If Clinton Wins 60% of Every Contest Left (and 64% of Pennsylvania), She Still Loses

[DrFunkenstein]

The contest - without the extra delegates he'll pick up in the Texas caucus drip-drop - will come down to 1,606 pledged delegates for Obama and 1,603 for Clinton.

That is if she wins EVERY race until the end and Obama only wins 36% of the Pennsylvania vote.

Check the scenarios for yourself:

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

I think it is fair to say that American democracy has spoken, and chosen to turn the page on yesterday's politics. If Clinton somehow magically wins the pledged delegate count, I'd have no problems (well, a few natural grumblings) with supporting her. But it just ain't gonna happen.

If Wyoming and Mississippi do not go her way, and it becomes even MORE clear that she cannot win (at least without splintering the Party into nothingness), I would hope that she would do the honorable thing and step aside. It is her right to remain in the race, just as it is your right to support her, but there's a time for everything.

As a New Yorker, I look forward to her eventual return home. I will certainly vote for her to remain a strong voice in the Party for years to come.

[Earth_First]

1. This race will shatter the party... n/t

[jgraz]

2. I truly believe Hillary's goal is no longer to win the nomination

It's to damage Obama so much that he loses in November, allowing her to step in as party savior in 2012.

[Zhade]

3. Oh, so she's repeating her 2004 Kerry assassination.

Swell. Power-hungry AND relentless.

[jgraz]

5. The evidence is pretty strong here

Why else would she be continually repeating her "endorsement" of McCain over Obama? She wants the public to see Obama as black, muslim and unqualified.

[Gore1FL]

8. I don't recall that specifically

what did I miss?

[Growler]

10. I couldn't agree more

[JTFrog]

27. She'll be older than McCain by the time that tactic works out for her. n/t

[jgraz]

30. Nope, she'll be 64 in 2012

[JTFrog]

34. Yeah, but I said by the time it might work for her. People will need time to forget the shit she

pulled this time. It will take more than 4 years.

[jgraz]

35. Sorry, missed the joke there

But I still think you're misunderestimating the ability of the Amercian electorate to forget anything that happened before last week.

[Khaotic]

4. Mississippi could ...

be as lopsided for Obama as Hawaii was for him.

What then Hillary?

And what about WY? Chances are Hill will lose that one too.

I guess the states between the firewalls just don't count.

[Gore1FL]

11. MS and WY

Should put the Obama delegate lead to about 150.

I suspect OR, MT, NC, and SD, are Obama wins as well.

I am not sure what will happen in WV.

IN will go for Clinton, PA probably as well.

PR is a tossup, because there are reasons it could go wither way.

Guam? Who freaking knows -- I suspect Obama.

NC is Obamas.

[Hawkowl]

22. IN is trending for Obama

Polls suggest IN will go 2-1 for Obama. It is a neighboring state to Illinois, and the vast majority of Dem voters live in the Northwestern corner next to his hometown of Chicago.

[LadyVT]

6. Y'all really need to read this. It is NOT about the pledged delegates.

Obama can't win enough pledged delegates either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obama...

[ExFreeper4Obama]

9. The point is that Obama will have more pledged delegates

Thats the point...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1

According to the article, all of the remaining super delegates have stated they will not overturn the will of the people and alienate the new younger voters. Pelosi, the convention chairwoman has also stated this. Its pretty much over IMO. She needs to step aside after Mississippi votes.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Going Back to Kefauver in 1952?

He was one of several candidates with a horse in the race. That is hardly the case now. The situation is more like Mondale-Hart in 1984 (I know we don't like to even mention that race). There is a clear contest between two candidates who statistically cannot reach the magic number.

For the superdelegates to reverse the voice of the people would lead to pandemonium, and I'd be the first one out there calling to let slip the dogs of war.

[Gore1FL]

17. It is all about the pledged delegates--that is what willensure the supers.

1> The super delegates will likely vote for the pledge delegate leader, because they really don't want the party to explode, much less be responsible for it.

2> If Obama comes in up 150-175 pledged delegates, then that would require Clinton to win a minimum 550-575 of the Super delegates (69% - 72%)
That is a lot of people to convince into supporting a losing candidate in order for he to to achieve a pyrrhic victory.

3> Many of the Super delegates are answerable to voters as they are elected officials themselves.

Sure Obama needs Super Delegates to reach 2025. A strong lead is going to be a pretty convincing reason for them to support him.

[grantcart]

7. Obama only needs 46% of remaining delegates to get the nomination

including superdelegates which he has been taking in at 80% the last month

[JCMach1]

13. and if Obama wins 60%, he still loses without SUPERDELEGATES

get the facts out on both sides...

He would need 65%+

[msallied]

16. there is a DIFFERENCE

Between going into the convention with MORE pledged delegates and getting a scant number of SDs to carry you into the nomination and going into the convention with FEWER of the pledged delegates and managing to strongarm enough SDs to go against the will of the people and put hand you the nomination.

You do see that, right?

[Gore1FL]

18. But he wouldn't need a majority to overturn the voiuce of the electorate

He would need less than half to put him over the top.

