It's June 7th, Obama has a 75 pledged delegate lead, Hillary has a 200,000 popular vote lead

[Herman Munster]

Let's assume that Michigan and Florida work out their problems and they have legitamate contested primaries in June and Hillary wins them enough to give her the clear popular vote lead.

So who wins the nomination?

[CalebHayes]

1. We didn't count caucus states did we?

[backscatter712]

81. No, but we did count Soviet Michigan...

Y'know, the state that not only got its delegates stripped because it violated DNC rules, but where every candidate except Clinton (who's paperwork was "late") took their names off the ballot.

So they got a Soviet style election with only Clinton on the ballot.

There's no way in hell that result is going to be counted. They'll have to do another election, where Clinton likely wouldn't get even close to all of the delegates.

[Zynx]

2. I have to admit at that point I am torn.

[cali]

3. that's up to the SDs just as it is now

But your post posits an unlikely scenario.

[Herman Munster]

8. I don't think so

Hillary probably wins Pennsylvania 60-40. Rendell's machine is legendary and Pennsylvania has the 3rd oldest population in the country. And it's a CLOSED primary. No independents or republicans to bail Obama out.

Then John Edwards endorses her and she wins North Carolina and possibly Indiana on momentum.

Kentucky, West Virginia she does very well in.

Puerto Rico is now a primary not a caucus. And she wins that 2:1 or more.

She then wins Michigan and Florida again with similar margins.

It's all very possible.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. There is no

Fast Eddie Rendell machine. This is a myth. Eastern PA will blow any "60/40" away.

[cali]

25. 60-40? In your dreams. She's won only two or three states with

that kind of margin and the polls show it closer than that now. He'll take all the urban areas by large margins. Doesn't matter how legendary Rendell's machine is. She'll win it by 10 at the most. It's unlikely she'll win MI, though she'll win FL. He'll win North Carolina and Edwards would have endorsed by now if he was going to do so. No way she'll win NC. In PR Obama was endorsed by the Gov and she sure won't win that by any 2 to 1. Nothing in the history of this race to date, supports your fantasy. And that's all it is.

It could happen the way you describe, and I could win the lottery. It's possible.

[Herman Munster]

43. yeah like all the people here said obama would win ohio and texas

and it would all be over after wisconsin.

Right.

You can't take anything the obama people here say seriously. And you know that that's truth.

[movonne]

70. I think he did win texas.....

[PseudoIntellect]

75. Shhh....don't use facts. Hillary fans hate those.

[BumRushDaShow]

88. Are you a resident of PA?

I am and there will be no "60/40". The city of Philadelphia will make sure of that.

And Obama won the delegate race in Texas. Sorry you missed the memo!

[joeprogressive]

95. We had hoped he would win Texas, which he arguably did.

However the reality is he was down like 20 points at one point. The fact he made it as close as he did and negate any big delegate win for her was a victory unto itself. Nobody here was that shocked by her pseudo win in Texas.

[tekisui]

79. One state: Arkansas.

No other over 58%.

[Renew Deal]

28. The drugs must be good at Hillary is 44.

:smoke:

[no name no slogan]

32. sssssssmokin' (but not inhalin')

nt

[dkf]

29. Rendell's machine couldn't even fill delegate slate for Hillary.

And he moved the date too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. Margins in PA are going to be narrower...

probably more like 55-45, or close to even; six weeks to campaign is a lot of time for things to turn around, and the demographics and population in Philadelphia favour Obama doing better than you posit (not to mention that the closed primary means no GOP crossover for Hillary from Rush dittoheads looking to throw a spanner into the works of the Democratic primary); no way in hell is she going to win NC; Indiana is more of a toss-up; I'd predict 55-45 or so in KY and WV; PR's not going to break for her 2-1, not with the governor in Obama's corner; and with current polling, Obama would BEAT Hillary in MI and FL revotes.

Not only is it not possible, it's a pipe dream.

[Herman Munster]

46. the governor that endorsed Obama in Puerto Rico

is about to be indicated on corruption charges.

