PDA

View Full Version : Hillary's big victories? She gained 4 delegates on Tuesday.


BigRedChief
03-05-2008, 11:44 PM
From an Obama campaign email.........

Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.

The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.

They failed.

It's clear, though, that Senator Clinton wants to continue an increasingly desperate, increasingly negative -- and increasingly expensive -- campaign to tear us down.

That's her decision. But it's not stopping John McCain, who clinched the Republican nomination last night, from going on the offensive. He's already made news attacking Barack, and that will only become more frequent in the coming days.

Right now, it's essential for every single supporter of Barack Obama to step up and help fight this two-front battle. In the face of attacks from Hillary Clinton and John McCain, we need to be ready to take them on.

BucEyedPea
03-05-2008, 11:59 PM
I saw that on CNN. They did a whole analysis with Hillary winning Penn, or even the rest of the states and she still doesn't come out ahead in delegates. Some combinations she barely ekes it ahead slightly. That's when they felt the fight for Michigan and Florida would occur. I say Obama takes Michigan in that one and Hillary Florida...but if it still proportionally assigned delegates...I dunno!

a1na2
03-06-2008, 12:06 AM
I saw that on CNN. They did a whole analysis with Hillary winning Penn, or even the rest of the states and she still doesn't come out ahead in delegates. Some combinations she barely ekes it ahead slightly. That's when they felt the fight for Michigan and Florida would occur. I say Obama takes Michigan in that one and Hillary Florida...but if it still proportionally assigned delegates...I dunno!

The bad news is that neither of the democratic candidates have the tools or experience to be the POTUS. Don't let your heart be worried, McCain doesn't have the tools either. We, as a country, are screwed.

ClevelandBronco
03-06-2008, 12:18 AM
From an Obama campaign email...

Right now, it's essential for every single supporter of Barack Obama to step up and help fight this two-front battle...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xFh_HseZDuc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xFh_HseZDuc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

jAZ
03-06-2008, 01:08 AM
It's pretty stupid that the media reports on any measure of "victory" but by delegates. It's the only measure that matters in the primary.

alanm
03-06-2008, 01:21 AM
Hillary is working for Karl Rove.

Jenson71
03-06-2008, 01:29 AM
Yeah...it's a media victory.

A professor of American Presidents at UNI said today that Clinton's campaign has not been planning right at all. She said it would go down along with Guiliani to show how NOT to run a campaign.

I didn't follow all that much, so I really don't have much detail.

a1na2
03-06-2008, 06:10 AM
Yeah...it's a media victory.

A professor of American Presidents at UNI said today that Clinton's campaign has not been planning right at all. She said it would go down along with Guiliani to show how NOT to run a campaign.

I didn't follow all that much, so I really don't have much detail.

So what you are saying is that you aren't following the campaign but feel like she doesn't know what she is doing?

Just a guess here but if she were running as bad of a campaign as the commentary says she would have pulled out sometime ago.

bkkcoh
03-06-2008, 06:46 AM
By hearing the press, you would have thought she would have taken the delegate count lead. Wouldn't you???

Hillary Clinton, the annoynted one.....

a1na2
03-06-2008, 07:00 AM
By hearing the press, you would have thought she would have taken the delegate count lead. Wouldn't you???

Hillary Clinton, the annoynted one.....

Can you imagine the storm that will arise should Obama win the popular vote and the delegates end up going to Hillary?

I don't believe we have one good candidate for the office this time around and at the moment we have the choice between the lesser of three evils or to pick Ralph Nader.

BigRedChief
03-06-2008, 10:25 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday (http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240)--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.

Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator (http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/)" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.
So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.
Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled 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.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

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. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former Sen. Sam Nunn or retired Gen. Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice-presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.

How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.
<!-- Omniture --><SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript> <!-- var nw_page_name = "nw - article - 119010 - Hillarys New Math Problem"; var nw_section = "politics"; var nw_subsection = "politics - voices - jonathan alter"; var nw_content_type = "article"; var nw_source = "newsweek.com"; var nw_content_id = "119010"; var nw_headline = "Hillarys New Math Problem"; var nw_author = "jonathan alter"; var nw_page_num = "print format"; var nw_application = "gutenberg"; var nw_hierarchy = "politics|voices - jonathan alter|articles"; --> </SCRIPT>

Mr. Kotter
03-06-2008, 10:37 AM
Obama will be the nominee; Hillary's only hope now is for VP candidate....and I'm convinced he's smart enough to not do that.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010


Hillary’s New Math Problem
Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.

Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:48 PM ET Mar 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.

Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled 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.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

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. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former Sen. Sam Nunn or retired Gen. Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice-presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.

How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

dirk digler
03-06-2008, 10:41 AM
Right now they are projecting Obama to win the Texas Caucus big time so it looks like he will ultimately win Texas in both delegates and popular vote count.

tiptap
03-06-2008, 11:09 AM
I saw that on CNN. They did a whole analysis with Hillary winning Penn, or even the rest of the states and she still doesn't come out ahead in delegates. Some combinations she barely ekes it ahead slightly. That's when they felt the fight for Michigan and Florida would occur. I say Obama takes Michigan in that one and Hillary Florida...but if it still proportionally assigned delegates...I dunno!

Michigan and Florida are two of the few populous states that had a higher turnout of Republicans than Democrats. But of course both states knew at the time that their delegate were not going to be seated. I don't know what to do about this. I really want them to vote but I don't know how you re do this. And I am hoping this goes all the way to convention and we see that bump in coverage for the convention. The more wacky the process the less the ability to control the message. The more it plays to Democratic strengths. I can even see the convention going long and running into the Republican Convention. That would be great.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 11:17 AM
I think, tiptap, that there are still dissatisfied divisions in the GOP as well. It's a weird election. I think it shows that no one is satisfied enough with someone so things are splitting. I don't see it all as necessarily bad for voting. If it vets everyone more thoroughly....so long as the info is accurate and honest—which it most likely tends not to be when things get dirty.

pikesome
03-06-2008, 11:19 AM
Can you imagine the storm that will arise should Obama win the popular vote and the delegates end up going to Hillary?

I don't believe we have one good candidate for the office this time around and at the moment we have the choice between the lesser of three evils or to pick Ralph Nader.

So we could have wholly inexperienced, total incapable, completely incompetent and moonbat all at once?

patteeu
03-06-2008, 11:41 AM
Can you imagine the storm that will arise should Obama win the popular vote and the delegates end up going to Hillary?

I don't believe we have one good candidate for the office this time around and at the moment we have the choice between the lesser of three evils or to pick Ralph Nader.

There are at least two "popular" vote concepts here. In this post, you appear to be talking about "pledged delegates" which are allocated according to the popular vote as opposed to "superdelegates" who aren't. But the real popular vote count, i.e. the one where we just add up all the votes that individual voters cast could very well tell a different story. As a matter of fact, Hillary is leading the actual popular vote count


Hillary 13,271,677 (50.1%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)

Obama 13,224,668 (49.9%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918)


And even if you ignore Michigan and Florida, Hillary only trails Obama by a small margin:


Hillary 12,086,308 (48.8%)

Obama 12,655,627 (51.2%)

If Hillary can win the popular vote in the PA primary and in revotes in FL and MI, she can really cut into that 570,000 vote gap. It's likely that Obama would still go into the convention with a slim popular vote lead, but she's got a better chance of catching him in this measure than in the pledged delegate measure. And she's got a selling point in the race for superdelegates based on where she's winning these popular vote contests and the demographic groups in which she's winning them (e.g. battleground states, hispanics rather than blacks, etc.). Of course, Obama has some arguments on his side too (e.g. bringing in new young voters).

BigRedChief
03-06-2008, 11:56 AM
There are at least two "popular" vote concepts here. In this post, you appear to be talking about "pledged delegates" which are allocated according to the popular vote as opposed to "superdelegates" who aren't. But the real popular vote count, i.e. the one where we just add up all the votes that individual voters cast could very well tell a different story. As a matter of fact, Hillary is leading the actual popular vote count


Hillary 13,271,677 (50.1%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)

Obama 13,224,668 (49.9%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918)


And even if you ignore Michigan and Florida, Hillary only trails Obama by a small margin:


Hillary 12,086,308 (48.8%)

Obama 12,655,627 (51.2%)

If Hillary can win the popular vote in the PA primary and in revotes in FL and MI, she can really cut into that 570,000 vote gap. It's likely that Obama would still go into the convention with a slim popular vote lead, but she's got a better chance of catching him in this measure than in the pledged delegate measure. And she's got a selling point in the race for superdelegates based on where she's winning these popular vote contests and the demographic groups in which she's winning them (e.g. battleground states, hispanics rather than blacks, etc.). Of course, Obama has some arguments on his side too (e.g. bringing in new young voters).
Also don't forget the state total. That has to be important if the process is going to be fair, correct?

