If this is the way Clinton runs her campaign....

[pmcalk]

then how can she possibly win against McCain?  Or turn this country around for that matter?

To all of the Clinton supporters out there (RM & Hometown seem to be it on this board), at some point you have to ask yourself, how effective could Hillary be against McCain?  This campaign was her's to lose this year, and quite frankly, she's shown that she can lose it at every step of the way.  She really had no plan after supertuesday.  It reminds me a bit of Bush and the Iraq war.  He expected to be greeted as liberators, and had no clue what to do when we weren't.  She expected to win handily, and had no idea what to do afterwards.  She's had to shake up her staff, which didn't seem to get her anywhere.  

Now she is or isn't, depending on who you read, firing her chief strategist.  He was the one that put all her eggs in the "big state" basket, a strategy that has resulted in a lead by Obama that is mathematically insurmountable.  And by keeping that strategist, the strategist that seemed to find no conflict between his role as a lobbyist and as a campaign advisor, Clinton very likely has lost a large percentage of union votes.

Given this mismanagement, how could she possibly win against the Karl Roves of the republican party?  You can argue that the press is out to get her, but after 8 years in the White House, you would think she would be better able to handle the press.  Nothing will change come the fall election--how will she manage the press then?  How would she manage the press once in the White House?

On the other hand, we have Obama's campaign--one with incredible organization and grass roots support.  Obama has been able to win handily in Caucus states because of his superior organization.  While Clinton has had to loan her campaign money, Obama is able to raise millions through numerous channels.  Whatever your opinion of his positions, you have to admit he's run a brilliant campaign.

Again and again, Clinton tries to make the argument that the superdelegates should overturn the pledged delegates because she is more "electable."  So my question is, if she were more electable, then why does she keep losing?  If she has the judgement to lead on day one, why does she not have the judgement to know a bad campaign strategy when she sees it?

[Hometown]

My guess is that TulsaNow is loaded with well off White computer literate people.  That Demographic, at least on the left, has been drawn to Obama.

Regarding your perception that Clinton has not run as good of a campaign as Obama's, I would guess it has to do with media spin and who you are listening to.  Tonight, turn off Mathews and Olbermann at MSNBC and watch Campbell Brown on CNN.  She has a Clinton bias.  Or watch ABC national news, they have a Clinton bias.  Or Abrams on MSNBC.  He has been more balanced that the other folks at MSNBC.

I'm going to say what I've said before, you Obama supporters need to face the fact that at the end of the process Obama may not be the winner.  Clinton supporters have faced this fact but my sense is that Obama supporters have not.  I'm afraid you might have a very difficult let down.

Now, don't start arguing numbers.  The fact that you have to do all these gymnastics with numbers proves that Obama is the front runner by only slim margins -- not the landslide you once hoped for Pmcalk.

Don't worry Democrats.  Everything is going to be okay.  This is just a family fuss that's going to get ironed out.

[pmcalk]

I generally don't watch any of those channels--I prefer getting my news from NPR, PBS, & the New York times (and quite frankly I also enjoy drinking lattes).[]

Say what you will about "slim margins" but the fact is that, because of the bad management of Hillary's campaign, she has gone from the inevitable winner of the Democratic nomination to hoping for a hail mary via the Superdelegates over turning the pledged delegates.  The only way she can win at this point is for the remaining superdelegates (less than half have remained uncommitted) to overwhelming endorse her.  Unfortunately for her, the opposite seems to be happening, and even her most ardent supporters appear angry about Mark Penn.

[RecycleMichael]

I don't completely disagree with your comments. I am not sure any democrat can win the White House against the Karl Rove-led attacks that are sure to come.

But Hillary won against top opponents in New York and her husband beat a sitting incumbent President. They are tested against these campaigns.

Obama has never been tested by the nasty campaigners. He won his only national race when the republican nominee withdrew from a scandal and was replaced by a divisive Alan Keys who moved to the state the day before the deadline to register.

If I agreed with your premise that the republicans are going to do anything and everything to win, I would be supporting Hillary.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

My guess is that TulsaNow is loaded with well off White computer literate people.  That Demographic, at least on the left, has been drawn to Obama.

Regarding your perception that Clinton has not run as good of a campaign as Obama's, I would guess it has to do with media spin and who you are listening to.  Tonight, turn off Mathews and Olbermann at MSNBC and watch Campbell Brown on CNN.  She has a Clinton bias.  Or watch ABC national news, they have a Clinton bias.  Or Abrams on MSNBC.  He has been more balanced that the other folks at MSNBC.