I don't think his endorsement means jackshit.

[BzaDem]

58. She will definately win FL, and the closed primary will favor Hillary.

Even with the Rush dittoheads, Obama still won the republican vote by 5% according to the CNN exit polls (available for every state at www.cnn.com/election).

And can you cite one poll showing Obama will win FL?

[JackORoses]

41. Hillary didn't even win NY 60-40. You are dreaming.

[karynnj]

52. Do you know where the Indiana Democrats live?

There is a very populous county in Northwestern Indiana called Lake County. It has a huge number of Democrats and parts of it are about 25 miles out of Chicago. They get Chicago newspapers, radio and TV. For decades, teachers have seen that the kids are much better naming the IL Senators and Gov than the Hoosier ones. The other Democratic strongholds are Bloomington (Home to IU) and Indianapolis.

She may have Bayh's endorsement - but I don't think she will win.

Not to mention - after saying she has no conscience and after all his talk about corruption and lobbyists, Edwards will have a hard time explaining why all the things he said have no meaning. i don't see him doing it.

[aquarius dawning]

83. He will not win Indiana. He lacks support and there's a large Republican base

that will come out of the woodwork against him. Indiana is a red state and it also has a long tradition of racism in government and society. Obama will not carry Indiana in the GE.

[loveangelc]

94. except we're not talking about the GE genius.

[karynnj]

110. Who said he would - the discussion was the primaries

and the comment that HRC would win. That's why I spoke of 3 - just 3 - areas with significant Democratic presence - knowing many Hoosiers have more recent knowledge than I do.

[seriousstan]

53. John Edwards endorses her and she wins North Carolina? He didn't carry N.C. in 2004.

Why would his endorsement make Clinton win N.C.?

[loveangelc]

93. What the hell are you on? She is not going to win NC or Indiana on "momentum"

you are an absolute idiot if you think she's going to win nc and indiana, or that john edwards is going to endorse hillary clinton before nc votes. stupid. so very stupid.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. I think it's unfortunately more likely than you would expect

Hence my thread last night that we should flip a coin. Both candidates unfortunately have a very good claim on why they should get the nomination.

[HeraldSquare212]

4. Voters vote for delegates. I'd say Obama

And I still don't know how using popular votes accounts for caucuses - why is he penalized for doing well in caucuses?

[XemaSab]

5. How exactly is she going to narrow the lead to 75 and get that many extra votes?

:shrug:

[Kittycat]

24. She's not, LOL.

They're still living in Oz.

[QC]

6. Throw them both out and pick a real candidate.

One that might have a chance of winning.

[marylanddem]

13. Oh, I think ONE of them does. And WILL.

[karynnj]

33. If youmean your avatar, yopu need to face the reality that both Obama and HRC beat him and beat him

badly. In 2004, he Kerry didn't even have to try hard to beat him.

It would be completely unDemocratic to give the nomination to a candidate who ran a poor third or to anyone who didn't run - Gore and Kerry included.

[QC]

55. The convention can choose whomever it likes.

The whole business of having primaries and caucuses and such is relatively new. In the past, party officials chose the nominees.

Not saying that I like that, mind you, but it would not be unheard of for the convention to choose a nominee. Sadly, though, we are stuck with Clobama.

[SKKY]

7. The rules are the rules....

...whoever has the most delegates.

[Herman Munster]

12. yes the rules are the rules

Superdelegates will decide.

[KittyWampus]

22. Hillary's ignored & insulted so many democrats in red/purple states there's zero chance she'll

get majority of them.

Zero.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Do You Really Believe That?

Tell me... If Hillary were to close the delegate gap to under 100, get the popular vote to be about even if not ahead for her, and she had national polls on her side, do you think the SD's WOULDN'T go towards her? :hi:

[karynnj]

56. Who has netted the most superdelegates in the last week -

the week that the media is spinning as a huge win for HRC?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. Those Aren't The Rules. You Might Want Them To Be, But They're Not.

