|
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 |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Hillary Clinton Cannot Win the 2008 Democratic Primary |
 |
|
Chris Bowers makes the case in a post titled "Delegate Math Myth and Fact":
| Quote: |
Myth: The pledged delegate count is close
Fact: Obama leads pledged delegates by 6.0% with only 17.4% remaining
According to the best available count, Obama currently leads among pledged delegates 1,415.5 to 1,253.5, a margin of 162 with 18 delegates currently for Edwards and 566 left to be determined. In terms of percentages, this translates to Obama 52.7%--46.7% Clinton, with 82.6% reporting. In any other campaign, if a candidate led by 6% with 83% reporting, all major news outlets would project that candidate as the winner. 6.0% is greater than the margin by which Bill Clinton won the 1992 election, and also greater than the margin by which Republicans won the 2002 midterms. I don't know anyone who follows politics who considers those close campaigns.
Myth: Clinton can use Michigan and Florida to catch up
Fact: The Obama campaign will dictate what happens in Michigan and Florida
Some delegate totals include the Michigan and Florida delegations projected based on the result of the January primaries in those states. This is a mistake, and not because of any arguments about democracy or rules or whatever. Instead, it is a mistake simply because it is inaccurate. The fact is that there will be no revote in Michigan and Florida. The fact is that any pre-June deal on the Michigan and Florida delegations will have to be approved by the Barack Obama campaign. The fact is that after June 10th, the credentials committee takes jurisdiction over the matter. The fact is that Barack Obama will control the credentials committee, since its members are elected by pledged delegates. The fact is that even if the credentials committee submits a minority report on the Michigan and Florida delegations to the floor of the convention, Florida and Michigan delegates will not participate in that vote. In other words, the fact is that unless Clinton catches Barack Obama in non-Florida and Michigan delegates, then Obama will be able to dictate how Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention. As such, Clinton cannot use Florida and Michigan as a means to catch up unless the Obama campaign allows her to do so.
Myth: Clinton can use a combination of pledged and superdelegates to catch Obama
Fact: There are only 841 delegates left, and Obama leads by 141
As already mentioned, there are only 566 pledged delegates yet to be determined by primaries and caucuses. It should also be noted that there are only 263 superdelegates left to be determined, and that 455 of the 718, or more than 63%, of the superdelegates have already endorsed. This is because 76 of the superdelegates are actually "add-on" delegates, that are basically the same as pledged delegates in terms of campaign vetting and intense loyalty to a given candidate. Because he has won more states, currently Barack Obama is projected to win 40 add-on delegates, Clinton 24, and 12 are still to be determined by states that have yet to hold primaries or caucuses. Overall, this means that Barack Obama only needs 42.7% (359.5 of the 841) of the remaining pledged, add-on, and undecided superdelegates in order to reach 2,024, at which point he can dictate favorable delegations from Michigan and Florida and secure the nomination.
Here is an example of just how bad things are for Clinton. Even if Obama loses Pennsylvania by 20%, and then only draws even in Indiana and North Carolina, two states where he currently holds double-digit leads, then Obama will need less than 40% (196.5 of 492) of the remaining delegates to reach 2,024. If a 20% Pennsylvania victory and ties in both Indiana and North Carolina actually put Clinton further from the nomination than she currently is, then yes, the delegate math is decisively stacked against Clinton. |
He goes on to make the obvious point that any campaign reduced to talking about poaching the other's delegates is therefore admitting that they cannot win using their own, and draws the analogy of John Boehner arguing that the GOP will retain a majority in Congress by convincing 30 or 40 Democrats to become Republicans. The analogy is not far-fetched. Pledged delegates are selected for one reason and one reason only: their loyalty to the candidate. The only realistic scenario that involves pledged delegates switching sides is over multiple ballots in a deadlocked convention, and deadlocked conventions are vanishingly rare.
The prospect of super delegates picking Clinton against the choice of the pledged delegates is similarly remote. Anyone who thinks this could happen has not given a great deal of thought to the actual situation faced by super delegates. Their loyalty to Clinton would need to be absolutely fanatical for them to risk alienating their constituency and creating a deep and lasting division in the party. Obviously, the remaining uncommitted supers do not feel such fanatical Clinton loyalty, or they would have declared for her long ago. When it becomes absolutely clear -- not if, mind you, but when -- that Obama has won the electoral aspect of the contest, the uncommitted supers will commit. To him. At the latest, this will happen when Obama reaches 2024 total delegates, which will be in late May. At that point Obama will be the presumptive nominee.