Gore got the most votes to be the POTUS but Bush won because of the states he won.

Obama is way ahead in the state count. Hasn't he won like 24 states to Clinton's 12?

Mr. Laz
03-06-2008, 12:01 PM
nah .... Clinton lost any chance at the VP once she got nasty.

Now Obama knows she can't be trusted not to stab him in the back if he does win the presidency.

it's why i didn't want her there in the first place

dirk digler
03-06-2008, 12:11 PM
There are at least two "popular" vote concepts here. In this post, you appear to be talking about "pledged delegates" which are allocated according to the popular vote as opposed to "superdelegates" who aren't. But the real popular vote count, i.e. the one where we just add up all the votes that individual voters cast could very well tell a different story. As a matter of fact, Hillary is leading the actual popular vote count


Hillary 13,271,677 (50.1%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)

Obama 13,224,668 (49.9%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918)


And even if you ignore Michigan and Florida, Hillary only trails Obama by a small margin:


Hillary 12,086,308 (48.8%)

Obama 12,655,627 (51.2%)

If Hillary can win the popular vote in the PA primary and in revotes in FL and MI, she can really cut into that 570,000 vote gap. It's likely that Obama would still go into the convention with a slim popular vote lead, but she's got a better chance of catching him in this measure than in the pledged delegate measure. And she's got a selling point in the race for superdelegates based on where she's winning these popular vote contests and the demographic groups in which she's winning them (e.g. battleground states, hispanics rather than blacks, etc.). Of course, Obama has some arguments on his side too (e.g. bringing in new young voters).

Unless something bad happens with Obama he is going into the convention with the most popular votes and pledged delegates. Everyone has already done the math on this.

The final math shows that Obama will only need an extra 50-100 super delegates to win.

So it is over except Hillary wants to continue for whatever reason.

Edit - Just now Obama got another SD from Indiana.

bkkcoh
03-06-2008, 12:18 PM
Can you imagine the storm that will arise should Obama win the popular vote and the delegates end up going to Hillary?

I don't believe we have one good candidate for the office this time around and at the moment we have the choice between the lesser of three evils or to pick Ralph Nader.

Florida for democrats, that would be so funny. :toast: ROFL

StcChief
03-06-2008, 12:40 PM
The delegate calculus just got worse.
calculus??? since when

patteeu
03-06-2008, 12:49 PM
Also don't forget the state total. That has to be important if the process is going to be fair, correct?

Gore got the most votes to be the POTUS but Bush won because of the states he won.

Obama is way ahead in the state count. Hasn't he won like 24 states to Clinton's 12?

Personally I'd only consider that relevant if you somehow used it to speculate on how it would translate into electoral votes in the fall. Small states would tend to be less important than big states, and strength in battleground states would be more important than strength in true blue or true red states. I don't think a raw state count would have much meaning at all and without basing it on a very deep analysis, my gut tells me that taking into account how their state results might translate into general election electoral results would tend to work in Hillary's favor. JMO.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 12:51 PM
Unless something bad happens with Obama he is going into the convention with the most popular votes and pledged delegates. Everyone has already done the math on this.

The final math shows that Obama will only need an extra 50-100 super delegates to win.

So it is over except Hillary wants to continue for whatever reason.

Edit - Just now Obama got another SD from Indiana.

I just did the math. Hillary is currently in the lead in the popular vote and she's got a very good chance of winning the popular vote in the biggest state remaining on the table.

dirk digler
03-06-2008, 12:54 PM
Having just done the math on this, I can tell you that Hillary has won more popular votes than Obama as of today so without massaging the data, it's very likely that she'll go to the convention with a lead by that measure.

You can't count Michigan and Florida

Also Obama is going to win alot more states and in some fairly large states so I don't think she is going to have much of chance to catch up.

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 01:31 PM
There are at least two "popular" vote concepts here. In this post, you appear to be talking about "pledged delegates" which are allocated according to the popular vote as opposed to "superdelegates" who aren't. But the real popular vote count, i.e. the one where we just add up all the votes that individual voters cast could very well tell a different story. As a matter of fact, Hillary is leading the actual popular vote count


Hillary 13,271,677 (50.1%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)

Obama 13,224,668 (49.9%) link (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#val=1918)

He wasn't on the ballot in Michigan so you're essentially giving her a whole state's worth of votes.

