Clinton Math

[toasty]

OK, so the drumbeat coming out of the Clinton camp right now is that she's overtaken Obama in the popular vote tally. Give me a fucking break -- to reach that conclusion, you have to count Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot). Of course, the DNC has been unwavering in its refusal to count those primaries as they were conducted.

Meanwhile, by any other realistic measure, Obama maintains a lead in the popular vote, and a sizable one at that. According to RealClearPolitics, he's got a lead of over half a million votes right now, which is bumped up to 610K if you include estimates for IA, NV, WA and ME (which do not release raw vote totals, only delegate totals). Even if you include FL, which ain't gonna happen, he's still leading by either 205K or 315K. Looking at the states that remain, she's got no way to pick up that many votes between now and the end of primary season: Check it out:

Guam (4 delegates)
North Carolina (115)
Indiana (72)
West Virginia (28 )
Oregon (52)
Kentucky (51)
Puerto Rico (55)
Montana (16)
South Dakota (15)

Looking at the most delegate rich states, it would be expected that North Carolina ought to be a landslide for Obama, and that he'll broaden the popular vote gap there -- maybe not enough to erase PA, but it will definitely tamp down its impact significantly. The most recent polling in Indiana shows Obama up, but figure that one to be close, with neither of them making any significant gains. Oregon and Kentucky cancel each other out. South Dakota and Montana, which probably go to Obama, cancel out West Virginia, which certainly goes to Clinton. Guam? Not enough people vote there to make a difference (no disrespect intended, Guam) and besides, they don't do a primary, so according to Clinton, it shouldn't "count" anyway.

Puerto Rico would certainly seem to favor Clinton, but not enough to close that sort of gap, esp. after losing ground in NC.

How on earth does she expect to make up this shortfall in votes?

I hear her on TV talking about her victory in PA, and it reminds me of Chad Johnson doing an elaborate celebration after a 4th quarter touchdown when the Bengals are down by 35. Yeah, congratulations -- have you glanced at the scoreboard lately?

All of these arguments she's making are just ridiculous:

1. Clinton has won states the Democrats need to win in November, like New York, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
True, but they will go to whomever the democratic candidate is

2. Clinton has won "big" states.
What the hell does this have to do with anything? Last time I checked, this is completely irrelevant, esp. when the votes you earned in those big states are less than the votes Obama got in the other states

3. If delegates were awarded on a winner take all basis like the GOP, she'd have the nomination.
OK, but they're not -- and you've got to know that if delegates were awarded in that fashion, Obama would have structured his campaign differently.

4. Clinton is more electable
Based upon what? The people that actually elect candidates, i.e., the voters, have cast more votes for Obama. If she was truly the most electable, she would have been elected by the people, right?

I could go on and on. Really, really tired of the Clintons.

[Jenks]

Re: Clinton Math

The Clinton's desperate sobbering at the opportunity for power is downright disgusting imo.

[Miroslav]

Re: Clinton Math

sure she's not in any sort of a lead, but you gotta admit.... she took Pennsylvania by a respectable margin, enough to probably make the party elders feel like she's won the right to move on a bit further without superdelegate intervention. She's like the Terminator of politics: just won't die!

...which begs the question: why can't Obama - who had all that momentum a while back and is spending a hell of a lot more money - close the deal and bury her for once and for all? what are people afraid of when it comes to him?

[Jenks]

Re: Clinton Math

she won by a wide enough margin to raise 10 million, which is what she has done since tuesday- so says the press. being an obama supporter, i tow this line- she didn't win by 10%, she lost 10% of her votes in the last few weeks leading up to the election since obama closed the gap from 20% to 10%.

spin spin spin, round and round the bullshit wheel goes...already getting sick of this whole process.

[toasty]

Re: Clinton Math

sure she's not in any sort of a lead, but you gotta admit.... she took Pennsylvania by a respectable margin, enough to probably make the party elders feel like she's won the right to move on a bit further without superdelegate intervention. She's like the Terminator of politics: just won't die!

She did take it by a respectable margin (somewhat less impressive when you consider the lead she had before Obama began campaigning there), and there were a lot of furrowed brows on Wednesday morning as pundits tried to figure out what the significance was of a respectable win that fell short of an ass-kicking.

I'd be willing to make a deal with Hillary -- those of us in Obama's camp will stop calling for her to drop out now if she agrees that come June 4, she drops out if she doesn't lead either in pledged delegates or a legitimate interpretation of the popular vote (i.e., one that doesn't require a change in the rules).

...which begs the question: why can't Obama - who had all that momentum a while back and is spending a hell of a lot more money - close the deal and bury her for once and for all? what are people afraid of when it comes to him?

Can't remember what I was watching, but some show was talking about how entrenched the base for each candidate is -- Obama has the black vote and the college vote, and Hillary has white women, the elderly and to a lesser extent, white blue collar workers (at least as against one another). Those voters have evidently shown that it really doesn't much matter how much money is spent or what happens, they aren't going anywhere. Depending upon the demographic makeup of a state, a candidate may be seriously behind the 8 ball in terms of the ability to crack 50% and claim a win.

With that in mind, I suspect it has a little something to do with the scheduling of the contests. If you were to flip the order around and have North Carolina and Indiana before PA, she might have been a goner. PA is a state that's tailor made for her, and it came at the right time to save her candidacy -- at least temporarily.

The other thing that's kinda interesting about PA is that she won notwithstanding that voters thought by a 2:1 margin that Obama would win the nomination. I don't know what you take from that -- is coming out to vote for Hillary even though you don't think she'll win a protest vote, or is it a way of showing commitment to the process, such that those people would ultimately vote for Obama in a general election?

