Whatever the outcome in PA, it will remind SDs of the math. They will start to move.

[JBoy]

It's been an eternity since the last primaries, and the view of the delegate math has grown stale. Fresh numbers after PA will splash some reality on the contest.

Absent a huge win in PA by Clinton, and after a day or two of anxious spinning by both campaigns, there will be a renewed focus by SDs on the math, and how unlikely it would be for Clinton to emerge in the end with the most pledged delegates. The majority of SDs have parked themselves in wait of this next primary, and they will want to come out on the winning side. They will move to Obama in droves, and it will quickly be over.

50% chance it's over before NC & IN. 90% chance within 3 days after.

[caledesi]

1. I hope so! NT

[phrigndumass]

2. Senator Obama needs 66 superdelegates, then Huckabee kicks in.

Even if they trickle in at five a day between Pennsylvania and NC/IN, that will be enough. The math will carry it the rest of the way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5576204

[ORDem]

11. After PA, he'll need, oh, about 120 more pledged delegates to have the

majority of those. That's when the SDs start counting off for Obama. :dem:

[phrigndumass]

13. Those 120 or so pledged delegates can be found in the polls for upcoming state contests

The majority of SDs might wait until the PDs are "in his pocket" as you suggest, but I have a feeling at least some SDs will follow Howard Dean's advice and start endorsing for one candidate or the other soon after Pennsylvania.

:hi:

[tekisui]

3. Obama may not have "won it", yet. But, Hillary has most definitely

lost it.

[bain_sidhe]

4. They might use a different math though

I lean Obama, but... Say what you will about superdelegates "overturning the will of the people" as expressed by the pledged delegates, the demographics represented by Hillary's core supporters are a bigger percentage of the populations of the country as a whole than Obama's are.

There are good arguments against using that "math" to decide who to back, but there are reasonable arguments *for* using it too. Who knows which math they'll use?

[phrigndumass]

7. Do you believe that 80% of the remaining superdelegates will agree with each other?

That seems highly improbable. Much more probable would be 50/50 or 60/40, or at the most 2 to 1.

The reality is this: Based on delegates already won and based on polls for the rest of the contests, Senator Clinton will need between 75% and 80% of the remaining superdelegates to endorse her in order to win the nomination. OTOH, Senator Obama will need only 20% to 25% of the remaining superdelegates to endorse him in order to win the nomination.

Somewhere in the primaries already past (it's 85% over), we found out how well Senator Clinton's core supporters and demographics have helped her. It amounts to about 47% of the population. She hits a ceiling because of consistently high negatives.

:hi:

[bain_sidhe]

8. good counter-argument

No, I don't think she'll get 80% of them unless something really extreme happens to Obama. I can't see that happening, but I agree with allowing for the possibility. Which is why I'm not joining calls for Hillary to drop out. I am (and have been) joining calls for Hillary to keep it civil, though, just because I *don't* think anything extreme is going to happen.

I can see where Hillary is in something of a catch-22, though. If she doesn't precipitate the "extreme" thing, the repubs certainly won't do so until Obama is the nominee. But if she tries to (or, I should say, continues to try to) she makes her own negatives so much worse that she probably won't win even if she does get the nomination.

Dunno the answer to that, so...

:popcorn:

Join me?

[phrigndumass]

9. I'll join you =)

:popcorn:

There's a thread here in GDP (link below) about a pro-Clinton 527 group in existence, whose supporters (8 out of 9 who gave $5,000 or more) had already given the maximum to Senator Clinton's campaign. So yes, anything can happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5580079

(psst, I'm all for civility! Let's hope these 527 groups remain civil.)

[bain_sidhe]

10. Yes, anything can happen

it's the timing that worries Clinton, I think. See, this is where I part company with most Obama supporters. I don't ascribe base, evil motivations to Clinton's behavior recently. I don't think she's trying to destroy the party, or ruin Obama's chances in the GE so she can run again in 2012. I think she honestly believes that something extreme *will* happen, and her biggest fear is that it will happen AFTER Obama has the nomination. I think she honestly believes that trying to make it happen BEFORE the nomination is decided is a good thing, for both the party and the country.

