why? why does she persist in her quixotian campaign when everyone knows she cannot win? it's simple math! she clearly hates the democratic party, black people and america.
CNN senior analyst Jeff Toobin says otherwise:
Math isn't that simple
no one can win without the supes. it's a practical impossibility. she cannot touch his delegate lead even with mi and fl. is the establishment chooses her over the messiah, the democrats will go heaven's gate.
The supes will come around, based on her ability to win the popular vote.
The old memes about her negatives and unelectabilty are false.
The supes switch back and forth based on who has momentum on any given week. The flipped to bammy, and they'll flip back to Clinton if she continues to gain.
except she cant win the popular vote pj. She can't be McCain. If the supes pick her, they are handing the white house to another republican.
Those are false memes.
She CAN beat McCain and she will.
Whatever happens, care has to be taken so that a large percentage of the electorate isn't alienated. As head of the DNC that job should fall to Dean, but seeing the way he botched Michigan and Florida, I'm nut sure he's capable of doing that. He really needs to get his act together.
Updated On: 3/5/08 at 08:08 AM
In addition to alienating Dems, they also need to consider alienating Indys and Reps who would vote for Obama but not Clinton. I give her credit for hanging on to these states, but the reality is that she has made no real gain in the delegate count.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1y8o59vF7Y
Using a tennis analogy, Obama has given up a pair of insurance breaks but the calculus just isn't there to allow Hillary to erase his lead in pledged delegates with several state primaries remaining.
To his credit, he's run a nationwide ground game versus thumbing his nose at "fly over states".
I still believe that Virginia is the bellwether of the general election. Obama thoroughly dusted Hillary in the northern portion of the commonwealth where her campaign hqtr is located.
The Supes can align themselves against Obama (and his supporters) at their own peril. If the frontrunner going into the convention is not the nominee due to Supe shenanigans, disgruntled Dems will serve up their own brand of justice come the general election.
He will almost certainly have more committed delegates, more wins, and more popular votes going into Denver. If that is the case, and she makes a power play at the convention to take the nomination, the Dems will (once again) find a way to lose an eminently winnable election.
Worth noting: Clinton referenced Florida and/or Michigan as a 'win' in a recent speech (can't recall which specifically, everything is starting to blend). Expect that she'll make a play to for those delegates.
i love the smell of infighting in the morning. it smells like...victory.
It smells like pot and delusion to me.
Javero--your idea of the responsibilities of the superdelegates is flawed.
Do you honestly believe that Ted Kennedy should be FORCED to vote for Hillary Clinton because she won the Massachusetts popular vote?
Or does it only hold true for states in which Obama won the popular vote?
If Ted Kennedy is forced to vote for Hillary, he becomes not a superdelegate but just another delegate.
That might be right but those are not the rules.
The rules, unfair as they may be (as are the rules about caucuses), say that the superdelegates should vote for whoever they think is the strongest candidate.
I don't think anyone should be forced to change their vote. The rules are the rules and they can vote for whoever they think is the best candidate. My question remains the same, if the superdeleates vote for the candidate who is losing both popular and delegate counts won't that weaken that candidate in the General Election? It just seems like it is going to hurt the party by seeming very shady, even though it isn't.
If Hillary goes ahead in delegates OR popular vote though or if there is weight to a scandal over Obama I think then the supes picking Clinton will be helpful.
but the margin is so small in their delegate count that I don't really consider one or the other having "won" the popular vote.
The party seems to be split pretty much right down the middle.
"The rules, unfair as they may be (as are the rules about caucuses), say that the superdelegates should vote for whoever they think is the strongest candidate."
PJ--my thoughts on the subject of superdelegates and caucusing are neither here nor there. i just don't wanna see a huge chunk of our party disenfranchised by some dnc arcana. we still have to deal w/ FL & MI.
You strike me as a really bright fellow but I sometimes believe that you fail to look beyond the Manhattan-DC-Hollywood triangle when taking the sense of the Dem electorate. Many Americans simply hate being dismissed as inhabitants of "fly over states".
Obama and Huckabee's relative success during this election cycle can be attributed to the rank-and-file's disgust with their respective party's establishment, i.e. superdelegates in part.
In the general election, Hillary and Obama have basically the same liabilities. Hers are amplified by the visceral GOP disgust for her (and her husband). I'm not confident that she can take McCain out. If she gets the nomination, she gets my vote though.
"but the margin is so small in their delegate count that I don't really consider one or the other having "won" the popular vote.
The party seems to be split pretty much right down the middle."
Would you make the same statement if Clinton held the lead? Honestly?
That is true, tazber. But I think there will be a particular perception problem in part because of another election with similar issues.
When Gore beat Bush by 500,000 popular votes Dems have spent 8 years saying he "Won the popular vote." that was less than one half of one percent.
It certainly isn't an even up comparison, I am talking about perceptions and it seems like an a major inconsistency. (Even if in reality it isn't.)
I sometimes believe that you fail to look beyond the Manhattan-DC-Hollywood triangle when taking the sense of the Dem electorate. Many Americans simply hate being dismissed as inhabitants of "fly over states".
Actually, I believe I understand the "fly-over states" as well as you do--or better.
coughbull****cough
And far, far better than PigBoy.
Would you make the same statement if Clinton held the lead? Honestly?
I definitely would.
Broadway Star Joined: 6/30/05
In the general election, Hillary and Obama have basically the same liabilities. Hers are amplified by the visceral GOP disgust for her (and her husband). I'm not confident that she can take McCain out. If she gets the nomination, she gets my vote though.
This is exactly my concern, as someone who is otherwise indifferent between Clinton and Obama (in a good way; meaning, I like them both). They have similar liabilities against McCain, except that Hillary starts off on day one with a reservoir of hatred among the GOP that can energize them, and without the appeal to independents that Obama has demonstrated he has, and which we already know John McCain has. As someone who really just wants the Democratic nominee to win, I would love to hear why Hillary supporters are so confident she is more likely to beat McCain than Obama is, despite these additional liabilities.
Videos