[subterFUSE]

Re: Clinton Math

sure she's not in any sort of a lead, but you gotta admit.... she took Pennsylvania by a respectable margin, enough to probably make the party elders feel like she's won the right to move on a bit further without superdelegate intervention. She's like the Terminator of politics: just won't die!

At this point, Clinton is hanging on for dear life... I think for a couple of reasons:

1. Somewhere, deep down, she might actually think there is a glimmer of hope. Maybe she thinks if she hangs in there long enough, then Obama might make some huge gaff or something terrible comes out that seals his fate? Long shot, of course.

2. She is hanging in to raise more money because she is in a lot of debt from this campaign. There are some people, and I am one of them, who believe she knows it's over and she is just trying to recoup some of her debts by raising money right to the last minute.

[Jenks]

Re: Clinton Math

I don't think she really thinks it's over. I believe she is blinded by her sense of entitlement. She thinks the presidency is hers, and she'll stop at nothing until she gets it, all the while ignoring the fact that she's wrecking the democratic party's chance of winning against the republicans in the fall.

i hate her.

[toasty]

Re: Clinton Math

2. She is hanging in to raise more money because she is in a lot of debt from this campaign. There are some people, and I am one of them, who believe she knows it's over and she is just trying to recoup some of her debts by raising money right to the last minute.

That's the most rational explanation I've heard yet for why she's staying in. I know she was in the hole at the end of March, and even with her $10M influx of cash yesterday, she's still got to be sucking wind after drawing credit for 3 weeks in April.

[toasty]

Re: Clinton Math

characteristically brilliant take on this from Wonkette:

http://wonkette.com/383587/hillarys-magical-maps

[CactusBeats]

Re: Clinton Math

sure she's not in any sort of a lead, but you gotta admit.... she took Pennsylvania by a respectable margin, enough to probably make the party elders feel like she's won the right to move on a bit further without superdelegate intervention.

During her husband's campaign and administration she and Bill spent a lot of time building a solid base in large states like PA, NY, CA, OH, and others. Most big states have a solid loyal base for her that could be valuable come November. I think she is going to have a real hard time amking the case that she should be the nominee. The popular vote thing is really a sham. Neither she nor Obama have run their campaigns to get the most popular votes. If they had, they each would have spent weeks in CA and NY. I don't buy the popular vote arguement.

Truth be told, I don't heavily favor one over the other. I don't hate either of them. Hating someone is way too much work for me these days. I agree it is probably not great that this primary contest has gone on so long, but at the same time I am not convinced it means the dems will lose in the fall either. I find the whole thing mildly entertaining (a little of the time) to completely annoying (most of the time).

[Miroslav]

Re: Clinton Math

I must say that I'm a bit amused at so much anger towards Clinton for still being in the race.

Bottom line: if Obama had really gotten the job done with the voters, she wouldn't be in it today. He obviously hasn't, and so there she is...but I can certainly see how it blows big time for the Democratic party

[subterFUSE]

Re: Clinton Math

From Dick Morris' newsletter

Does Hillary Clinton really believe she can overtake Barack Obama among elected delegates? No way. The math is dead against her and she’s a realist. Even after Pennsylvania, Obama still leads by more than 140 in elected delegates. They’ll likely break even in Indiana and he’ll win North Carolina where one third of the vote is African-American. After that? If she wins Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico by 15 points and they break about even in Guam, North Dakota, Montana, and Oregon, she’ll still trail him by at least 130 votes among elected delegates.

Does she believe she can persuade super delegates to vote for her? Again, probably not. Obama has steadily eroded her edge among super delegates and now they are almost tied among committed super delegates. And the prevailing sentiment among those that remain is not to overturn the will of the voters.

So why is Hillary still running so hard? Why is she especially focused on pushing up Obama’s negatives?

Until the last vote is counted on June 3rd, we can chalk up her persistence to determination, courage and sheer obstinacy. But if she persists in her candidacy after the last primary, we must begin to consider whether she has an ulterior motive.

Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can’t win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012? Obviously, if Obama beats McCain, Hillary is out of the picture until 2016, by which time, at 69 years old, she might be too old to run. But if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year.

Every day that she stays in the race and punches Barack Obama, she must realize that she is decreasing his chances of getting elected in November. Each time that she waves the bloody shirt and says that only she is strong enough to fight the war on terror, she obviously raises doubts about Obama’s strength and leadership. Every time she criticizes him for not switching pastors or for saying downscale white voters are bitter, she raises issues that are very destructive to Obama should he win the nomination.


When does fighting for the nomination in 2008 end and seeking to sabotoge Obama’s chances in November to keep her options alive for 2012 begin? Doubts about Hillary’s motivation are going to keep on growing with each inconclusive primary. After she loses North Carolina and fails to carry Indiana by any significant margin (North Carolina has twice as many delegates as Indiana), people will begin to wonder out loud about why she is staying in the race. And if she remains obdurate after the last votes are cast on June 3rd, it will become an increasingly accepted presumption that she is running a campaign of sabotage against Obama.

There is a way to run without waging a scorched earth campaign. Mike Huckabee continued to fight for the Republican nomination until McCain reached the magic number to clench the battle and did not attack McCain. He waged a positive campaign and exercised his right to stay in the contest as long as it was undecided without hurting the party’s chances in November. Obviously, Huckabee could have attacked McCain and drawn more votes for his candidacy, but, in the interests of party victory, he chose not to do so.

Why isn’t Hillary making the same choice?

In 2004, it is pretty obvious that Hillary did nothing to help John Kerry beyond giving a speech at the convention and waging a token campaign on his behalf. Bill did even less. Their goal was obvious: they wanted Kerry to lose to Bush so that Hillary could run in 2008. Is she playing the same game now? Only time will tell.