Please educate yourself.

(That is, if you were talking about pledged delegates)

[SKKY]

21. Both pledged and super...

...It's the system we live in. Having lived in 6 different countries, I can safely say we have the "sanest" system, if not entirely perfect.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Well In That Case, Your Post Makes Little Sense.

The whole point of the OP is who the SD's should go to in that case, since ultimately it will be their sway that will determine the nominee. Replying with "whoever the SD's lean towards" (basically what you're saying) doesn't answer the OP at all, but instead just repeats his concept without thinking about it.

So to rephrase for ya, according to the terms of the OP, who should the SD's lean towards in that case?

[SKKY]

44. The superdelegates are not bound, from my understanding...

....to vote based on popular vote. They're "entrusted" to exercise their best judgment, but not bound by anything written or unwritten. If HRC wins the popular vote, but Obama has more delegates, so be it. Bush lost the popular vote by 5 million and still won. And yes, I know for a fact that Obama can still have the most "pledged delegates" and still lose if more supers move to HRC. It's the system. It is what it is.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. You're A Bit Perplexing. It's Just A Question. Why Aren't You Just Answering It?

No one is challenging what you said. Furthermore, what you said is inherent in the OP to begin with, or there wouldn't have been any point.

The question is: If Hillary closes the gap of pledges to under 100, has the popular vote even or wins it, who do you think the SD's will go towards?

[SKKY]

60. I think they'll probably go with who they think has the best chance of beating McCain...

...which depending on which poll you read/believe, could be either. If I'm an SD, that's probably how I would base my decision. In my opinion, that's Obama.

[Benhurst]

50. No, it's whoever has 2025 delegates. A plurality is worth squat under the rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

9. In That Scenario? Hillary Without A Doubt.

Likely, part of that deal though would be Obama being the VP.

[KoKo]

10. WORD...watch this:

http://current.com/items/88854218_the_democratic_messiah

[4_Legs_Good]

97. OMFG!!! Best damned punch line EVER

Oh man am I rolling!!!

LOVE IT!!!

Heh heh heh

David

[CampDem]

103. Hilarious!! OMG

:rofl: :rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Impossible

She can't possibly be up 200,000 in the popular vote and be down 75 pledged delegates.

[quantass]

14. You are making too many unlikely assumptions....

Realistically by June Obama will stll carry the most delegates, and the most popular votes....and even if Michigan and Florida were included (would have to be do-overs) she would still not have enough to surpass his delegate lead...and heaven forbid she loses one or both of them (or have it split) then she's done for....

I think virtually every REALISTIC scenerio shows that Hillary is finished.

There have been several online calculators that let you play out every scenerio and in every single case that i tried she LOST...assuming that pledged delegate leads were the deciding factor....

The best she can hope for is Obama gets drunk and considers her for a VP spot...which is grim since Obama doesn't like negativity on his team.

[NJSecularist]

15. I would give Hillary the nomination in this case

Seeing as how the only way to rack up that popular vote margin of victory would be to win Pennsyvlania, Florida and Michigan by wide margins in the primaries. Which are 3 of the most important swing states in the general election.

[ruggerson]

40. Not to alarm you

but you agree with George Will, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson, all of whom said basically the same thing today on This Week.

[NJSecularist]

57. Damn, I agree with all of them?

:crazy:

If this situation occurred, I would lobby for Hilary to win the nomination. Barack is my candidate, but the most important thing is to win the general election. I am not going to let my candidate preference get in the way of putting the best candidate possible on our ticket. The only way for Hillary to win the popular vote is to do exceptionally well in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida and rack up higher than expected margins of victory in those states. If she does indeed do that, she will have proved her mettle and her electability and I would give her the nomination.

[loveangelc]

16. How do you know she'll win MI?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Chances Are, She Probably Wouldn't.

Things could change, but as it stands right now Obama would be likely to win MI.

[ProSense]

19. It's March 9, and your what ifs are are full of holes

The MI, FL argument is a joke, that based on the current data, Hillary would be ahead. Nonsense!