Now, the post title was slightly hyperbolic. But only slightly. Hillary can win the nomination if some sort of massive political earthquake demolishes Obama and makes him obviously unelectable. However, if this were to happen, Hillary would become the nominee even if she had already formally withdrawn from the race.
So why is she still in? It's not entirely clear. First, she can continue to raise campaign funds only while she is still running. Any money she has left over from this race can be used in her future campaigns. Second, while she cannot create the type of political earthquake I mentioned, she can certainly exacerbate one, and by continuing to beat on Obama over smaller issues she can perhaps lower the bar for a major scandal in the future. I will not mince words: the first consideration amounts to misleading her contributors, and the second amounts to deliberately injuring her party. (I've said before that she probably cannot injure it enough to actually cause the loss of this Presidential election, which is as close to a "gimme" as any non-incumbent will get, but that doesn't mean it's OK for her to try.)
It's time for Hillary to withdraw from the race. I am not belittling her and not telling her to "sit down and shut up". She's been a good Senator, and I hope she continues to be one. But barring a literal miracle, she is not going to be President this year, and by continuing to wage a relentlessly negative primary campaign -- complete with circulating American Spectator hit jobs -- she is damaging the only Democrat who can be.
Last edited by stillnotking on Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary Clinton Cannot Win the 2008 Democratic Primary |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| I will omit any armchair psychology regarding her feelings of entitlement and stick to two plausible points. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary Clinton Cannot Win the 2008 Democratic Primary |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| I will omit any armchair psychology regarding her feelings of entitlement and stick to two plausible points. |
|
I notice that you have unerringly zeroed in on the one sentence in my post that can be construed as containing a personal animus against Hillary's candidacy. To put it bluntly, I think you are preoccupied with the personal/emotional dynamics of this race and your dislike of "Hillary haters" is blinding you to reality.
What I (or you) think about Hillary personally is not the issue here. Her campaign has passed its event horizon and she injures the party by remaining in the race. If Obama were in the same position, I'd be urging him to withdraw right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary Clinton Cannot Win the 2008 Democratic Primary |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| I will omit any armchair psychology regarding her feelings of entitlement and stick to two plausible points. |
|
I notice that you have unerringly zeroed in on the one sentence in my post that can be construed as containing a personal animus against Hillary's candidacy. To put it bluntly, I think you are preoccupied with the personal/emotional dynamics of this race and your dislike of "Hillary haters" is blinding you to reality.
|
You're absolutely right that my dislike of your posts is driving me. You say above 'I will not criticise how Clinton is an arrogant elitist, but I will instead say . . . .'
Yes, I have a problem with the arrogance of some Obambites. I've talked to this about some Obama supporters at school, and they don't think Hillary has to give up, or that there is some sort of imperative.
But what's tearing apart the party is people asserting that Hillary is 'evil' a 'bitch' is 'all about power,' etc etc.
Obama has been no less negative than Hillary in this campaign. He deserves no special treatment, nor any elective affirmative action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: Hillary Clinton Cannot Win the 2008 Democratic Primary |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| But what's tearing apart the party is people asserting that Hillary is 'evil' a 'bitch' is 'all about power,' etc etc. |
I never said any of those things, and I edited out the single sentence in my post that contained mild personal criticism of Hillary Clinton. You may comment on the substance or not, as you choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's my comment.
If Hillary Clinton drops out now, she loses all the political capital she's worked so hard for. She lets down her supporters. An Obama ticket will have to acknowledge Clinton support, and will have to accept a certain amount of compromise.
Of course Obambites want her to drop out. They want Obama to have an absolute and unhindered mandate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Clinton drops out now, she loses nothing except a race that she has already lost. As far as political capital goes, she'd gain a great deal with me -- how many others out there think like me is an open question.
I hope and assume that Obama will acknowledge Clinton support, just as I hope and assume that Clinton will endorse him. I'm not sure what compromises you have in mind -- Obama would not offer a VP slot and Clinton would not accept, and their differences on issues are minor at best.