The shame is not in having super delegates vote for you. The shame is trying to use them to overturn 6 months of voting in order to win a pyrrhic victory that destroys the party, the hopes of a General election win, and causes "rioting."

[msallied]

19. Beautifully said. eom

[Hawkowl]

23. Very well said!

nt

[JCMach1]

25. Just a point- if neither candidate earns an outright victory (which is very unlikely at this point)

There is no precedent as to HOW someone should win... the rule for superdelegates that they are not locked-in under the present rules. They can even change their minds if they like.

My suggestion would be that the two campaigns hash out some ground rules now and agree on a precedent for victory. Otherwise it will be BOTH campaigns trying to seduce superdelegates. That is just an ugly situation for the party PERIOD.

There are all kinds of spin that can be made over popular vote, delegates, particular states, whatever! For both sides this is JUST SPIN to win over the superdelegates at this point, sigh.

The greater person may actually be the win that finally throws up their hands and says I will take the VP slot and bypass the ego trip for reasons bigger than me.

I can't see either of the two doing that, but it certainly would be the best thing at this point.

[Window]

29. Amen.

[milkyway]

14. It's worse than that for her. Winning 60% of the popular vote will not get her 60% of delegates.

The Slate delegate calculator is very misleading. Many districts award an even number of delegates, most commonly four. To win a 4-delegate district by 3-1 requires being above the threshold of 62.5% (midpoint of 50% and 75%). Thus, winning this district 60-40 in popular vote will result in a 2-2 delegate split.

It's very hard to move the net delegate totals by a large amount, as shown in Ohio, where in a state with 141 delegates that she won by 10%, she probably netted 9 delegates.

Obama was able to rack up such a large delegate lead because he ran a fifty-state strategy against the brilliant Clinton fifteen-state strategy. Like the Clinton/McAuliffe DNC, they didn't even contest many states, so Obama could pile up large popular voting margins and win a substantial amount of delegates.

And even in some large, contested primary states, Obama won by landslide amounts--he won Virginia by 29%, netting him 25 delegates. Even in a very favorable Ohio, Hillary has a difficult time winning by a large margin.

She lost 11 straight landslides, with the closest of them being 17 points, and is so delusional (or else drugged up) that she thinks winning Texas by 3 points, and probably losing in the delegate count, is reason to start throwing confetti like she just won the nomination. Pathetic.

[PseudoIntellect]

21. Nicely put...

...especially when she was supposed to win by 15 in Texas and 20 in Ohio. Suddenly, winning by 3-4% in Texas and losing the delegates and netting under 10 delegates in Ohio is a "huge" victory, though she will likely gain about the same number of delegates from March 4 as Obama did in that little Aloha state in the middle of nowhere a few weeks ago.

The fact of the matter is that the delegate situation after March will be worse for Hillary than it was on March 3. March 4 didn't help out at all. It's good to get a little confidence going after so many depressing landslides, but the celebration among Clinton fans will be in vain when considering the math so often discussed.

[msallied]

15. See, I not only want her defeated, here, I want her OUT

of the Democratic Party. I am of the mind that this woman is one of the most dangerous people in America. If she won the nomination, I'd consider myself an Independent on the national scene.

But knowing all that, it feels good that I can in good conscience vote for another Democrat for President. If Hillary bows out gracefully and doesn't destroy it first, anyway.

[kelligesq]

20. Pssst

obamamamam cant win either...neither can reach the delegate count.

So Obama who is the new guy should drop out.

BWWWAAAAAAA hahahahahah :evilgrin:

[msallied]

24. Are you people illiterate? Or maybe it's just the same person

posting under different aliases. Have you actually read this thread and understand the differences between an Obama win with SDs and a Clinton one with SDs? Or does it bear repeating for about the thirtieth time?

[TheDeathadder]

26. Wrong wrong wrong

I know you guys want to "Stop The Primary. Save Obama" but he can't seal the deal. He has a slight lead in delegates and can't get enough. Clinton won more of the bigger states. This will go to the convention, this race is finally a real primary where every state matters.

The rules state the super-delegates vote on their individual judgment, it their vote to make.

There's going to be a real convention and at it she's going to to win. Whoever wins it will be at the convention and Clinton has the momentum.

[BringBigDogBack]

28. kick

[WilyWondr]

31. I am pretty sure this is why

we are seeing a resurgence of the "seat FL/MI delegates" threads.

The more her supporters realize that she is not going to win within the rules the more they will push for changing the rules mid-season.

[Skip Intro]

32. the race is over when someone gets 2025 dels - the race is not over in your scenario

because no one will have reached that magic number yet

you have ill-defined what \"winning\" is

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

33. If Hillary Gets The Delegate Gap To Under 100, Gets The National Polls, And The PV To Be Super Tight

she'll win the nomination. Mark my words.

[Godhumor]

36. It's actually simple--if she loses the delegate counts but wins the popular vote

She will ask the superdelegates to come to her side as the popular vote represents the will of the people. If she loses both, she drops out. The question becomes can she make up the popular vote disparity with Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Michigan, and Florida (assuming they get a do-over).