Actual Popular Vote Total
Obama 13,007,968 (+ 592,682)
Hillary 12,415,286


FL
Obama 576,214
Hillary 870,986

Popular Vote (w/FL)
Obama 13,584,182 (+297,910)
Obama 13,286,272


MI
Clinton 328,151
Uncommitted 237,762

Let's say Obama got half (118,881) the uncommitted MI votes

Popular Vote (w/FL and MI)
Obama 13,703,063 (+31,482)
Clinton 13,614,581


Of course, Hillary cheating campaign wants to count MI with no votes going to Obama.

Obama would likely have gotten more than half the uncommitted votes, and possibly even more votes had the FL primary counted.

[Tribetime]

your being generous

with Florida and Michigan he should still have a 150,000 lead minimum...even if they revote. It's quite possible he wins Michigan and she wins Florida. I for one hope they revote and everyone is heard. The revote could be a wash.

[DJ13]

20. Hillary wins them enough to give her the clear popular vote lead.

Thats not a possibility as far as I can see.

She barely takes over the popular vote NOW if you include the uncounted states of Michigan where Obama got no votes, and Florida where name recognition gave her a larger lead than she would other wise have had.

Theres almost no chance she could win the revotes by enough of a margin late in the primary season to claim the total vote lead since Obama is no longer unknown to voters and has far more resources to campaign with.

[karynnj]

26. Your scenario is extremely unlikely

She is now behind in the popular count if MI is excluded - and several caucuses, all but NV won by Obama, are not in there. The margin in FL is not likely to be larger than that one - so let's use it as a proxy. In MI polls, done recently show that Obama is even or ahead of HRC - if you assume that it is equal (best case for HRC), then he is ahead even with MI and FL added. Many of the remaining states favor Obama - including Missisippi and Indiana. How big a win are you expecting in PA to get her 200,000 ahead?

[krawhitham]

27. If one has more delegates and the other more votes

Then you get your super ticket, It will be an Arkansas knife fight behind closed doors to see who is on top of the ticket

[Zhade]

30. Since she won't have the lead, the question is moot.

NT!

[stratomagi]

31. Uhh where r u getting your numbers?

CNN says he has a 138 pledged delegate lead.

[quantass]

36. Just re-read your question and my Objective thinking is....

Hi there, i just re-read your question and thought some more and i personally think that if what you are assuming were to go through then with Obama still carrying a 75 pledged lead but Hillary carring 200K more popular votes then:

- I strongly think Obama would win the nomination simply because rules are rules and Superdelegates will have to go with the candidate with the most delegates. Delegates are assigned to states that represent the people, despite the popular vote and so i think the superdelefates have the obligation to follow the rules and pick the winner who was closest to the magic #. Granted if it were like say 10 pledged lead then but she had 200K more then i'd reverse that but it is virtually impossible for Obama to have less than 50 when this is all done.

I know each state has a different delegate count vs the # of voters so one could technically tabulate how many delegates would equate to 200K votes (on avg across the nation) and use that to reduce that Obama pledged lead...and if in that case it dropped it to 0 (or a negative value) then this could hold a case for being a winner?

That being said, Obama should be the winner in this scenerio....otherwise if we consider the Gore vs Bush 2000 election we saw that Gore won by more than 1 million popular votes but lost by 20-30 electorals (pledged), assuming we are not bringing up the african-americans being disenfranchised as the real reason Gore lost...the rules are the rules...

[JackORoses]

38. Obama. It's funny how you base all your hopes on a Pop. Vote that you pulled out of your ass.

[Medusa]

39. Hillary does NOT have a popular vote lead

OP is playing fast and loose with the facts, just like his DLC approved (GOP LITE) favorite candidate.

[rucky]

42. The popular vote should determine.

I hope the supers have the good sense to abide by the will of the people.

[davidinalameda]

45. no offense but your scenario will happen

as soon as monkeys start flying out of my butt

[kentuck]

48. Since the Reps and Senators are elected to represent us anyway...

They should have a secret ballot to determine the nominee, if your scenario come to pass?

