If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio...

[RecycleMichael]

I know I am probably the only Hillary supporter on this forum...so I will be the optomistic one about her chances on Tuesday. If she wins both of these states, she will have won almost all of the big states.

These are the biggest ten states in delegate counts. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey.

Obama has won his home state of Illinois and Georgia. Hillary has won California, New York, and New Jersey. She also won Florida and Michigan, but they don't count (yet). If she wins Texas and Ohio, she will probably be favored to win in Pennsylvania in May and has a ten point lead there now.

I think it is very possible that she will have won eight of the biggest ten states as well as sweeping the booming southwest states. She also won the most liberal state of Massachusetts. Doesn't that show real strength as a candidate, especially winning in the bluest of the blue states? These are states a democrat has to win, and she will have proven she can win almost all of them.

She will probably still be still behind Obama in pledged delegate counts, but close enough to ride the momentum back in her favor, especially with superdelegates.

[FOTD]

RM....I did not think you "partaketh" until now. Hope your weekend is sweet.

There is no way she gets there from here. Even Texans seem to be seeing the light.


"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
-- Henry Louis Mencken

[Double A]

Notice it's gone from when to if she wins, that says it all.

[rwarn17588]

Of course, a sign of strength would be if Hillary wins the small states, too.

But she didn't. And not only did she lose those small states, but she lost them by 15 to 20-point margins.

That's why she's fallen behind in pledged delegates by three-digit margins. Obama didn't ignore the small states, and that's why he's in the lead.

Sign of strength? Pshaw. Those bluest of blue states will vote for Obama too if he gets the nomination.

[guido911]

Hillary thinking legal action in Texas?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/117126

This will go over real well with Texas democrats

[guido911]

Sorry to double post, but I also found this re:  Texas GOP crossing over for Obama:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/29/heart-ache-texas-republicans-crossing-over-to-vote-for-obama/

[RecycleMichael]

It does paint a bad picture arguing with party officials about the rules the week before the vote.

But take Hillary out of the picture and read what they were arguing. In Texas, there is a primary for 126 delegates, then when the polls close, each precinct can have a caucus where another 67 delegates are chosen.

After the polls close, the location of the caucus can be instantly changed.

What? Certain people can just decide where the meeting is at the last second? I have a problem with that. This is democracy and deciding delegates, not deboarding an airplane at a different gate.

Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

It does paint a bad picture arguing with party officials about the rules the week before the vote.

But take Hillary out of the picture and read what they were arguing. In Texas, there is a primary for 126 delegates, then when the polls close, each precinct can have a caucus where another 67 delegates are chosen.

After the polls close, the location of the caucus can be instantly changed.

What? Certain people can just decide where the meeting is at the last second? I have a problem with that. This is democracy and deciding delegates, not deboarding an airplane at a different gate.

Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.

Well, what about superdelegates? The votes of these special, uber-Democrats can actually trump the will of those persons voting in the primaries. If Hillary is all concerned about "democracy", why is she not b&tching about this.

[FOTD]

Molly Ivins, Elvis and Obama

http://blog.niemanwatchdog.org/?p=190

"In December 2006, the ever-prescient columnist and best-selling author Molly Ivins was asked whether or not Barack Obama should run for president. Her answer: "Yes, he should run. He's the only Democrat with any 'Elvis' to him."

Molly we hardly knew ya....thanks to our local Pub.

[rwarn17588]

<RM wrote:

Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.

<end clip>

Yeah, especially if Obama wins. [}:)]

Seriously, though, you'd think someone in the Clinton camp would have sussed this out months or even years ago, not four days before a primary. It's not like the Texas primary's setup is new.

I mean, what kind of staff does she have when she can't even find a potential problem until it's nearly D-Day?

[USRufnex]

Yep FOTD, back in the day... the only place you could read Molly Ivins for years was in Frosty Troy's Oklahoma Observer..... then Frosty had a hissy-fit in the late 80s when the Oklahoma (City) Gazette started featuring her opinions as a foil to the Daily Oklahoman...

Hey, maybe Urban Tulsa Weekly could start.... oh, wait.  Nevermind.  Guess I'll have to be content with "Ask a Mexican"...  [8]

RM keeps dancing on the head of a pin;  Hillary Clinton didn't win any delegates in Michigan or Florida... in Michigan, only Clinton was on the ballot; in both Michigan and Florida, NOBODY was allowed to campaign.  If the DNC would like to have a REAL primary or caucus in either Florida or Michigan (or BOTH), feel free to have one.  You don't change rules AFTER a primary.... period.

It's the difference between RIGHT and WRONG.  There's no in-between.