I don't want Obama to have an "absolute and unhindered mandate". (I support him for President, not Dictator.) I want him to have three extra months of smackdown against McCain, unhindered by fighting a two-front war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a feeling this will go into May, most likely the 20th (May 6th it could happen as well) at which time those two primaries will end it. It won't be superdelegates that put him over, it will be primary delegates.
Yes, you have to read between the lines to know what I'm talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...which is why someone is pushing for the superdelegates to just "vote" on their own and end this early. Yes, there is actually talk of trashing primary results in their entirety so that the superdelegates can be left to make the decision "for the good of the party."
Just what does, "for the good of the party" mean? Is someone in the Clinton campaign viewing this as her last chance?
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/26/democrats-look-to-superdelegates-for-early-resolution-on-nominee/
| Quote: |
Democratic officials are rapidly concluding that their party won�t have a presidential nominee ahead of the August national convention, despite increasing concerns that the party could be torn asunder if it doesn�t settle its race soon.
Few are holding out hope that the remaining contests will offer a clear-cut choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton has 1,499 pledged delegates to Obama�s 1,620 and the 10 contests still to be held don�t provide either candidate a foreseeable avenue to the nomination. The nominee needs 2,025 delegates to win the Democratic nod.
With no expected solution at hand to hold new contests in Michigan and Florida � seen as states that could help clear a path to a choice � superdelegates appear more and more likely to be the only way out.
That means trying to pin down commitments before the Aug. 25-28 convention so that Democrats can remain competitive against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain. But creating some kind of end-game ahead of the convention creates a new source of debate.
Prominent officials and lawmakers are discounting the idea of a pre-convention event that could be used to broker a deal among the superdelegates. That possibility gained wide attention last week when two-term Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen suggested that Democrats hold a �superdelegate primary� over the course of two days in a neutral city this June.
Bredesen, who fears that a long-drawn-out battle will jeopardize his party�s chances of recapturing the White House come November, has called for the party�s 795 superdelegates to meet to hear from the two Democratic presidential hopefuls one last time before making a decision.
�No one wants this to come down to the superdelegates, but if we get to the first week of June and there�s still no clear winner we need to break the gridlock well before the convention. A superdelegate primary is a logical last resort that gets us to a decision sooner rather than later,� Bredesen said in a statement to FOXNews.com.
Obama said Wednesday he liked Bredesen�s suggestion: �I think giving whoever the nominee is two or three months to pivot into the general election would be extremely helpful as opposed to having this drag on for two more months all the way up to the convention. I think that would be disruptive and hard on the party as well as the nominee.�
Adding to questions about whether some kind of face-off is in the works, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told The Las Vegas Review-Journal recently that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and he spoke and �things are being done� to resolve the ongoing battle. He did not elaborate on what those �things� might be.
In an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Reid said the two candidates are essentially the same so really it doesn�t matter who wins.
�I think this has been a great campaign. The Democratic problem will be over before the convention, and I think it will all work out well for America,� he said during an interview in his Reno office. Reid did not amplify to the AP how the race would be resolved before the convention.
Reid�s remarks have prompted questions about whether the contest will be sorted out by party higher-ups ahead of the convention. Reid�s spokesman said that is not the plan.
The call Reid placed to Dean was more �routine� and not about any specific plan, the spokesman said, adding Reid was merely getting �a lay of the land.� Asked about what Reid�s role would be in helping determine the nominee, the spokesman said he is sticking to his commitment to remain a �neutral observer� in the race. Reid is a superdelegate who has not yet endorsed a candidate.
Reid�s spokesman added that he suspects Dean is weighing some kind of pre-convention plan.
�I think it�s a no-brainer that he is,� he said, adding that Dean is also struggling with how to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates.
But a Democratic Party official told FOXNews.com that Dean has not endorsed the idea of an earlier event to decide the nominee and confirmed the mundane nature of Dean and Reid�s phone conversation.
Democratic strategist Steve Murphy, who worked on New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson�s presidential campaign, told FOXNews.com that Dean needs to urge the party�s superdelegates to make a choice and soon.