[Bullet1987]

49. The Popular vote doesn't determine the nominee and never has

don't try to change the rules now.

[JPZenger]

54. popular vote by itself is unfair to caucus states

It is bizarre for someone to make this type of claim of a future Clinton popular vote lead without any numbers or links, or explaining what assumptions they included and did not.

Popular vote totals are not fair anyway by themselves because it discounts the caucus states.

In any case, last I heard, Obama still was in the lead in popular vote, with most of the remaining states leaning in his favor.

[Frumious B]

66. It's June 6th and alien overlords are ravaging the earth.

They are using humans like cattle, draining the seas for the benefit of their water starved homeworld and embedding their mind control algorithms into reruns of Three's Company. It's looking pretty damned grim until Barack Obama figures out that the mind control can be defeated and the invaders can be repulsed simply by people focusing their minds on thoughts of a positive outcome to this predicament. The aliens are beaten by hope. They leave our world never to return.

Who gets the nomination?

[Obamaniac]

51. I think your prediction is too optimistic...

My prediction is that Obama wins the popular vote, has a 200+ lead among delegates and wins 35+ primaries and caucuses.

What will you Clinton supporters be spinning then?

Let me remind you that Clinton has a popular vote lead now (when including MI and FL) by about 35,000 votes. That's without Obama having been on the Michigan ballot at all --- which means he didn't collect any votes in Michigan. If he had been on the ballot, even lost it, he would still hold about a 150,000 to 200,000 popular vote lead right now. Not bad for a guy who has only won caucuses hey?

Personally, I think Obama will win Michigan. He has the union support and the black support, that was enough for Jesse Jackson to have won it in 1988.

Also, Obama will win the vast majority of states coming up. There are some other big states besides Pennsylvania: North Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, even Puerto Rico has about 4 million people.

My prediction is that Obama will have a 1,000,000+ lead in the popular vote.

Spin Clintonites, spin.

[Herman Munster]

59. did you also think Obama would win Texas and Ohio?

Obama supporters predictions have not been very accurate...

[Obamaniac]

63. Obama has already won more states, more delegates and more votes

That's something you have to come to grips with.

[RBInMaine]

65. Demographics and machine politics gave Hillary the advantage.

[wileedog]

71. Who predicted either?

Obama was down by 20 in both several weeks before the primary.

WTF does every Clinton supporter treat the Ohio win and the Texas LOSS as some kind of upset?

[PseudoIntellect]

76. I agree.

Hillary's big win by -3 in Texas and 9 in Ohio seem to be HUGE upsets for her over Obama, although it was the exact opposite to her case for pledged delegates.

[Hippo_Tron]

82. I was predicting a Hillary win in Ohio, Texas I was expecting to be very close

What I wasn't expecting was for the MSM to declare Hillary the comeback kid even if Obama won a close victory in Texas. Hillary did win both states and deserves the title but even if she had lost Texas I feel like the headlines would've been the same the next day.

Most polls weren't really showing an Obama lead in Ohio. Closer than it actually was maybe, but not a lead.

[RBInMaine]

61. It is about who has the most pledged delegates.

Because caucus states, which Obama wins OVERWHELMINGLY, don't have as large a turnout as primaries, he should not be penalized. (Clearly Obama would have won these states if they were primaries as he wins them by around 20 points each, and that would give him a popular vote lead too under your scenario.) Therefore you can't go by popular vote because of these state to state voting process differentials. You MUST go by winner of elected pledged delegates. And REMEMBER, in your scenario, Obama will have won MANY more overall states, as he has already (appx. 29-13 advantage OBAMA right now), and that means there is a strong argument that he is a much more NATIONALLY appealing candidate (which he IS by the way.) (A good analogy is the general election electoral college system. It is based on electoral vote delegates, not popular vote. This is so smaller states will matter in the process. We have had Presidents who have won the electoral votes but were under in the popular vote, and we accepted it. Those are the rules. Heck , even Al Gore accepted it. THAT ONE HURT LIKE HELL THOUGH. But those were the rules.)

