The 2008 Democratic and Republican Primaries

[StorminNorman]

Fox is saying Dallas, Austin, and Houston all have yet to report. Areas that Obamas favored to win heavly.

Can someone explain this to me? How do you win Texas? Say Hillary barely wins the primary, but Barack heavliy wins the caucus. Do you simply add up the votes and whoever has most wins?

The story seems to be that Obama startedoff to a huge lead thanks to eary votes which he won by 75,000. Now polls and **** show that Hillary will win the primary by 1-2%...now to the caucus, where Obama typically owns. Ifhe wins thta by 10-15%, than who wins Texas?

Hundred something delegates are brokered by primary result.

In a completely isolated event, the sixty something votes from the Caucus are divided by Caucus result.

[Marx]

If Clinton keeps most of her lead in Ohio - and if she can win Texas, we may have a battle on our hands.

She will probably have an Ohio sized victory in Pennsylvania, the DNC will almost have their hand forced in redoing Michigan and Florida.

If Clinton can take Michigan and Florida after Texas, Ohio and Penn - it will be very hard for the Super Delegates to tell her no.

I think you're right Norm.

[Excel]

And Obama's lead has shrunk to less than 20,000 votes in the primary.

Like I said. Right now, all the smaller, latino counties Hillary was supposed to do well are being reported. Most of the big cities like Austin, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio all have not reported. Obama should win these.

[hippie_hunter]

Obama: 50%
Clinton: 49%

[Excel]

Hundred something delegates are brokered by primary result.

In a completely isolated event, the sixty something votes from the Caucus are divided by Caucus result.

So if they split the 126 primary delegates and Obama wins the causus big, he would be the winner.

[Marx]

If she had campaigned in the other states like she has here in the last 2 days.....she would already have the Democratic nomination......I was wondering where she was in Texas and then BAM......and she was everywhere....

That's how it was here in Ohio too. Between her, Chelsea, and Bill - they were everywhere! (And numerous times.)

[hippie_hunter]

If she had campaigned in the other states like she has here in the last 2 days.....she would already have the Democratic nomination......I was wondering where she was in Texas and then BAM......and she was everywhere....

Clinton suffered from expecting the nomination being handed to her. If she does win, I'll be happy that she fell on her ass and given a lession in humility.

[hippie_hunter]

Obama's lead is about 15,000 votes now.

[StorminNorman]

So if they split the 126 primary delegates and Obama wins the causus big, he would be the winner.

If Hill wins the Primary - she will claim victory in Texas.

[Marx]

Texas:

Obama: 49%
Clinton: 49%

19% reporting

[Sebastos]

Tied?! :cmad:

[hippie_hunter]

Obama's lead has shrunk to less than 9,000 votes

[Kelly]

Like I said. Right now, all the smaller, latino counties Hillary was supposed to do well are being reported. Most of the big cities like Austin, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio all have not reported. Obama should win these.


Houston, no doubt will go for Obama.....

Austin, Dallas and San Antonio.....there is no guarantee...

In the exit polls.....the South Central counties.....Travis, Harris, etc.....Obama is winning, but no where near by the divide that people thought.....which probably means the Hispanic vote is larger than predicted......and as I said before........this was the forgotten voter in Texas.....except that Hillary has been hitting up that vote for quite a while here....

She has around 2/3 of the Hispanic vote so far in the exit polls right now.


Also, oddly enough Clinton by double digits in both Texas and Ohio is seen as the better leader, and more equipped to be President.....its very strange, people's thinking....lol

[souvlaki]

Seriously, dont get so worked up people.

Harris County
Barack Obama 111,955 62%
Hillary Clinton 68,187 38%
2% of precincts reporting


Dallas
Candidate Votes % of votes
Barack Obama 84,930 65%
Hillary Clinton 45,215 35%
5% of precincts reporting

It's going to be a long night. The big cities are not reporting yet.

[souvlaki]

And in regards to Ohio, it's the same thing there. The counties he is supposed to do well in are not reporting yet, and will probably be the last to report.

[hippie_hunter]

Obama's lead has shrunk to less than 4,000 votes

[The Senator]

This is getting intense...

[hippie_hunter]

Now 2000 votes.

[Sebastos]

*turns teary eyed*

[Marx]

And in regards to Ohio, it's the same thing there. The counties he is supposed to do well in are not reporting yet, and will probably be the last to report.

It is believed that he underperformed in those counties.

[hippie_hunter]

1,500 votes.

