WWTBAM Bored

Delegates: Pledged Super Total Needed
Obama 1,589.5 258 1,847.5 177
Clinton 1,427.5 269.5 1,697 327.5
Remaining 217 267.5 484.5
(2,024.5 delegates needed for victory)

So, lets work this out going forward to the next three primaries.....

Hill would need to have a CRUSHING 75%-25% margin to gain 68 delegates.

With Obamas 162 delegate lead, if he breaks even that is still a 94 delegate advantage.

She needs to get out.

Even Tim Russert says it's over.

The political pressure on Hillary to get out is unprecedented in recent politics. Other candidates took their campaigns to the convnetion in recent years: Reagan against Ford in 1976, Kennedy against Carter in 1980, Hart against Mondale in 1984, Jackson against Dukakis in 1988, despite being further behind than Hillary. There was no overwhelming call for those trailing to get out of the race.

I agree that Hillary has virtually no chance given the practicality of things in this race. But the pledged delegate totals ignore MI and FL, which could legally have their delegations seated, which would change the math considerably. And superdelegates, whether committed today or not, are not bound to anyone and could change their decision if they wanted.

So, the math reveals that neither Hillary nor Obama can win this nomination without the superdelegates. The chance of a mass defection to Hillary is slim, but she has the right to make her pitch if she wants. Why is it that no one was anywhere near this upset when Mike Huckabee continued running when he was far worse behind in February than Hillary is today (and with no superdelegates in the picture either)?

As for Tim Russert, he is a slimy little toad who has been in bed with Obama from Day One. And frankly, it's none of his business, any more than it's any of Rush Limbaugh's business, whether Hillary is in or out.

silverscreenselect wrote:The political pressure on Hillary to get out is unprecedented in recent politics. Other candidates took their campaigns to the convnetion in recent years: Reagan against Ford in 1976, Kennedy against Carter in 1980, Hart against Mondale in 1984, Jackson against Dukakis in 1988, despite being further behind than Hillary. There was no overwhelming call for those trailing to get out of the race.

Hm. What do Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988 have in common?

ToLiveIsToFly wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:The political pressure on Hillary to get out is unprecedented in recent politics. Other candidates took their campaigns to the convnetion in recent years: Reagan against Ford in 1976, Kennedy against Carter in 1980, Hart against Mondale in 1984, Jackson against Dukakis in 1988, despite being further behind than Hillary. There was no overwhelming call for those trailing to get out of the race.

Hm. What do Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988 have in common?

I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me!

peacock2121 wrote:She needs to get out.

Even Tim Russert says it's over.

I want here to stay in, if only for that very reason.

What are we going to hear after Hillary does very well in West Virginia next week?

Not believing the pundits for a minute, I was curious to see if, indeed, she does have a chance.

So, I took LD's numbers as a start.

B 1589.5 pledged
255 SD
H 1427.5 pledged
268.5 SD

Yes, I know that my super delegate counts are low, but I removed those who have said they will do a "Pelosi" and support whomever is leading at the convention.

Then I analyzed the remaining caucuses and primaries, and made a best guess at how they would end up breaking down and I came up with

B 98
H 119

A little high? I can only offer this week as evidence. I hit Indiana on the nose and Hillary got 3 more than I estimated for NC. In my mind, unlike everyone else's, I saw Tuesday as a marginal Clinton win.

Next, I factored in that the Democrats really don't want anyone in Michigan and Florida to think they had absolutely no voice in the nomination, so I used the favorite compromises.

All supers seated. Michigan split

B 59
H 69

Florida, primary stands, each delegate gets 1/2 vote

B 33.5
H 52.5
Edwards 6.5

Declared supers from these two states

B 6
H 15

States who have declared how the add on delegates will be assigned, even though the official selection has yet to be made -

B 5
H 3

This leave, before any more supers declare

B 2046
H 1954.5
Edwards 25.5
"Pelosi Group" 10

Needed to nominate 2161

How can anyone legitimately demand a candidate withdraw when they are closer to their rival than the rival is to nomination?

Yes, I put these numbers together as if I were in the Clinton war room, but to expect her to fold her tent at this time is a bit naive.

I also plotted the two candidates on the electoral college map at http://www.270towin.com/ assigning red to Obama, blue to Clinton. I then asked a co-worker who is an active Democrat (in a GOP area) what it looked like. Her response? A general election map.

Indeed, with the 26 electoral votes in upcoming primaries left undecided, the results were

B 201
H 311

Obama took the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest and the traditional South

Hillary had a line of blue from Boston to San Diego, interrupted only by WV and KY where she leads 56-27 and 62-28 respectively.

If they know what to sell, the Clinton camp can still pull this out. Superdelegates are politicians. They know that the bottom line is winning the general election, something the pundits seem to have forgotten.

It could still be a very interesting August.

Just imagine for a minute that the shoe was on the other foot. That Hillary was ahead by 150 or so delegates (not counting supers). That Obama had won MI and FL under similar circumstances and that Hillary kept claiming that those results shouldn't stand. That Obama had won all the big states and that Hillary had amassed huge margins in caucuses.

Does anyone seriously think that there would be a public outcry for Obama to drop out? No, it would all be about Clinton dirty tactics in suppressing the vote in MI and FL, at manipulating caucuses, at not allowing the "people" to be heard, that she and her supporters were trying to cut off all the new people that Obama was bringing into the campaign. In fact, we would hear that it was absolutely racist to suggest that Obama should drop out if there was any mathematical chance of his winning the nomination.

Don't kid yourselves that wouldn't happen. In the past when other candidates have dropped out, it's been an internal decision, not one rammed down their throats by party leadership and the media. Ron Paul is still officially in the race and has gotten a couple of delegates in recent primaries. Add Jerry Brown against Clinton in 1992 to the list of candidates who kept going after it was "clear" they would lose.

If Obama really wants to unite the party, the time to reach out to Clinton supporters is now, and he hasn't shown any signs of doing so.

In related news, Obama and the national media have asked that John McCain drop out of the general election, as he clearly stands in the way of Obamania running wild.

girls aint real strong in math

or so "they" say

What I would like to know is how and when the absolute norm of one-candidate Soviet style conventions became established. Or half Soviet, half late-night infomercial. Somewhere between '84 and '92? With WJ Clinton? Or Bob Dole?

Both parties were in the long run well served by the previous practice of airing their laundry to the world. In particular, Ronald Reagan would likely never have been President had his enthusiastic supporters not had the chance to show it in the conventions of 1968 and 1976. (1968 probably most important...). The apparently out-of-control Dem conventions of 68 and 72 played there role in engergizing the whole subsequent generation of activists, and the rep. of that generation is now Hillary Clinton.