Obama has a fairly significant lead in the popular vote, the amount of states won, and delegates. And that's not going to change much from here on out.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 01:32 PM
Well, yeah, BUT Hillary's won the big states by negligible margins, so uh...

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:39 PM
You can't count Michigan and Florida

Also Obama is going to win alot more states and in some fairly large states so I don't think she is going to have much of chance to catch up.

That's not math. That's politics. There's no DNC ruling required for "seating" the popular vote like there is for "pledged delegates". The popular vote is what it is and right now, the math says that more voters have pulled the lever for Hillary than for Barack Obama. You've got a strong political case to make on that point, IMO, but there are counterarguments available to Hillary.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 01:41 PM
That's not math. That's politics. There's no DNC ruling required for "seating" the popular vote like there is for "pledged delegates". The popular vote is what it is and right now, the math says that more voters have pulled the lever for Hillary than for Barack Obama. You've got a strong political case to make on that point, IMO, but there are counterarguments available to Hillary.So the fact that he wasn't even on the ballot in a fairly large state is only a "political" point rather than an important variable?

I honestly had no idea Mark Penn was a neocon, but ever since you've revealed yourself it's all made a lot of sense.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:42 PM
He wasn't on the ballot in Michigan so you're essentially giving her a whole state's worth of votes.

Obama has a fairly significant lead in the popular vote, the amount of states won, and delegates. And that's not going to change much from here on out.

Surely you read my entire post where I clearly accounted for that. But as I pointed out to Dirk, that's a political argument. Obama is currently behind in the popular vote count. He's got to make a political argument to get people to overlook that. I'm sure many will be persuaded by that argument, but it's an open issue about which each individual can come to a different conclusion. That Hillary currently has more popular votes is a raw fact.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 01:43 PM
That's not math. That's politics. There's no DNC ruling required for "seating" the popular vote like there is for "pledged delegates". The popular vote is what it is and right now, the math says that more voters have pulled the lever for Hillary than for Barack Obama. You've got a strong political case to make on that point, IMO, but there are counterarguments available to Hillary.

No one was able to vote for Obama in Michigan as he wasnt on the ballot. That is a significant difference in the "popular vote".

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 01:44 PM
No one was able to vote for Obama in Michigan as he wasnt on the ballot. That is a significant difference in the "popular vote".Stop talking politics. Mr. Penn is a math professor, and you will only be allowed to discuss MATHEMATICS in his classroom.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:44 PM
So the fact that he wasn't even on the ballot in a fairly large state is only a "political" point rather than an important variable?

Why can't it be both? It's a political point and to many people, no doubt, it's an important variable.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 01:44 PM
Why can't it be both? It's a political point and to many people, no doubt, it's an important variable.I implore you to tell me who WOULDN'T consider it an important variable.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:45 PM
No one was able to vote for Obama in Michigan as he wasnt on the ballot. That is a significant difference in the "popular vote".

It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that a dedicated Obama supporter would be persuaded by that argument.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:47 PM
Please, tell me who WOULDN'T consider it an important variable.

How many examples do you need? Here are a few off the top of my head:

Bill Clinton
Frankie
Harold Ickes
Emanual Cleaver
Joe Wilson
Many democrats who think that Obama will lose in November but that Hillary could win.
Huma Abedin

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 01:48 PM
It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone that a dedicated Obama supporter would be persuaded by that argument.

I suppose you are right, not being on the ballot is no excuse for losing.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 01:49 PM
How many examples do you need? Here are a few off the top of my head:

Bill Clinton
Frankie
Harold Ickes
Emanual Cleaver
Joe Wilson
Many democrats who think that Obama will lose in November but that Hillary could win.
Huma AbedinTop-notch trolling as always, Mark.

A+++ would laugh again.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:50 PM
I suppose you are right, not being on the ballot is no excuse for losing.

Obama took his own name off the ballot didn't he? Maybe he was looking for an excuse? I don't know.

Carlota69
03-06-2008, 01:52 PM
Obama took his own name off the ballot didn't he? Maybe he was looking for an excuse? I don't know.

