|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: Hillary's Math Problem |
 |
|
Hillary�s Math Problem
Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 11:23 AM ET Mar 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.
I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate�s Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.
So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.
Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi�where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary�she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.
Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania�and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.
Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.
So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.
Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. (Unfortunately the Slate calculator isn't helping me here.)
So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.
For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.
The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.
Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is this the inevitability argument? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Is this the inevitability argument? |
Pretty much, except with an evidentiary basis rather than wishful thinking before a single vote has been counted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Is this the inevitability argument? |
Pretty much, except with an evidentiary basis rather than wishful thinking before a single vote has been counted. |
Ha, ha.
Let me tell you, that I love the ironies in this campaign. What data do you have on MS, PA, KY, etc . . . ?
Yes, Clinton's victory is unlikely. Point conceded. But, that's not a good enough reason for her to drop-out in a close race.
Superdelegate time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Is this the inevitability argument? |
Pretty much, except with an evidentiary basis rather than wishful thinking before a single vote has been counted. |
Ha, ha.
Let me tell you, that I love the ironies in this campaign. What data do you have on MS, PA, KY, etc . . . ?
Yes, Clinton's victory is unlikely. Point conceded. But, that's not a good enough reason for her to drop-out in a close race.
Superdelegate time! |
Well, you'll note that this is not an argument the Obama campaign is making. And rightly so -- they've learned from Hillary's mistakes re: telling people their votes don't matter. This is just me talking on the intertubes.
On the topic of super delegates -- I betcha that system gets some extremely close scrutiny after this campaign. The whole idea behind it is just boneheaded. And yes, I'd still be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Is this the inevitability argument? |
Pretty much, except with an evidentiary basis rather than wishful thinking before a single vote has been counted. |
Ha, ha.
Let me tell you, that I love the ironies in this campaign. What data do you have on MS, PA, KY, etc . . . ?
Yes, Clinton's victory is unlikely. Point conceded. But, that's not a good enough reason for her to drop-out in a close race.
Superdelegate time! |
Well, you'll note that this is not an argument the Obama campaign is making. And rightly so -- they've learned from Hillary's mistakes re: telling people their votes don't matter. This is just me talking on the intertubes. |
Noted. The Obama campaign has been better at message and tone than the Clinton campaign in this election cycle.
| stillnotking wrote: |
| On the topic of super delegates -- I betcha that system gets some extremely close scrutiny after this campaign. The whole idea behind it is just boneheaded. And yes, I'd still be saying that if the shoe was on the other foot. |
Its gotten some discussion in the press already. You should know that legally, the Democrats (and Republicans) can do nearly whatever they want, as long as they lay it out beforehand. This is a party's First Amendment right "to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who bests represents its political platform." New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 128 S.Ct. 791 (2008). See also here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Its gotten some discussion in the press already. You should know that legally, the Democrats (and Republicans) can do nearly whatever they want, as long as they lay it out beforehand. This is a party's First Amendment right "to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who bests represents its political platform." New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 128 S.Ct. 791 (2008). See also here. |
Oh, clearly. I meant that the DNC should be scrutinizing it, not the government. The theory is that the super delegates are a check on the "passions of the crowd"; the problem with that theory, as I said before, is that the crowd is apt to bitterly resent being overruled, and express their displeasure in the real election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Notking,
I think the Clinton campaign has this delusion that either all the superdelegates are going to lean her way or Obama is going to give up and accept a VP spot on the ticket.
Which is why they are "floating" the unity ticket story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MD:
I missed your thread or I would have posted my new thread here. They do overlap. Sorry 'bout that [which see]. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama will get in on the mathematics equation, just as the electorate realise too late that Hilary is the stronger leader.
She should have opened up her guns and taken the shiny veneer off Obama much earlier on. "I'm honored to be sitting with Obama" was probably the biggest and most untimely gaffe of her campaign. She's left it too late now and even if she reveals Obama as a member of Alquaeda, it would make no diff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
MD:
I missed your thread or I would have posted my new thread here. They do overlap. Sorry 'bout that [which see]. |
*bleep*
Just kidding, Steve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Julius chastised:
| Quote: |
| She's left it too late now and even if she reveals Obama as a member of Alquaeda, it would make no diff. |
Some of her overzealous campaign staffers already tried playing that number with the photo of the young Obama in Muslim garb in Indonesia and then later in tribal garb in Kenya.
Actually, it's Obama that needs to take the gloves off. Better this than the present course. But he should remain dignified--his strong suit--and avoid boxing with brass knuckles, so to speak.
I believe Obama campaign staffers are saying something to this effect already.
They certainly can't depend on Hill-Bill to play above board, eh MD? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
just as the electorate realise too late that Hilary is the stronger leader.
|
There's no evidence to support that claim, and I think the electorate can see that. Obama is better for the country and the world by a long long shot actually, and it's thankfully becoming quite apparant he will win the nomination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Funk,
Damn straight. Depending on the source you use she gained somewhere in the neighborhood of 11 delegates more then Obama. I believe between today and yesterday, Obama has gained at least half that in superdelegates alone.
The question becomes: Can you ignore small states? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