[NJSecularist]

67. It's not all about pledged delegates anymore

Some of my fellow Obama supporters need to realize that. Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. Racking up pledged delegates in solid GOP states (many of them caucuses) should not determine our nominee. This race should be decided by popular vote and how each candidate performed in several key swing states.

[Bullet1987]

86. The Pop Vote has NEVER determined the nominee....NEVER

You can't simply ignore the rules of nomination when things get a little screwy. If you ask me, this whole system is shit and needs to be scrapped. It's too damn conflicting and problematic in the long run. It's only not about pledged delegates in the eyes of the MSM and Clinton campaign.

[amborin]

62. only fair to go by the popular vote to settle this thing

[Drunken Irishman]

64. If Clinton has a popular vote lead of 200,000, she'll lead in the PD count.

Or at least be tied. 200,000 would mean she blew Obama out in PA, MI and Florida.

But the popular vote doesn't matter, because it won't count Maine, Washington, Nevada or Iowa and the caucus states' popular vote is actually not the popular vote at all. It's impossible to get the real popular vote numbers for this primary.

[PseudoIntellect]

69. Exactly. It's like this:

Suppose California had a caucus, rather than a primary, and that Clinton won it by 48,000.

Washington, D.C. had a primary, and Obama won by 58,000.

Would you then go on to say that the 10,000 popular vote lead for Obama is more important than the great pledged delegate lead for Clinton? Of course not; it's nonsense.

[CyberPieHole]

68. Then the SD's should give her the election because no one wants to subvert the will of the people...

Or so I have heard.

[OzarkDem]

72. If we want to win the GE, Clinton

That's the only election that matters.

[Johnny__Motown]

73. she won't have a popular vote lead. she doesn't now and won't then. Besides

It is a Representational Democracy. We decide federal elections with delegates, Deal with it.



POPULAR VOTE

Status Quo as of March 9:
Barack Obama – 13,005,114
Hillary Clinton – 12,414,786
(Source: Wikipedia 3/9/08)

With Florida as of March 9:
Barack Obama – 13,581,328
Hillary Clinton – 13,285,772

[shraby]

74. It's all about delegates.

The one with the most should win. That's what a primary is fer crissakes.

[tandem5]

90. that's not what the rules say...

you get the nomination if you reach a 50 + 1 majority of delegates including super delegates. Super delegates have full discretion to vote however they please and right now it looks very likely neither will get to the majority number with pledged delegates alone. So now let's return to the OP's scenario: if one has the popular vote and the other the delegate lead (without a majority) how should the super delegates be compelled to vote?

[Upton]

77. The delegates were put in place for a reason

if we're not going to go by them, why have them?

[tandem5]

100. discretion was also built into the system...

if we're not going to even consider the whole picture such as popular vote, why have super delegates?

If I had it my way I would take the power from the states and the party and give them back to the voter: A simple majority vote with no delegates (super or pledged), but as it stands now we are stuck with this selection process.

[not_too_L8]

78. wrong

Popular Vote Total - - Obama 13,007,968 Clinton 12,415,286


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

[tandem5]

91. it was a hypothetical scenario after all the states have had their elections. nt

[C_U_L8R]

84. It's all about delegates

unless you're trying to cheat the system

[against all enemies]

85. Let's assume pigs fly too.

[milkyway]

87. We'll go with whomever the Puerto Ricans picked, as long as it was Clinton. If not, then they won't

matter and we'll refer back to the last state won by Clinton and let them decide.

[bullwinkle428]

89. Does the popular vote take caucus-goers into account accurately?

I'm guessing "no", but I'm not 100% sure of the answer, to be honest.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

92. Whoever has the most delegates wins. Those are the rules.

Otherwise, why bother with delegates at all? Why even have a convention?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

98. people forget both Clinton and O'Bama are Democrratic Party candidates

rules have been made by the party. If Clinton wants to stand as an independent so be it?