Thats what I heard as well. Why would he do that in Michigan but not in Florida, as well? If he did take his name off, big mistake.

DaKCMan AP
03-06-2008, 01:54 PM
Thats what I heard as well. Why would he do that in Michigan but not in Florida, as well? If he did take his name off, big mistake.

Florida did not allow him to remove his name from the ballot.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 01:56 PM
Obama took his own name off the ballot didn't he? Maybe he was looking for an excuse? I don't know.

Dont change direction here, the fact is the state had been deemed irrelevant at the time and was not going to count. You are now trying to give a one horse race to Hillary.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:56 PM
Top-notch trolling as always, Mark.

A+++ would laugh again.

Yeah, I'm trolling. Dirk was right, everyone's already done the math. That Hillary insists on staying in the race is an afront to democracy. You guys are all brilliant mathematicians who understand that 328,151=0 when the unit of measure is "votes in Michigan". All hail Obama. :rolleyes:

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 01:57 PM
Obama took his own name off the ballot didn't he? Maybe he was looking for an excuse? I don't know.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Pat. They all took their names off the ballot except for Hillary and Kucinich. The votes didn't and were never going to count. The fact that 40%+ of people felt compelled to go to the polls just to vote Uncommitted should tell you plenty though. Hillary kept her's on the ballot for the sole purpose of being able to use this argument after the fact.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 01:58 PM
Thats what I heard as well. Why would he do that in Michigan but not in Florida, as well? If he did take his name off, big mistake.You can't take your name off the ballot in Florida if you're still running. That's why everyone except Clinton, Kucinich, and Gravel was off the ballot in Michigan (she claimed she FORGOT to take her name off the ballot/couldn't be bothered to), but they were all on the ballot even though nobody campaigned there in the case of Florida (well, until Clinton rolled in to "fundraise" a couple of days before the primary).

patteeu
03-06-2008, 01:58 PM
Dont change direction here, the fact is the state had been deemed irrelevant at the time and was not going to count. You are now trying to give a one horse race to Hillary.

I'm not trying to do anything other than point out that Dirk has it wrong when he says that everyone's done the math and Hillary can't win the popular vote. Just a few minutes ago as a matter of fact, I heard Scott Rasmussen say that it's very possible that Hillary and Obama will get to the convention with Obama leading in pledged delegates and Hillary leading in popular vote. I guess Rasmussen sucks at math like I do.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 01:59 PM
Florida did not allow him to remove his name from the ballot.

Its unfortunate that the only candidate playing by the rules is now being persecuted for it.

Big mistake, following the rules.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 02:01 PM
Yeah, I'm trolling. Dirk was right, everyone's already done the math. That Hillary insists on staying in the race is an afront to democracy. You guys are all brilliant mathematicians who understand that 328,151=0 when the unit of measure is "votes in Michigan". All hail Obama. :rolleyes:It's not an affront to democracy for her to stay in the race, but it is spitting in the face of her party. There is effectively no way she can overcome his lead unless he gets caught molesting a donkey AND murdering a child at the same time, but that matters less to her than trying to hit him hard enough to open the door for another run for herself in 2012.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 02:01 PM
I'm not trying to do anything other than point out that Dirk has it wrong when he says that everyone's done the math and Hillary can't win the popular vote. Just a few minutes ago as a matter of fact, I heard Scott Rasmussen say that it's very possible that Hillary and Obama will get to the convention with Obama leading in pledged delegates and Hillary leading in popular vote. I guess Rasmussen sucks at math like I do.

I respect that but how can you include MI in the popular vote. The only way MI and FL can count is if they have a do-over.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 02:02 PM
Stop embarrassing yourself, Pat. They all took their names off the ballot except for Hillary and Kucinich. The votes didn't and were never going to count. The fact that 40%+ of people felt compelled to go to the polls just to vote Uncommitted should tell you plenty though. Hillary kept her's on the ballot for the sole purpose of being able to use this argument after the fact.

I'd be more embarrassed if I were defending the notion that Obama is leading the popular vote count as a matter of math. Just to be clear here, I'm talking more about cfl and peanut here than about Dirk. So far at least, Dirk isn't insisting on sticking with his original comment.

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 02:07 PM
I'd be more embarrassed if I were defending the notion that Obama is leading the popular vote count as a matter of math. Just to be clear here, I'm talking more about cfl and peanut here than about Dirk. So far at least, Dirk isn't insisting on sticking with his original comment.