I'm going to say what I've said before, you Obama supporters need to face the fact that at the end of the process Obama may not be the winner.  Clinton supporters have faced this fact but my sense is that Obama supporters have not.  I'm afraid you might have a very difficult let down.

Now, don't start arguing numbers.  The fact that you have to do all these gymnastics with numbers proves that Obama is the front runner by only slim margins -- not the landslide you once hoped for Pmcalk.

Don't worry Democrats.  Everything is going to be okay.  This is just a family fuss that's going to get ironed out.

I am amazed at the lowered expectations that Obama is allowed. I have heard for weeks that Hillary has to "win BIG" in Pennsylvania or it will be considered a victory for Obama. Last night on the news I heard that he has outspent her five to one on television advertising and has three times the campaign staff on the ground in the state.

He is still behind, but tonight the media will probably report that "he is closing the gap" between himself and Hillary. With all that money and staffers and him being ahead in the delegates, he should win big in Pennsylvania.

Instead he will lose yet another big state (and democrat stronghold) to her and the media will still proclaim him the winner.

[FOTD]

Jimminy RM.... she had a double digit lead which has evaporated. If Hillary Clinton can't run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?

This is real time politics. The money comes from millions of contributors at less than $100 each. Outspending her 5 to 1 seems to be the people's will. I told you she was toast after Wisconsin.

Can't wait to see how your support of McCain't unfolds....

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I am amazed at the lowered expectations that Obama is allowed. I have heard for weeks that Hillary has to "win BIG" in Pennsylvania or it will be considered a victory for Obama. Last night on the news I heard that he has outspent her five to one on television advertising and has three times the campaign staff on the ground in the state.

He is still behind, but tonight the media will probably report that "he is closing the gap" between himself and Hillary. With all that money and staffers and him being ahead in the delegates, he should win big in Pennsylvania.

Instead he will lose yet another big state (and democrat stronghold) to her and the media will still proclaim him the winner.

And I am amazed at the insistance that Hillary Clinton isn't substantially behind.  She is.

She agreed to the rules regarding Michigan and Florida from the very beginning and now Wolfson and company are trying to force the DNC into  different rules.

Facts are pesky things, RM... and in response to simple facts regarding the pledged delegate count and Clinton's path to the nomination, the media are actually being SOFT on Clinton by portraying the last ten contests as more horserace than exercise in futility...

http://www.docstrangelove.com/2008/03/24/hillary-clintons-path-to-the-nomination/

The ten contests that remain have a total of 566 delegates up for grabs distributed as follows:

State Delegates
Pennsylvania 158
Guam 4
Indiana 72
North Carolina 115
West Virginia 28
Kentucky 51
Oregon 52
Puerto Rico 55
Montana 16
South Dakota 15
TOTAL 566

Of the ten primaries remaining, Hillary Clinton is favored to win in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Barack Obama is favored to win in Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Indiana is considered a toss-up slightly favoring Hillary Clinton. In raw numbers, Hillary Clinton would have to win 369 out of the remaining 566 delegates to edge out Barack Obama in the delegate count. That is, Hillary Clinton would have to win slightly over 65% of the remaining delegates. The only contests so far where Clinton has garnered over 65% of the delegates are American Samoa, where she got 2 out of the 3 delegates, and Arkansas, where she was First Lady.

However, Hillary Clinton is not likely to win the states Barack Obama is favored in. Being conservative, if we assume she ties Obama in these states and territories (Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota), they will each get 101 delegates, leaving 364 delegates up for grabs in the remaining states.  Hillary Clinton would have to win 268 out of the remaining 364 delegates to overcome Obama's delegate lead. That is, Hillary Clinton would have to win slightly over 73% of the delegates in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. The only contest so far where Clinton has garnered more than 73% of the delegates is Arkansas. In her "triumph" in Ohio, she garnered 53% of the delegates. In other words, to win 73% of the delegates, she would have to beat Barack Obama by around 46 points in each of these states (assuming the delegate percentages will roughly track the popular vote margins in these states).  To put things in perspective, according to the polls she currently leads Barack Obama by about 14 points in Pennsylvania (51.2% to 37.5%). She would have to more than triple her lead to 46 points to garner the margin of victory she needs in Pennsylvania. A victory in Pennsylvania of less than 46 points will seriously hurt her chances of overcoming Barack Obama's "razor thin" delegate lead.

Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination becomes even more remote if Barack Obama actually wins any of the states he is favored to win.  However, since this post is an exploration of Clinton's path to the nomination I will leave the less rosy scenarios as an exercise for the reader.