[tandem5]

99. right, but its not just pledged delegates...

its a majority of both pledged and supers. Now its possible that one might get that majority with just pledged delegates alone, but right now thats not looking likely. Since super delegates have discretion (those are the rules too) how should they be compelled to vote? With pledged delegates or the overall popular vote? That's the question that's being posed.

I know at this point people don't want to admit this or perhaps most don't realize it, but this is really a debate about the power of the voter vs. the power of a state. You may take the side of states - and you're right that's what our primary system is based on, but I live in a big state and my vote is generally worth much less than that of a person who lives in a small state (in terms of appointing delegates, it takes about 10,000 votes to appoint one delegate in California. In WY, for example, with 100% turnout, its only about 4600:1).

Flexibility is built into the system with super delegates, so why should these issues not be taken into account when voting?

[CampDem]

104. Good job explaining this Tandem5

It is easier to visualize this now.

I live in a big state and my vote is generally worth much less than that of a person who lives in a small state (in terms of appointing delegates, it takes about 10,000 votes to appoint one delegate in California. In WY, for example, with 100% turnout, its only about 4600:1).

;)

[Seen the light]

96. Bwahahahahaha at Clinton having a 200,000 popular vote lead

You just made my night! :rofl:

[jgraz]

101. Here's a scenario for you: It's Jun 7th, Obama leads in delegates, votes and states won

Do Clinton supporters finally SHUT THE FUCK UP?

I'm guessing no. Especially considering Hillary's insurmountable lead with bitter over-60 white women.

[pointsoflight]

102. She can't get to a 200K vote lead unless she wins like 65-70% of the upcoming primaries.

Do the math.

[jackson_dem]

105. The people's choice should win. Have we forgotten why our party was created?

:(

[Slagathor]

106. Let's assume you like dragons and have a beard

that still doesn't make you Gandalf.

[FlyingSquirrel]

107. According to my calculations, she will need 51% vs 46% for Obama

throughout the remaining primaries/caucuses to make this 200,000 number come true. That assumes that Michigan is counted and Obama is awarded the 40% uncommitted vote. So far 29,430,522 people have voted. I estimate that approximately 5,599,613 have yet to vote - I base this on the proportional electoral votes from each state vs the electoral votes of those that have not voted.

I don't see her getting 51% of the remaining vote, frankly.

But if she did, and was ahead of Obama by 200,000 votes, that would be 47.3% to 46.8% (a difference of 0.5%)

If she got 51% to 46% of the remaining popular vote, she might get as many as 53% of the remaining delegates. That would only catch her up by about 33. She might gain another 30 delegates with a re-vote in MI and FL. She would still be trailing Obama by around 79 delegates.

At that point, if the superdelegates were the same as today and MI/FL's superdelgates were seated, she'd still be trailing by 30 delegates overall. She would need 55% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to vote for her.

Since Obama would be leading in pledged delegates 51.2% to 48.8%, (a difference of 2.4%), I think that a difference of only 0.5% in the popular vote would not be persuasive enough to convince 55% of the uncommitted superdelegates that she should win.

[Gore1FL]

108. probably Obama

because the popular vote logic basically ignores caucuses. That eliminates about 15% of the super delegates who live in those caucus states from going along with it. Add to that the roughly 10% of the super delegates that would already be needed to catch up, and that leaves. Obama would only need 25% of the Super delegate vote to close the deal. I don't know the breakdown of what he currently has in his 210 already committed super delegates who are from caucus states (and hence already counted in the 15% above), but that 210 represent slightly over 26%. In a worst case scenaro for him, he would have to pick up an additional 14%.

Hillary already has 29%.

So the popular vote argument with a 75 dselegate Obama lead, taking into consideration the existing commited super delegates, and giving the best case scenario to Hillary, she would have to pick up about 3 new SD for ever 1 Obama new SD Obama took.

[SoCalDem]

109. Here's a handy map someone made..(not counting WY & MS)