He is winning the popular vote. That's what you don't understand. Michigan and Florida will have to be re-done for those delegates to be seated, in which a new vote would take place and Obama's numbers would increase substantially from what you're counting now. You can't count numbers from states where at least a chunk of the electorate didn't bother to show up because they knew their votes didn't matter. Well, of course only to you.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 02:09 PM
I respect that but how can you include MI in the popular vote. The only way MI and FL can count is if they have a do-over.

First, I don't agree that that's the only way those states can count. Each superdelegate gets to decide for him or herself whether or not one or both of those states count.

Second, I'm only including MI in the popular vote because they held an election and Hillary received votes. If I were a democrat superdelegate, the MI vote wouldn't necessarily be very important to me. In fact, earlier in the thread, I said:

You've got a strong political case to make on that point, IMO, but there are counterarguments available to Hillary.

This means, of course, that I think your political argument is pretty strong.

dirk digler
03-06-2008, 02:10 PM
That's not math. That's politics. There's no DNC ruling required for "seating" the popular vote like there is for "pledged delegates". The popular vote is what it is and right now, the math says that more voters have pulled the lever for Hillary than for Barack Obama. You've got a strong political case to make on that point, IMO, but there are counterarguments available to Hillary.

It is math because Florida and Michigan don't count and you count it as they never happened.

Also you can't forget the Texas Caucus count and they are saying that over 800,000 people went to the caucus and Obama has a 16+ lead. Those vote totals will be added to the total count. From what they are projecting if that holds true he will actually have a larger total count of voters in Texas then she will and by a large margin.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 02:11 PM
He is winning the popular vote. That's what you don't understand. Michigan and Florida will have to be re-done for those delegates to be seated, in which a new vote would take place and Obama's numbers would increase substantially from what you're counting now. You can't count numbers from states where at least a chunk of the electorate didn't bother to show up because they knew their votes didn't matter. Well, of course only to you.

First, the delegates from those states could be seated without a re-vote if enough members of the group that decides such things want them to be.

Second, and more importantly, the popular vote doesn't need to be seated. As I already mentioned, it is what it is. The only relevance of the popular vote that I can think of is in terms of how it can be used in arguments aimed at superdelegates. Every superdelegate will get to decide for him or herself whether or not to override the math by discounting the popular votes from Michigan and Florida.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 02:12 PM
Candidate Popular
Vote Delegate Votes
Soft
Pledged Soft
Unpledged
(source) Soft
Total Alternative
Soft Total* Hard Total
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 13,446,919 47.28% 1,198.5 36.84% 239.0 30.10% 1,437.5 35.52% 1,630.5 36.94% 632.5 15.63%
Obama, Barack 13,425,649 47.20% 1,309.5 40.26% 193.0 24.31% 1,502.5 37.13% 1,574.5 35.67% 648.5 16.02%


If you back out MIs popular vote, he is winning.

NewChief
03-06-2008, 02:13 PM
Second, and more importantly, the popular vote doesn't need to be seated. As I already mentioned, it is what it is. The only relevance of the popular vote that I can think of is in terms of how it can be used in arguments aimed at superdelegates. Every superdelegate will get to decide for him or herself whether or not to override the math by discounting the popular votes from Michigan and Florida.

Any superdelegate that tries to factor in Michigan, where one candidate wasn't even on the ballot, should be lobotomized. And yes, that's part of my new positive tone that Obama inspires within me.

Ultra Peanut
03-06-2008, 02:17 PM
Candidate Popular
Vote Delegate Votes
Soft
Pledged Soft
Unpledged
(source) Soft
Total Alternative
Soft Total* Hard Total
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 13,446,919 47.28% 1,198.5 36.84% 239.0 30.10% 1,437.5 35.52% 1,630.5 36.94% 632.5 15.63%
Obama, Barack 13,425,649 47.20% 1,309.5 40.26% 193.0 24.31% 1,502.5 37.13% 1,574.5 35.67% 648.5 16.02%


If you back out MIs popular vote, he is winning.Stop playing games, boy! YOU THINK THIS IS A GAME?!

patteeu
03-06-2008, 02:20 PM
It is math because Florida and Michigan don't count and you count it as they never happened.

That's fuzzy math. It looks like an exercise in imaginary numbers. I'm going to stick with straghtforward math that counts every lever pull as a single vote.