As this post demonstrates, Hillary Clinton definitely has a chance to become the nominee of the Democratic party. The anchors on CNN are correct. It is not impossible for her to win. To win, however, given the proportional delegate system in the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton would have to do significantly better in the remaining states than Ronald Reagan did in his landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984. If she pulls off this historic (and to some observers, other-wordly) feat, she will have earned the bragging rights of being called a true Reagan Democrat.

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

And THAT is exactly why the media is accurately reporting that Hillary Clinton doesn't just need to win Pennsylvania.... she needs to win big... the media glosses over the FACT that HRC really needs to win by at least THIRTY POINTS -- 65% to 35%.  

And since that ain't happening and Hillary ain't quittin', the Clintons are allowed to get away with it under the guise of "allowing everyone to vote"...

This is the equivalent of listening to the regular season TU home game versus Memphis and insisting that with four mins left in the game, TU could still win if they only manage to score two-thirds of the remaining points in the game...

Allow Clinton supporters to vote... allow them to lose... and allow them to decide between Obama and McCain... simple, eh?

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

This is the equivalent of listening to the regular season TU home game versus Memphis and insisting that with four mins left in the game, TU could still win if they only manage to score two-thirds of the remaining points in the game...

Having Kansas down to Memphis by nine points with two minutes to go and winning in overtime is a better basketball analogy. The margin and remaining delegate counts are eerily close to the basketball percentages.

Can Obama hit the free throws?

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

This is the equivalent of listening to the regular season TU home game versus Memphis and insisting that with four mins left in the game, TU could still win if they only manage to score two-thirds of the remaining points in the game...

Having Kansas down to Memphis by nine points with two minutes to go and winning in overtime is a better basketball analogy. The margin and remaining delegate counts are eerily close to the basketball percentages.

Can Obama hit the free throws?

My analogy would be this:  Obama is ahead 53% to 47% with 85% of the precincts reporting.  If this were an election (oh, wait, it is), most television stations would have called it by now.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichaelI am amazed at the lowered expectations that Obama is allowed. I have heard for weeks that Hillary has to "win BIG" in Pennsylvania or it will be considered a victory for Obama.

You're right RM--because Obama has won 28 states compared to Clinton's 12, because he leads in pledged delegates by apx. 160, because he leads in popular vote by well over half a million, because in the past month 69 superdelegates have endorsed him while only a handful have endorsed Clinton, because she is strapped for cash and he is raising twice as much money, most news sources recognize that Obama does not need to win in Pennsylvania to remain in the lead overall.

Because Clinton is so far behind, she must prove somehow that Obama is unelectable.  She cannot do that by winning Pennsylvania by a small percentage.

That's just reality.

[RecycleMichael]

No.

The networks wouldn't call it until after the polls close. We still have many Americans yet to vote and calling the election now would disenfranchise them.

Obama is ahead, but Hillary has been catching up. It is a race, and it ain't over. Obama can't win enough delegates to assure the nomination unless he starts winning big.

"Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."

Satchel Paige

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
That's just reality.

Do you really think I believe in reality?

Obama got a big lead in January and February before the media began to ask questions of his dealings with the Chicago mobster Rezko and his Pastor videos showed up.

Now he hasn't won a primary in a while and was smoked in Ohio and is behind in Pennsylvania and Indiana and West Virginia. He is burning through millions of dollars in ad spending and is still behind.

In my reality, his supporters would be worried that he can't close the deal. He has never had a competitive campaign and seems to be on a losing streak in this one. There is also plans to count Florida and Michigan votes now which will make the popular vote very close.

If Pennsylvania goes big to Hillary, reality would have Obama folks real scared.

[cannon_fodder]

Wow.  Really RM, really?

Kansas had to hit 4 shots to tie the game up after having hit many shots all throughout the game.  Hillary needs to win by >65% in 10 straight states - something she has never even come close to doing.  I'd say there is a difference there.

In a basketball analogy she is down by 16 with 2 minutes to go.  Sure she has a chance of winning against another #1 seed, it has just never happened before and is very unlikely.  All she needs to do is hit 8 shots in a row while making perfect defensive plays on the other end of the court and not fouling.  

It can happen, but the fans are starting to file out of the arena.  The media announcers are still insisting she's in the game though - they have advertisers to worry about after all.  Really, it is likely the only question left is will they shake hands at the end of the game?

Are you really this optimistic or just holding on to hope?

[RecycleMichael]

Enough with the basketball analogies...there is no clock in campaigns.

Now baseball...

Obama is four runs ahead, but Hillary has a couple of batters on base and Obama suddenly can't find the strike zone.

Look, the wind has shifted and is suddenly blowing out.

[Conan71]

It's not over till Denver...if then...