The scary part of this is that Hillary Clinton could win every single state for the rest of the primary season, and still lose... with the possible exception of Guam?, I can't see her getting any more than 55% of the vote in any of the remaining contests... in the last 10, (11 counting the Americans Abroad primary), Clinton's only got above 40% of the vote twice (41% in Wisconsin and 40% in Maine)...

My prediction:  the Clinton spinmeisters will try to make a close race in Texas into an opportunity to play the "victim" card-- Obama will get more delegates due to the weird process that gives more weight to urban areas-- the Clintons (guns ablaizin'!) will then ride in to "champion the disenfranchised" hispanic voters in rural areas..... which they will then try to use as leverage to seat delegates for Michigan and Florida... can't wait for someone to tell me what the definition of "is" is... [:O]

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<RM wrote:

Somebody should challenge that rule. It has just too many ways to go bad.

<end clip>

Yeah, especially if Obama wins. [}:)]

Seriously, though, you'd think someone in the Clinton camp would have sussed this out months or even years ago, not four days before a primary. It's not like the Texas primary's setup is new.

I mean, what kind of staff does she have when she can't even find a potential problem until it's nearly D-Day?

Kinda blows that whole experience thing out of the water, huh?

[pmcalk]

So, RM, are you ready to go double or nothing?  Here's what I predict, Obama will get Texas (though not by his usual double digits) and Vermont (by double digits).  Ohio will be a virtual tie (no more that one or two percentage points apart), but I imagine that Clinton will squeak out a win.  She'll win Rhode Island, but not as decisively as you would hope.  

In all of the focus on the various states, I think that people tend to overlook the fact that, on national scale, Obama is now ahead of Clinton in every poll, substantially by a few.  Regardless of the states, overall more democrats support Obama than Clinton.

I love politics.  Obama has won 11 states in a row, he is ahead in national polls, and is ahead with the delegate count by all accounts.  Yet, the Clinton camp is saying that the next election is "do or die" for Obama, that he has to win all four states.

[RecycleMichael]

I love politics too.  I have the entire set of Topps Presidential candidate trading cards.

I know that Hillary will win Ohio. I know that she will win Rhode Island. I hope that she will win Texas.

If you count the voters of Michigan and Florida (not the contested delgates, that is a different issue), Obama is ahead by 287,000 votes nationally. If Hillary wins or ties in Texas and wins by eight to ten points in Ohio and she will be ahead in popular vote.

More people will have voted for Hillary than Obama in America and she will have won most of the important states.

Will you Obama fanatics then stop demanding that she suspend her campaign?

[USRufnex]

Why would you count the voters in Michigan and Florida?  How many who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan could be counted for Obama?  Why should a meaningless beauty contest in Florida count the same as other contested primaries and caucuses?

MICHIGAN PRIMARY
Clinton      328,151 -- 55%
Uncommitted  237,762 -- 40%

FLORIDA PRIMARY
Clinton      857,208 -- 50%
Obama        569,041 -- 33%  
Edwards      248,604 -- 14%


In your math, RM, did you give Obama ZERO votes in Michigan?  

Oh, and here's a preview of Wednesday, when the Clinton campaign cries foul and plays the "victim card," which will ironically come  from the mouths of Texas insiders who know better than anybody the way Texas has run its dem contests for decades....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/01/clinton-supporter-rips-texas-caucus-system/

quote:March 1, 2008
Clinton supporter rips Texas caucus system

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (CNN) – Former HUD secretary and Hillary Clinton supporter Henry Cisneros excoriated Texas' arcane electoral process as "a great burden on voters" and said that losing the delegate count on Tuesday because of the state caucuses would be "exceedingly unfair."

Cisneros was speaking to a group of Clinton volunteers who had gathered on Saturday morning at Fox Tech High School to train for Tuesday evening's state caucuses, which follow a day of primary voting. One-third of the state's pledged delegates are allocated through the caucuses, while the rest are determined by the day's primary vote.

------------------------------------------------

Cisneros said a scenario in which Clinton wins the primary vote, but loses the evening caucuses, would be "exceedingly unfair" and warned against being "outpowered" by Barack Obama precinct teams, who have overwhelmed their Clinton counterparts in earlier caucus-based contests, outcomes he described as "tragic."

Sorry, I just don't have alot of sympathy for Hillary Clinton's Texas political insiders' when they cry foul despite knowing full-well what the rules are in their own state.

I don't have a problem with Hillary staying in the race-- she can stay in as long as she wants, dividing the party in her polorizingly quixotic pursuit of 50%-plus-one of the electorate...

She'll continue to appeal to voters by padding her resume with "35 years of experience" that includes 8 years as first lady, and years as an advocate for ? at the Rose Law Firm ('79-??) and years on the board at WalMart ('86-'92)...