The competitive advantage goes to...

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Hillary??


[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4430817&page=1"]Any unbiased analysis of her candidacy potential would be dismissive at best, and would certainly not continue to reinforce Hillary's storyline that everything is playing out according to plan. The fact that the media continues to spin successive failures as some sort of moral victory for Hillary is a testament to just how well she's being portrayed in this race.

That's what I think, anyway.

Babs you usually have a great political ear, but I don't think you are giving an unbiased look here. This baby is going to the convention and it is still close to a 50% chance that HC will win, given her strength within the party and the super delegates. He cannot knock her out or really distance himself even while giving new meaning to momentum and positive press treatment.

To be dismissive of her chances is to make the same mistake that I did in being dismissive of Obama's chances, which I obviously did.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Babs you usually have a great political ear, but I don't think you are giving an unbiased look here. This baby is going to the convention and it is still close to a 50% chance that HC will win, given her strength within the party and the super delegates. He cannot knock her out or really distance himself even while giving new meaning to momentum and positive press treatment.

To be dismissive of her chances is to make the same mistake that I did in being dismissive of Obama's chances, which I obviously did.

All I know is there's only 560 state delegates left up for grabs, and Ms. Clinton needs to make up a 160 delegate deficit.

A month ago I thought the Party might overturn the state delegate count at convention, but now I don't think so. They'd just be asking for trouble.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but the odds are against her.

My point in the post you quoted was not whether Hillary will come away with the nomination...it was that rather than complaining about unfair treatment, Hillary should just be thrilled there's not more publicizing of the facts that she's now 2-15, that she actually lost Texas, and that to even the count she needs to win all the remaining contests by 60-40 margin or more.

-

Incidentally, did anyone see that 25% of Hillary's votes in Mississippi came from Republicans?? I knew Rush was pushing GOP voters that direction as part of his "operation chaos," but that kind of turnout is just phenomenal. Looking ahead, four of the remaining states, plus Puerto Rico, are also open primaries.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

All I know is there's only 560 state delegates left up for grabs, and Ms. Clinton needs to make up a 160 delegate deficit.

A month ago I thought the Party might overturn the state delegate count at convention, but now I don't think so. They'd just be asking for trouble.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but the odds are against her.

My point in the post you quoted was not whether Hillary will come away with the nomination...it was that rather than complaining about unfair treatment, Hillary should just be thrilled there's not more publicizing of the facts that she's now 2-15, that she actually lost Texas, and that to even the count she needs to win all the remaining contests by 60-40 margin or more.

It is all a matter of perspective I suppose. You can look at it as 2-15 and see it as a blowout or you could look at it as being desperately close with no clear winner before the delegate system. Or you could look at it as Hillary winning 3 of the last 5 (since we know that the "will" of the people is most important in looking at the popular vote which was circumvented by the non-democratic Caucus system), and taking the only place that will be contested in the general election (Ohio).

Our biggest folly was setting up a primary system in which it goes to the judges. It was intended as a non-Democratic group and can only lead to heartache and pain.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

All I know is there's only 560 state delegates left up for grabs, and Ms. Clinton needs to make up a 160 delegate deficit.

A month ago I thought the Party might overturn the state delegate count at convention, but now I don't think so. They'd just be asking for trouble.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but the odds are against her.

My point in the post you quoted was not whether Hillary will come away with the nomination...it was that rather than complaining about unfair treatment, Hillary should just be thrilled there's not more publicizing of the facts that she's now 2-15, that she actually lost Texas, and that to even the count she needs to win all the remaining contests by 60-40 margin or more.

Incidentally, did anyone see that 25% of Hillary's votes in Mississippi came from Republicans?? I knew Rush was pushing GOP voters that direction as part of his "operation chaos," but that kind of turnout is just phenomenal. Looking ahead, four of the remaining states, plus Puerto Rico, are also open primaries.

I saw that too. I think it helps explain the large white vote that went for Clinton, since I would presume that the 25% voting bloc of Republicans was largely white.

No matter how you slice it, Clinton will have a tough time persuading the superdelegates that she should be the nominee. Obama only needs to win 35% of the remaining superdelegates to take the nomination, assuming a 50-50 tie in each remaining contest (and he is almost certain to fare better than that on the average).

Clinton's argument will have to be that she won some critical large states that could go Republican (Ohio, Texas (which she now actually lost, but that won't stop her from claiming victory), Florida (which she didn't win, but again...), Michigan (but I repeat myself), Pennsylvania (likely), etc.). She will say that those states have to be won for the Dems to take the White House, and she is the candidate of choice there. She will also argue that her time is now, and Obama can afford to wait 8 years. It won't work.

For the superdelegates to agree, they would have to ignore the popular vote, the total delegate vote (not including the supers), the fact that a majority of states preferred Obama, a majority of donors, the most dollars in fundraising went to Obama, etc. She can't win on a single reasonable measurable factor. So she will lose.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

It is all a matter of perspective I suppose. You can look at it as 2-15 and see it as a blowout or you could look at it as being desperately close with no clear winner before the delegate system. Or you could look at it as Hillary winning 3 of the last 5 (since we know that the "will" of the people is most important in looking at the popular vote which was circumvented by the non-democratic Caucus system), and taking the only place that will be contested in the general election (Ohio).