[hippie_hunter]

Less than 600 votes

[Marx]

Clinton has just overtaken Texas

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton just took the lead by over 1,500

[crd1682]

Uh, I know this is exciting and whatnot. But the race is pretty much over.

If the superdelegates will honestly flock towards whoever has the most pledged delegates, then Obama has sealed the nomination. Even if Clinton does win Texas and Ohio, her margins aren't large enough to pull ahead of Obama. She's done. It's only a matter of time.

[redfirebird2008]

Caucus results for Precinct 50 in Lubbock, Tx:

Obama - 27
Clinton - 12

This was the biggest pain in the ass process I've been a part of in voting. The polling place and the caucus place were the same room. The polls closed at 7 PM, the caucus was supposed to start at 7:15. It didn't start until 8:15. Took us an hour just to get going because it took forever for the idiot poll people to clear out their crap. I didn't get done until 9:00. This was with just 39 people. Imagine how screwed some of these caucuses are with 500 people in Houston, etc. Holy crap, what a mess!

[Marx]

Why is there a Primary AND a Caucus in Texas Kel? I still don't understand the logic behind having both. Does anyone know the rationale?

[StorminNorman]

Clinton has near 2,000 vote lead.

[StorminNorman]

Uh, I know this is exciting and whatnot. But the race is pretty much over.

If the superdelegates will honestly flock towards whoever has the most pledged delegates, then Obama has sealed the nomination. Even if Clinton does win Texas and Ohio, her margins aren't large enough to pull ahead of Obama. She's done. It's only a matter of time.

Her margin in Ohio, currently, is large enough to make a big difference.

You also over look Pennsylvania which will be a large victory for Hillary.

Michigan and Florida will probably get Primaries and Florida will be a big victory for Hillary while Michigan will probably fall for her too.

[Marx]

Her margin in Ohio, currently, is large enough to make a big difference.

You also over look Pennsylvania which will be a large victory for Hillary.

Michigan and Florida will probably get Primaries and Florida will be a big victory for Hillary while Michigan will probably fall for her too.

I strongly believe that she is the one with the momentum in the upcoming contests.

[StorminNorman]

Why is there a Primary AND a Caucus in Texas Kel? I still don't understand the logic behind having both. Does anyone know the rationale?

The Democrats have a stupid election format.

All states are divided by vote, super delegates, Texas/Caucus split - silly.

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton's lead in Texas has grown over 8,000.

[Cory]

wow, hildog might take texas ohio and RI....damn this is a crazy race

[hippie_hunter]

The Democrats have a stupid election format.

All states are divided by vote, super delegates, Texas/Caucus split - silly.

Not only that but it is now mathematically impossible to get the required delegates by pledged delegates, it's now the superdelegates that will decide.

[Marx]

The Democrats have a stupid election format.

All states are divided by vote, super delegates, Texas/Caucus split - silly.

I understand that and would agree that it isn't exactly the best. What I don't understand AT ALL is why there is a Primary AND a Caucus in the same state. What is the rationale of having both? :huh:

[souvlaki]

It is believed that he underperformed in those counties.

If you are watching CNN right now, they are telling a different tale.

[redfirebird2008]

Looks like the major metropolitan areas in Texas are barely reported so far. Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc. He's running up some big numbers. 83% of the primary voting has been reported here in Lubbock. She is winning by around 10% here I think.

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton has won Ohio.

[Marx]

CNN projects that Hillary Clinton wins Ohio

[StorminNorman]

Clinton wins Ohio.

[hippie_hunter]

If you are watching CNN right now, they are telling a different tale.

It's funny that the exact moment you posted that, CNN projected that she took the state :woot:

[Kelly]

Why is there a Primary AND a Caucus in Texas Kel? I still don't understand the logic behind having both. Does anyone know the rationale?

Because we are big, and felt we needed both.....lol


They call it the "Texas 2 Step"....

[StorminNorman]

I understand that and would agree that it isn't exactly the best. What I don't understand AT ALL is why there is a Primary AND a Caucus in the same state. What is the rationale of having both? :huh:

Rational?

:lmao:

There is no rational why Iowa and new Hampshire - two fairly insignificant states - hold so much power in the elective process. Thats the way it is.

[redfirebird2008]

Only 9% of the Austin area has been reported. Only 13% of the Dallas area has been reported. He's running up 30% leads in those areas so far. It'll be interesting to see how it goes.

[souvlaki]

It's funny that the exact moment you posted that, CNN projected that she took the state :woot:

Um, I was referring to Texas. I never thought he'd win Ohio. Still, his votes in that state will come in later. It will probably end up being closer there.