I can't agree with her there, but I'm far more sympathetic to what *she* thinks she's doing than most Obama supporters. She, and many of her supporters, (and I suspect any of the remaining "uncommitted" superdelegates who break for her), honestly believe that they are "averting disaster."

I think they're mistaken, because I don't think they see that the ONLY way we're going to win this is by changing the game. I don't know if Obama can do it in the general, but he's been doing it so far, and she hasn't. She's been operating on the same old model that lost us the elections in 2000 and 2004. Didn't work then, and won't work now, especially against McCain.


IMHO, of course. But then, I'm from Michigan. What I think doesn't count anyway, so...

Another round?

:popcorn: :beer:

[phrigndumass]

12. I wonder how much of that "averting disaster" stance can be attributed to ...

Kerry's swiftboating or the Dean scream. The other side of that coin could be George H.W. Bush's pledge of "No New Taxes" in the 1992 campaign, and then raising taxes after he won his party's nomination, only to lose the campaign.

I guess my question would be: What do we fear? And the follow-up would be: If a campaign-ending negative is waiting in the wings for Senator Obama, why hasn't it already come out? He's been the front-runner for three months now, and people have had more than ample opportunity to scour the closets for skeletons.

We as a party are assigned the task of choosing one nominee for the Presidency. If it is a good idea to have a Candidate B in place if Candidate A screws up after the nominating process, then why do we have political parties at all? Wouldn't it be better, then, to run the candidates "at large" and have the option of choosing Candidate B in the general election after Candidate A screws up?

I am reminded of my sister, a republican, who insisted in 2004 that if Dubya didn't win re-election, America would most definitely get "creamed." I asked her how she knew this and she answered, "I don't know, I just KNOW." Maybe that was a chunk of fear in her gut, rather than a legitimate gut-feeling.

I'm thinking some Clinton supporters (and maybe even Senator Clinton herself?) are confused about the contents of their guts as well.

Let's hope your vote counts in the general election!

:popcorn: :toast:

[bain_sidhe]

14. Nail head, meet hammer

I worried about this myself for some time, one of the reasons I refused to "endorse" either candidate. I supported them both for different reasons.

But at this point, if she hasn't used it by now, (for whatever value of "it" would represent a campaign-ending negative), she doesn't have it. Maybe she thinks the pubs have found something that she hasn't, but I don't think so.

So, by definition the "it" would have to be something that hasn't happened yet. Maybe she's trying to provoke him into melting down, but again, I don't think that's going to happen.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, though:

If it is a good idea to have a Candidate B in place if Candidate A screws up after the nominating process

I was talking about *before* the nominating process. After the nominating process, "Candidate B" is McCain.

And I do think a lot of the "averting disaster" is about the Kerry swiftboating. Not so much the "scream." But, almost certainly at this point, the disaster will be something that happens in the general. Hillary's staying in isn't going to help after the convention. As I said... um, somewhere... I honestly think we're talking doomsday for America if another pubbie gets the chance to "build on" (continue) what bushit has done. So I don't mind holding out an insurance policy until the convention, even if the odds are astronomical that something could go that badly wrong for Obama between now and then.

Of course, if I had my druthers (and my vote counted ;-)), Hillary would suspend, but not end, her campaign until the convention, to provide that insurance, rather than continuing to fish around in teh porcelain (any porcelain) for something to fling.

But, that's just me. Far too many Obama supporters seem to want to, not just defeat Hillary, but knock her down and grind her face in the mud (and her supporters too). In fact, at the moment, *that* scares me for the general more than Hillary's attacks.

I know some Hillary supporters have been equally nasty, but I'm not as worried about that because I don't think she'll be the nominee.

[phrigndumass]

15. Suspending might be a good option, after the "air apparent"

... at least it would give a sense of ease to some in the Democratic party who aren't sure about Senator Obama. But would that allow for healing and help mobilize those with doubts, or would pessimism and second-guessing subtly creep in? I'm not sure. A campaign suspension doesn't seem to be a show of support for the party's nominated candidate.

Good chatting with you! My tummy's grumbling for latte and arugula.

:donut: :hi:

[Oleladylib]

5. nothing like dream land is there?

[NightWatcher]

6. plus when the sd's see that Obama has 20 points nationally over Hillary