That's the way it works in Russia too.

"Most years a nominee is obvious long before all the voters of all states "have their say""

[Political Heretic]

19. It's also the way it works in America

:shrug:

[tekisui]

3. No fear here.

Sure, let the voters of OH and TX have their say. Hell, let it go all the way to the Convention. It won't change the fact that Obama is winning. And, that he will win.

She will drop when it is the best time. Probably when something is in the news to distract from it.

[high density]

5. It's not a close race unless Clinton wins by 20pts Tuesday in OH and TX

so that she can catch up with Obama. I don't think anybody on the Obama side is "afraid" of anything except for Clinton's egotistical desire to keep plodding away when the math doesn't work out for her. How many contests does she have to lose before she realizes that she's not the winner? How much longer is she going to act as what is basically turning into a conduit for John McCain to attack Obama?

[BzaDem]

10. If she wins at all she will still be in it.

Her chances of overcoming the pledged delegate lead won't be good if she wins by a few points, but momentum is an unpredictable thing. (We all saw that the national polls went in Obama's favor after his winning streak -- it happens all the time. People want to vote for a winner).

If she wins by say 10 points (55-45), that will give her a huge edge in the popular vote. She might even overtake him in the national popular vote. Even if she doesn't get a pledged delegate lead, winning the most voters nationwide is a pretty good argument for the superdelegates, who will be deciding the nomination regardless of what hapens.

If she wins by 20 points (60-40), then she might have a shot at overtaking him in pledged delegates.

Either way, none of those above scenarios means she is out of it. You would not be saying it is all over if your candidate were losing like this, and rightly so.

[high density]

14. She's not in it right now.

The rules aren't going to change right now to make the delegates be awarded based on a national popular vote.

The only way she wins or gets back into it is to either have blowout wins, of which she has currently had one (AR), or to have the super delegates override the pledged delegates. I don't think either of these possibilities is very likely. The Democratic party is dead if the super delegates override the pledged delegates because the party simply serves no purpose at that point.

[BzaDem]

16. You're right, the rules aren't going to change.

The rules say that 796 superdelegates have a say at the convention. The rules do NOT say that the superdelegates have to vote for the winner of the pledged delegates, just like they don't say that the superdelegates have to vote for the winner of the popular vote. If the superdelegates said "hell with the people" and voted for some fringe candidate, that would clearly be detrimental to the party. But if they went with the national popular vote winner over the pledged delegate winner, there is nothing wrong with that and that would not cause a backlash. It would not be "overriding" anything, since there is no rule saying the pledged delegate winner has a preference when superdelegates decide who to vote for. That is just spin.

[FrenchieCat]

7. The only way that Hillary Clinton could win is if she found a way to destroy him.....

and if she did, she'd lose in November.

All of the new voters as well as those of the AA community will not be going to vote for Ms. Clinton if she destroys Barack Obama.

[sniffa]

8. I want them all to have their vote

and I've consistently called for HRC to stay in the race as long as possible.

However, I think her supporters are displaying the classic signs of the Kubler-Ross model. It's perfectly natural, but the sooner you move on, the better you'll feel. :hug:

And yes, I posted that thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4848697

[bigtree]

15. such concern

touching, really

[skipos]

11. Hillary needs to win the remaining states by margins she has only achieved in Arkansas

If she doesn't have massive wins in Texas and Ohio, she is going to need even bigger wins in the remaining states. For weeks we have heard how important Texas is, and how THAT is the real contest. While Obama was kicking her ass up and down the post Feb 5 states, she was spending her time in Ohio and Texas. If she doesn't have a big double digit wins there, but stays in the race anyway, she is as delusional as Huckabee.

No one should expect her to drop out tomorrow, but if this Tuesday is anything close to a tie in the delegates, and if she gives a shit about Dems winning the Whitehouse, she should drop out. I am not holding my breath.

[BzaDem]

12. This is not like Huckabee.

Huckabee is down 800 delegates out of 2381 (33% of the total), and McCain is less than 100 delegates away from getting the nomination.

Hillary is down 150 pledged delegates out of 4049 (3.7% of the total), and both are still far away from clincing the nomination in delegates. Not even close to Huckabee's situation.

This will clearly come down to superdelegates. If Obama keeps winning, then the superdelegates will flock to him. If Hillary starts winning (and wins by 10% in Texas/Ohio), she could take a popular vote lead, and that could cause superdelegates to go towards her. It is up in the air at this point.

[skipos]

17. 10% wins in TX and OH will NOT put her in the popular vote lead.

Obama is up by about a million votes. It would only give her a few delegates toward her 100+ deficit. The superdelegates would absolutely not flock to her at that point. She needs 25+% wins, not 10% wins, in both states. Even then, she will still be well behind Obama in the pledged delegates. Then we have Wyoming and Mississippi, where Obama would likely thump her. And when Obama thumps, he thumps hard.

I know that the idiots in her campaign (Mark Penn) are probably considering moving the goalposts to PA, if Clinton doesn't get the 25+% win she needs. The good thing is, Obama hasn't done shit there, and is already closing the gap.

Again, Clinton needs HUGE wins on Tuesday to even stay remotely competitive. Is she smart enough to recognize that 10% isn't going to cut it? Does she care about our nominee's chances in November? If the answer is "yes" then she will drop out if she doesn't get win by about 25% in Ohio and Texas. If it is no... then she will be about as delusional as Huckabee.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Have you done the math? If you do the math it becomes appaerent that Hill can't

win the pledged delegates unless she wins all the remaining ststes by about 20% percentage points.

In the meantime, she is engaging in negative campaigning and sounding like McCain.