�Ask the chairman of the party to play an active role,� he said. �There�s no reason why he can�t ask them to announce their decision in June.�
Murphy said he discussed the issue of holding a superdelegate primary with Bredesen, and agrees that they should reach a decision soon so that the party could �move forward into the general election.�
But Murphy cautioned it would be difficult to hold a formal gathering.
�It�s very difficult to have a formal meeting or have the superdelegates vote somehow formally before the convention simply because the convention is the highest authority in the Democratic Party and you can�t pre-empt it,� he said.
On Wednesday, more than a dozen wealthy donors who support Clinton wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chiding her for suggesting in a television interview last week that superdelegates have an obligation to support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. They argued that the point of having superdelegates is so they can exercise their own judgment.
�Superdelegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party�s strongest nominee. � Superdelegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party�s strongest nominee in the general election,� the donors wrote.
�We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional, independent actions of each of the delegates at the national convention in August,� the letter continues.
FOX News� Cristina Corbin and Trish Turner and The Associated Press contributed to this report. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
If Clinton drops out now, she loses nothing except a race that she has already lost. As far as political capital goes, she'd gain a great deal with me -- how many others out there think like me is an open question.
I hope and assume that Obama will acknowledge Clinton support, just as I hope and assume that Clinton will endorse him. I'm not sure what compromises you have in mind -- Obama would not offer a VP slot and Clinton would not accept, and their differences on issues are minor at best. |
I agree with your sentiment, because according to some of the "Beltway Boys" like Jon Alter, she is not playing for 2008; she's playin' for 2012. She wants to rebuild her war chest, and beat up Obama enough so McCain somehow wins (which I doubt he can do without cheating), and let McCain screw up for 4 years so she can give it a go again in 2012- in other words, buyer's remorse...just like McCain's SC voters had (Rove and Black baby smear of 2000).
So Clinton wants to continue this thru June, eh? Well, I think those Superdelegates and the May voters are gonna say something to that.
But I wouldn't worry about Denver; it's not gonna be a riot in the streets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Obama has been no less negative than Hillary in this campaign. |
I dissagree. From my perspective Clinton attacked first, and Obama defended. The 3am add and the not ready to lead stuff to me were appalling. I lost a lot of respect for Clinton over that. She should have run a positive campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Obama has been no less negative than Hillary in this campaign. |
I dissagree. From my perspective Clinton attacked first, and Obama defended. The 3am add and the not ready to lead stuff to me were appalling. I lost a lot of respect for Clinton over that. She should have run a positive campaign. |
The campaign didn't start in March, 2008. It started before March, 2007. It was Obama attacking Hillary all the way up until Iowa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Obama has been no less negative than Hillary in this campaign. |
I dissagree. From my perspective Clinton attacked first, and Obama defended. The 3am add and the not ready to lead stuff to me were appalling. I lost a lot of respect for Clinton over that. She should have run a positive campaign. |
The campaign didn't start in March, 2008. It started before March, 2007. It was Obama attacking Hillary all the way up until Iowa. |
Attacking Hillary, no. Attacking her positions on issues, yes. There is a difference, although I appreciate the fact that sixteen years of Clinton/Rove politics has tended to erode it in the minds of Americans.
There is no equivalence between campaign mailers attacking Hillary's healthcare policy, and Hillary explicitly saying Obama is less fit to be President than McCain while circulating American Spectator hit pieces about his campaign staff and parroting right-wing guilt-by-association crap about Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. Obama has always said that he thinks Sen. Clinton would be an excellent President, and he has never failed to congratulate her on her primary wins (something she stopped doing a while back). One participant in this campaign is simply a lot classier than the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| If Hillary Clinton drops out now, she loses all the political capital she's worked so hard for. She lets down her supporters. An Obama ticket will have to acknowledge Clinton support, and will have to accept a certain amount of compromise. |
This is right. Whether she can clinch the nomination is one thing. She nevertheless carries a lot of weight at the convention and, assuming an Obama victory contingent on her support, will decide matters relating to the vice-presidency and at least some cabinet positions, as well as the party's platform.
The thing that troubles me most about Obama and his supporters right now is that they simply want to shut her down and out absolutely. Quit and walk away and say no more.
While we can do that to someone like Ron Paul on the Republican side (he has practically no delegates and no leverage at all), Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely... |
|
| 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