[Cory]

not a tie in texas anymore :(

[Marx]

If you are watching CNN right now, they are telling a different tale.

I am Souv :cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

Congrats to Hillary on winning Ohio. Strong showing.

[hippie_hunter]

Um, I was referring to Texas. I never thought he'd win Ohio. Still, his votes in that state will come in later. It will probably end up being closer there.

But the underperformance that Marx talked about was refering to Cleveland and Toledo, not Texas areas.

And he was quoting to your comments towards Ohio.

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton: 50%
Obama: 48%

[redfirebird2008]

It's taking forever for the urban areas to count their votes in Texas. Dang.

[Marx]

But the underperformance that Marx talked about was refering to Cleveland and Toledo, not Texas areas.

That's right Hippie

[crd1682]

Her margin in Ohio, currently, is large enough to make a big difference.

You also over look Pennsylvania which will be a large victory for Hillary.

Michigan and Florida will probably get Primaries and Florida will be a big victory for Hillary while Michigan will probably fall for her too.


Make a difference in what? In order to even TIE with Obama, Clinton would had to have won all four states by a percentage of 70-30. It seems that even though she is able to win primaries she cannot win by a sizable margin. Meanwhile Obama blows Clinton out in nearly every state that he wins. And now they're virtually tied in Texas. Penn will be the same story. I'm telling you she's done.

[souvlaki]

But the underperformance that Marx talked about was refering to Cleveland and Toledo, not Texas areas.

And he was quoting to your comments towards Ohio.

Then I obviously was not paying attention.

[Marx]

Because we are big, and felt we needed both.....lol


They call it the "Texas 2 Step"....

Rational?

:lmao:

There is no rational why Iowa and new Hampshire - two fairly insignificant states - hold so much power in the elective process. Thats the way it is.

Well I just don't get it guys. It makes NO SENSE to me! :funny:

[hippie_hunter]

Make a difference in what? In order to even TIE with Obama, Clinton would had to have won all four states by a percentage of 70-30. It seems that even though she is able to win primaries she cannot win by a sizable margin. Meanwhile Obama blows Clinton out in nearly every state that he wins. And now they're virtually tied in Texas. Penn will be the same story. I'm telling you she's done.

:whatever:

[Marx]

Then I obviously was not paying attention.

It's ok Souv, you're forgiven :yay:

[hippie_hunter]

Then I obviously was not paying attention.

We forgive you :csad:

[Kelly]

Well I just don't get it guys. It makes NO SENSE to me! :funny:



It's Texas damn it, we don't have to make sense.........:cmad: :oldrazz:

[Matt]

CNN reckons that the negative campaign ads from Clinton have worked and we are going to see even more of them in the coming weeks. Hard to believe, but this campaign is about to get even dirtier. :wow:

[Marx]

It's Texas damn it, we don't have to make sense.........:cmad: :oldrazz:

I guess you're right Kel! :funny:

[crd1682]

:whatever:

Hey, I'm just telling it like it is. Believe what you want.

[souvlaki]

:whatever:

To be fair, they are to a certain extant right. She really did need to win both Ohio and Texas by a decent margin tonight. Pretty much the difference between him doing well tonight and him doing bad tonight is that the race will just go on for a while. If Obama holds on to Texas it's still not even close to a walk in the park for Clinton. Even if he loses Texas by a couple percentage points she still has to win the rest by a 20-30% margin depending on who you talk to.

[Knives]

CNN reckons that the negative campaign ads from Clinton have worked and we are going to see even more of them in the coming weeks. Hard to believe, but this campaign is about to get even dirtier. :wow:

Then maybe Obama might want to take a hint and go uber negative on her. Lord knows she has enough **** in her toilet to cause it to overflow when flushed. Of course, they both run the risk of ripping the democratic party to shreds and garaunteeing a loss in November. If thats the case, then on the heads of the democrats be the presidency of John McCain.

[souvlaki]

CNN reckons that the negative campaign ads from Clinton have worked and we are going to see even more of them in the coming weeks. Hard to believe, but this campaign is about to get even dirtier. :wow:

Oh lovely. If thats the case, I'm done with paying attention to this primary for a while. I'm personally getting sick of the back and forth, he said she said crap.

[hippie_hunter]

To be fair, they are to a certain extant right. She really did need to win both Ohio and Texas by a decent margin tonight. Pretty much the difference between him doing well tonight and him doing bad tonight is that the race will just go on for a while. If Obama holds on to Texas it's still not even close to a walk in the park for Clinton. Even if he loses Texas by a couple percentage points she still has to win the rest by a 20-30% margin depending on who you talk to.