Also you can't forget the Texas Caucus count and they are saying that over 800,000 people went to the caucus and Obama has a 16+ lead. Those vote totals will be added to the total count. From what they are projecting if that holds true he will actually have a larger total count of voters in Texas then she will and by a large margin.

Perhaps that will reverse the race, but at this point, according to the raw data available at CNN's political tracker site, Hillary holds onto a narrow popular vote lead. To be sure, I'm not claiming that Hillary is certain to end up on top in the popular vote. There are several races remaining and it's possible that MI and FL will revote.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 02:24 PM
Candidate Popular
Vote Delegate Votes
Soft
Pledged Soft
Unpledged
(source) Soft
Total Alternative
Soft Total* Hard Total
Clinton, Hillary Rodham 13,446,919 47.28% 1,198.5 36.84% 239.0 30.10% 1,437.5 35.52% 1,630.5 36.94% 632.5 15.63%
Obama, Barack 13,425,649 47.20% 1,309.5 40.26% 193.0 24.31% 1,502.5 37.13% 1,574.5 35.67% 648.5 16.02%


If you back out MIs popular vote, he is winning.

Yes, true. If you back out Florida too, he's winning by even more.

jettio
03-06-2008, 02:32 PM
That's fuzzy math. It looks like an exercise in imaginary numbers. I'm going to stick with straghtforward math that counts every lever pull as a single vote.



Perhaps that will reverse the race, but at this point, according to the raw data available at CNN's political tracker site, Hillary holds onto a narrow popular vote lead. To be sure, I'm not claiming that Hillary is certain to end up on top in the popular vote. There are several races remaining and it's possible that MI and FL will revote.


Quit meddling in other folk's business.

You ought to go back to your libertarian roots and act towards your own self-interest through consensual exchange.

Practically speaking, that means that you ought to follow your heart and start a campaign to repeal the 22nd amendment, so that you can vote for B*sh again.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 02:40 PM
Yes, true. If you back out Florida too, he's winning by even more.

Trying to be fair, Im willing to let you count FL, at least he was on the ballot. It was at least possible for people to vote for Obama.

I dont see how the DNC decided to discount these two states and then let the superdelegates count them in any way. Which as you stated, would put him even further ahead.

dirk digler
03-06-2008, 02:41 PM
That's fuzzy math. It looks like an exercise in imaginary numbers. I'm going to stick with straghtforward math that counts every lever pull as a single vote.


Pat it is not fuzzy math because if you look at the 2025 delegates needed to win the Dem primary that is the number without Michigan and Florida. If they add Florida and Michigan back in the delegate count goes back up to over 2200.

So my point is if they aren't using Michigan and Florida totals in delegate race then the popular vote doesn't count either IMHO.

mlyonsd
03-06-2008, 02:56 PM
Serious question.

When the dem party leaders decided not to count FL and MI's delegates did they reduce the number needed for the nomination by those state's delegate counts, or leave the amount needed for nomination where it was?

jettio
03-06-2008, 03:15 PM
Serious question.

When the dem party leaders decided not to count FL and MI's delegates did they reduce the number needed for the nomination by those state's delegate counts, or leave the amount needed for nomination where it was?

They reduced the number needed.

The number 2024 or 2025 is the simple majority of eligible delegates. If FL or Michigan hold new nominating contests that are approved by the party, the delegates added would change the number for a simple majority.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Trying to be fair, Im willing to let you count FL, at least he was on the ballot. It was at least possible for people to vote for Obama.

I dont see how the DNC decided to discount these two states and then let the superdelegates count them in any way. Which as you stated, would put him even further ahead.

That's fine, but why do you say it like that? As though I'm trying to extract concessions from Obama on Hillary's behalf. I'm just reporting on the popular votes cast without making a judgment about how anyone should evaluate them. As such, I've already included both Florida and Michigan.

In the end, I think I want Obama to be the dem nominee. I'm no Hillary supporter.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 03:36 PM
Pat it is not fuzzy math because if you look at the 2025 delegates needed to win the Dem primary that is the number without Michigan and Florida. If they add Florida and Michigan back in the delegate count goes back up to over 2200.

So my point is if they aren't using Michigan and Florida totals in delegate race then the popular vote doesn't count either IMHO.