Our biggest folly was setting up a primary system in which it goes to the judges. It was intended as a non-Democratic group and can only lead to heartache and pain.

Missouri will also be contested, and it is at least as much of a bell-weather as Ohio (and Obama won there).

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Missouri will also be contested, and it is at least as much of a bell-weather as Ohio (and Obama won there).

And so will NM which Hillary won and so will Fla which Hillary kinda won (I guess we'll get the chance to see) and so will Nevada (which Hill won). But then again so may VA (the big O) and so on.

And most of those states were won by paper thin margins by either candidate. The point is that this is going to go down to the convention, which is why I objected to BG's assertion that HC should just feel lucky to even make the news when she is in the midst of an incredibly close battle for the nomination.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Our biggest folly was setting up a primary system in which it goes to the judges.

Absolutely. Not only is it terribly un"Democratic," but it's downright foolish and short-sighted of the party to construct such a system. They should have been able to see where this would lead. They've dug such a huge hole for themselves now that I don't know how they'll ever find the light of day again.

Traditional wisdom said this election was the blue team's to lose, and they're trying awfully hard to lose it. These two candidates are so banged up already and the GOP swiftboaters haven't even gotten started yet! Yikes!

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Clinton's argument will have to be that she won some critical large states that could go Republican (Ohio, Texas (which she now actually lost, but that won't stop her from claiming victory), Florida (which she didn't win, but again...), Michigan (but I repeat myself), Pennsylvania (likely), etc.). She will say that those states have to be won for the Dems to take the White House, and she is the candidate of choice there. She will also argue that her time is now, and Obama can afford to wait 8 years.

She did win the popular vote in Texas, the best indicator of how Texans feel. That the silly caucuses went to Obama, giving him more delegates in the end shows how broken that system is. Redo Florida and Michigan and prove her claim incorrect. People went the polls in those states and voted for her. Absent further evidence, it looks like she won those states as well.

California, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania; all of them primary states and all won by Hillary. Stack that up against Idaho, Hawaii, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Maine, and Iowa; all caucus states won by him. The largest primary state won by Obama appears to have been Illinois (his home state), after that it's Georgia. No way Obama takes Georgia in the GE. If she can somehow manage to win the popular vote or get it within at least 50,000, she can make a very strong case, especially given that she will likely be carrying some momentum under such an outcome.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

she can make a very strong case

Except for that pesky electoral vote projection. Obama is certainly no guaranteed W, but at least he's not a guaranteed L.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

She did win the popular vote in Texas, the best indicator of how Texans feel. That the silly caucuses went to Obama, giving him more delegates in the end shows how broken that system is. Redo Florida and Michigan and prove her claim incorrect. People went the polls in those states and voted for her. Absent further evidence, it looks like she won those states as well.

California, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania; all of them primary states and all won by Hillary. Stack that up against Idaho, Hawaii, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Maine, and Iowa; all caucus states won by him. The largest primary state won by Obama appears to have been Illinois (his home state), after that it's Georgia. No way Obama takes Georgia in the GE. If she can somehow manage to win the popular vote or get it within at least 50,000, she can make a very strong case, especially given that she will likely be carrying some momentum under such an outcome.

California and New York will vote for the Democrat no matter what. So what difference does it make which of them carried the state in the primary? And you know better than to toss Florida and Michigan in when those can hardly be used as indicators of how the populace would have voted if the primary mattered. And you act like the only states he has won were Idaho, Hawaii, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Maine and Iowa. That is some selective cherry picking there. If anything, it shows what a diverse base of support Obama has mustered. More votes, by the way, were cast for Obama in Texas than for Clinton. He lost the primary by fewer than 100,000 votes, and won the caucus by more than 125,000 votes (for a net gain).

State primaries Obama has won: MS, MD, IL, GA, AL, WI, DC, VA, LA, UT, MO, CT, DE, SC. Clinton won 14 (if you include Florida and Michigan), which makes it either 14-14 or 14-12 for Obama in primaries.

Caucuses he has won: TX, HI, WY, WA, NE, MN, AL, ID, KA, ND, CO, ME, IO (the only one he didn't win was Nevada), so he went 13-1. This gives him a total count of 27-15 (being generous and including MI and FL) or 27-13 (DOUBLE the number of contests she has won).

In the process, he has won the popular vote by over 700,000 more votes than Clinton and he has a delegate lead of over 100.

In dollar contributions, he has raised an astonishing $190 million dollars to date (all of which was raised through individual contributions- no PAC money). Compare that to $160 million by Clinton, which includes her loans to her campaign and PAC money.

By any metric, Obama should be the nominee, barring a total shift in numbers that is highly unlikely.

Finally, look at the polling numbers nationwide of Obama v. McCain and Clinton v. McCain. Obama outperforms her in every major poll. Obama also outperforms her in Survey USA's poll of every single state which shows Obama to be far more competitive in the electoral college than Clinton.