MyDD :: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost.

Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost.

by dystopianfuturetoday, Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST

#1 McCain targets Obama - Republicans, as has been noted so emphatically and frequently on MyDD, are shrewd with their own money. The fact that McCain and the Republican machine has begun to attack Obama can only mean that they believe he will inevitably get the nomination.

#2 It's the delegates, stupid - Obama has a 150 point delegate lead. PA was Hillary's last chance to make a dent in this lead and she only netted 10-12 delegates. With just over 300 supers left and no other large winnable primaries, Hillary cannot score enough of the remaining delegates to catch up.

#3 Obama targets McCain - Obama no longer sees Hillary as a threat. He understands that the nomination is just a waiting game at this point, so why waste time and money arguing with Hillary about his pastor, when he could be arguing with McCain about the economy, ending the war... and his pastor.

If anyone has a realistic path to nomination for Hillary that doesn't involve destroying the Democratic party, please post it.

Poll

Votes: 16
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: hillary, clinton, lost, democratic, presidential, nomination, president, obama, barack obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 33 Comments :: Post a Comment

Tips. (2.00 / 1)

by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:47 PM EST

Re: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost. (none / 0)

You're right, it is the delegate count. Superdelegates have already said they will look at all possible measure including popular vote total.

Clinton is likely to win big in KY, WV and PR. She could pull of a win in IN. These states can give her that lead, even with Obama winning NC, OR, MT and SD. I do think Clinton has a fighting chance in OR and SD (closed primary) though.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM EST

.... as it would undervalue the voters of the caucus states. The supers are probably smart enough to see through this contrived argument.

by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Additionally, I don't think a Popular Vote that is marginal at best, and made that way due to Puerto Rico (which doesn't even get a vote in the general election), will motivate the Super Delegates to overturn the massive pledged delegate winner.

by TheSilverMonkey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Texas shows us anything, it is that Clinton might have won some of those caucus states if primaries, rather than caucuses, had been held there. So your argument that Obama would have won more votes because votes are underrepresented in these states is ridiculous.

Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings

by Inky on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here we go again. CALL the SoS office of these caucus states and they will happily give you the popular vote total. All except IA, WA, NV and ME. They ARE available.

BTW, the Democratic Party is already undervaluing 2.2 million. Potentially 5.7 million people.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More bs from RJ. (none / 0)

Obama holds a huge popular vote lead over Hillary. Fl and Mi never had a primary OR caucus, because their elected governments failed to schedule them properly. Nice how you all of a sudden care now that it happens to help the candidate you like.

by dystopianfuturetoday on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More bs from RJ. (none / 0)

This might be surprising for you, but some of us have actually always held the value of one person, one vote above anything else. I have been involved in this issue since long before this primary began. And I would never suggest ignoring certain voters just for the sake of one politician's ambition.

As for Hillary, she has been speaking out on this issue since early October of 2007.

by bobbank on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More bs from RJ. (none / 0)

Unless it means counting the people that showed up for caucuses? Include those, she still is losing. That's truly why you undervalue them.

Mourning's 1st stage: denial.

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:54:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More bs from RJ. (none / 0)

Please indicate for me a single place where I have ever said that caucuses do not count.

If you cannot support your personal attack with citation, please apologize and admit your error.

by bobbank on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More bs from RJ. (none / 0)

The count the Clinton campaign is using doesn't include caucus attendees. They refuse to include them.

by IowaMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely right! Without all those excited caucus goers the Democrat would stand NO CHANCE in the November General Caucus. McCain would go home a winner.

by SuperCameron on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:15:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is someone spinning out of control here?

Suddenly caucus states aren't getting a fair say in the process...!?

We're talking about states that decided to erect arbitrary barriers to voter participation, leaving only diehards to gather and skew results substantially and suspiciously in favor of Barack Obama. And now they're not helping Obama enough.

Seriously, sometimes it seems the Obama fan base would rather this whole election be decided by a seven-person caucus in Fargo, North Dakota rather than anything remotely resembling a democracy.

Lifelong Democrat, civil rights advocate, flirted with McCain for a bit but it just wasn't meant to be.

by BPK80 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:12:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please explain what this means,"would skew the results substantialyy and SUSPICIOUSLY in favor of Obama".

What exactly are you implying by "SUSPICIOUSLY"?

"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08

by feliks on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:58:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think that the GOP (2.00 / 0)

Rightly or wrongly, sees Obama as the stronger candidate in the general because they are already doing ad buys in Indiana aimed directly at Obama. If they thought that Clinton would be the stronger candidate, I think they would have shot a few rounds over her bow as well...don't you?

accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking

by Sychotic1 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:40 PM EST

Re: I think that the GOP (none / 0)

It doesn`t have anything to do with Obama being a stronger candidate but with him having basically locked the nomination.

by Gabbo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Republicans will regret (none / 0)

their underestimation of Hillary but once, and that will be continuously.

That's it, baby; let's go win this election!

by Beltway Dem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:07 PM EST

It's pretty much over. (2.00 / 1)

There are three reasonably large voter pools remaining in NC (134), IN (85) and OR (65). He's ahead in all three. All the others, including MT and SD where he also leads, are too small to make a difference. Hillary can expect to win KY (60) and WV (39).

That leaves the popular vote, where he's 600,000+ ahead after PA with no large Clinton states left. He's probably going to largely retain that number.

The one wild card is Puerto Rico.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM EST

Re: It's pretty much over. (2.00 / 0)

I can't wait for the mydd crowd to argue that winning Puerto Rico means you're best able to win the presidency.

by Skaje on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am still waiting for HRC supporters (2.00 / 0)

to realize that by getting what currently is a 9.2 lead she actually just lost about 5% points in how many pledged delegates she needs to win in the upcoming contests.

Before she needed 65 now she needs 71.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's pretty much over. (2.00 / 0)

Yeah cause PR is a battle ground state....er....um...never mind.

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's pretty much over. (2.00 / 0)

yeah, we should count every voter, unless you were so dedicated you sat through a caucus. I mean, who cares if you went to a caucus. You shouldn't count!

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:01:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost. (2.00 / 0)

The math is really quite simple. Obama has 1494 pledged delegates, and 233 superdelegates, putting him at 1727 total delegates. Obama will get at least another 35 add-on delegates due to them coming from states he won. Obama will get at least 65 delegates in North Carolina, 32 delegates in Indiana, 2 delegates in Guam, 11 in West Virginia, 18 in Kentucky, 26 in Oregon, 20 in Puerto Rico, 9 in Montana, 8 in South Dakota.

Adds up to 1953. Just another 70 to hit 2024. As long as he keeps getting a superdelegate a day, regardless of how many endorse Clinton, he's going to be nipping at the magic number by June.

by Skaje on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:14 PM EST

Re: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost. (none / 0)

The magic numbers won't be 2,025. Considering Dead said FL and MI will be seated in some shape or form, the magic number will be higher. The magic number will likely be around 2,116 with FL and MI seated at half a vote.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:42:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost. (2.00 / 0)

That's probably true, but I guarantee they won't be seated until a nominee is chosen. So, for all intents and purposes, it is 2024.

by ProgressiveDL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost. (2.00 / 1)

Getting a little worried, eh?

by johnnygunn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:59 PM EST

Re: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost. (none / 0)

That we are are destroying the party for Donna Quixoti? Yeah!

by IowaMike on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:56:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Top 3 Clues Hillary Has Already Lost. (none / 0)