You're certainly as entitled to an opinion as anyone, but I fail to see how the implications of delegate seating have anything to do with the objective fact that popular votes were cast in both Michigan and Florida.

Like I said before, twice, I think you have a pretty strong political argument, but it is a political argument.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 03:39 PM
I've got procedural question. I heard that the rules about seating delegates from MI and FL, regardless of whether they are selected on the basis of the original elections or a do-over, can only happen at the convention. Does anyone know if this is true? I don't think it matters too much if this is the case, but it would create a small amount of uncertainty even if a re-vote becomes a reality.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 03:46 PM
That's fine, but why do you say it like that? As though I'm trying to extract concessions from Obama on Hillary's behalf. I'm just reporting on the popular votes cast without making a judgment about how anyone should evaluate them. As such, I've already included both Florida and Michigan.

In the end, I think I want Obama to be the dem nominee. I'm no Hillary supporter.

Perhaps I could have phrased that better. I guess I assumed anyone that would want to count a state that only one candidate was on the ballot, would be pulling for that one candidate.

dirk digler
03-06-2008, 04:07 PM
You're certainly as entitled to an opinion as anyone, but I fail to see how the implications of delegate seating have anything to do with the objective fact that popular votes were cast in both Michigan and Florida.

Like I said before, twice, I think you have a pretty strong political argument, but it is a political argument.

Do preseason games count as much as regular season games?

pikesome
03-06-2008, 04:23 PM
Do preseason games count as much as regular season games?

God, I hope not. The Chiefs would never see a playoff game again if they were.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 04:48 PM
Do preseason games count as much as regular season games?

In the NFL? It depends on what you're counting. If you're counting wins and losses toward the playoffs then, no. If you're counting the price of a ticket then, yes. If you're counting the wear and tear on a running back's legs, probably.

dirk digler
03-06-2008, 04:53 PM
If you're counting wins and losses toward the playoffs then, no.

Exactly. Barack and Hillary are in the championship game and the 2 pre- season contests in Michigan and Florida don't count for diddly squat.

With that being said I see the breaking news that Michigan is going to hold a caucus which will seal a win for Obama I think.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 04:55 PM
Exactly. Barack and Hillary are in the championship game and the 2 pre- season contests in Michigan and Florida don't count for diddly squat.

With that being said I see the breaking news that Michigan is going to hold a caucus which will seal a win for Obama I think.

Compelling. :shake: :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-06-2008, 05:16 PM
In the end, I think I want Obama to be the dem nominee. I'm no Hillary supporter.

That's some pretty ridiculous bullf*ck. You just spent the better part of 20 posts espousing your thinly veiled hope that the unelectable Hillary was the Dem nominee.

BigRedChief
03-06-2008, 06:46 PM
I want to add some more news to David's note about the state of the race.

As you know, we've won 27 of 41 contests and have maintained our commanding lead among pledged delegates.

But today I want to share another staggering number: supporters like you donated more than $55 million to this campaign in the month of February.

That's a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support.
No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it -- more than 90% of donations were $100 or less, and more than 385,000 new donors in February pushed us past our goal of more than 1,000,000 people owning a piece of this campaign.

From the beginning, this campaign has always been funded by a movement of grassroots supporters giving whatever they can afford. And unlike Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, we have never taken money from lobbyists or PACs.

Senator Clinton has decided to use her resources to wage a negative, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink campaign. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination and is attacking us daily. But I will continue to vigorously defend my record and make the case for change that will improve the lives of all Americans.

I need your help to continue this battle on two separate fronts. Now is the time to step up and own a piece of this campaign.

Please make a donation of $25 today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/math (http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/f6c403dc44ab4dd5/C5hI5m/VEsH/)
Thank you for your support,
Barack

BigRedChief
03-07-2008, 05:40 AM
Stop embarrassing yourself, Pat. They all took their names off the ballot except for Hillary and Kucinich. The votes didn't and were never going to count. The fact that 40%+ of people felt compelled to go to the polls just to vote Uncommitted should tell you plenty though. Hillary kept her's on the ballot for the sole purpose of being able to use this argument after the fact.
And for this reason alone you would have to revote. But, whats the point?

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 01:03 PM
To put her "win" on Tuesday in perspective, BHO picked up +8 degagates from Cali the same day.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/6/18441/19312/64/470801

Ultra Peanut
03-07-2008, 03:06 PM
today was a good day !!