He's right that Clinton isn't going to win the pledged delegate count, but neither will Obama.

And with her recent wins, Clinton certainly isn't done.

[Marx]

Oh lovely. If thats the case, I'm done with paying attention to this primary for a while. I'm personally getting sick of the back and forth, he said she said crap.

With all due respect to CNN and the media, it is not "negative or attacking" to draw contrasts between candidates.

[crd1682]

He's right that Clinton isn't going to win the pledged delegate count, but neither will Obama.

And with her recent wins, Clinton certainly isn't done.


Oh yes she is.

Honestly. I mean, honestly, what's she gonna do? What CAN she do?

[Marx]

Case in point of the media's bias toward Barack Obama - The panelist's just said that if Hillary Clinton goes "negative" on Barack Obama, it would "be like killing Santa Clause in front of the kids on Christmas morning!"

Give me a break. It's a political campaign, this is FAR from being a negative campaign. Take off your kid gloves!

Ugh!

[Excel]

Winning the primary does not mean you win Texas, guys. If it remains within 50,000 votes or so, the cuacus will be the deciding factor.

[hippie_hunter]

Oh yes she is.

Honestly. I mean, honestly, what's she gonna do? What CAN she do?

It's called a brokered convention which if she wins Texas, Pennsylvania, maybe others and holds on her own with the other states.

Clinton holds the advantage if that happens.

[Excel]

We'll see. If does not go to whoever holds the popular vote...theres gonna be a huge iuproar, wether it be for Hillary for Barack. The difference is.....

If its not Obama, most of his voters WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

[StorminNorman]

Oh yes she is.

Honestly. I mean, honestly, what's she gonna do? What CAN she do?

:whatever:

Hillary NOW has the Momentum. She WILL win Pennsylvania - she will win it by a double digit margin.

She will force the DNC to redo primaries in Michigan and Florida and she may very well end up with more elected delegates than Obama. The Super Delegates may be pressured to support, not Obama - but Hillary.

[StorminNorman]

We'll see. If does not go to whoever holds the popular vote...theres gonna be a huge iuproar, wether it be for Hillary for Barack. The difference is.....

If its not Obama, most of his voters WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

Most of Obama's voters will vote for Hillary.

A part of Obama's voters will not vote at all.

A smaller part will vote for McCain.

More importantly - Clinton won't steal any support McCain already has, which Obama would do.

[souvlaki]

With all due respect to CNN and the media, it is not "negative or attacking" to draw contrasts between candidates.

No, it's negative attacks. I don't care which way it's being spun. I'm just getting sick of the democratic candidates, and their supporters tearing eachother down (and I'd be the first to admit I'm guilty of it to). It just doesn't help either of them. It's still Obama's to lose. I'd rather just be blissfully ignorant for a couple weeks, because if it gets dirtier than it has the last week I'm going to find myself just more and more annoyed every time I turn on the television no matter which way the negativity goes.

[Excel]

:whatever:

Hillary NOW has the Momentum. She WILL win Pennsylvania - she will win it by a double digit margin.

She will force the DNC to redo primaries in Michigan and Florida and she may very well end up with more elected delegates than Obama. The Super Delegates may be pressured to support, not Obama - but Hillary.

Hillary doesn't have **** yet. She still needs Ohio. If Obama takes Texas, her Ohio victory is virtually meaningless. Thats been the big prize all along; Ohio is big-but Texas the biggie and thats not close to over yet.

[souvlaki]

:whatever:

Hillary NOW has the Momentum. She WILL win Pennsylvania - she will win it by a double digit margin.

She will force the DNC to redo primaries in Michigan and Florida and she may very well end up with more elected delegates than Obama. The Super Delegates may be pressured to support, not Obama - but Hillary.

You are forgetting there are two primaries between now and Pennsylvania though. Obama will likely win both by large margins. Besides, this whole momentum thing is nonsense. Tonight is proof of this. The thing is, people are going to vote for whomever they perceive to be the underdog. Next week that might be Obama again.

[hippie_hunter]

Her Ohio victory isn't meaningless because it exposed that Obama was nothing but an ass when it came to NAFTA and broke his winning streak.

[crd1682]

It's called a brokered convention which if she wins Texas, Pennsylvania, maybe others and holds on her own with the other states.

Clinton holds the advantage if that happens.

Hey, if you say so man.

All I know is that statistics say that it is pretty much impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama with the numbers that I assume you believe she can win. And the American people are not gonna rally behind Clinton knowing in the back of their heads that Obama won the general vote. I sure as hell wouldn't.

[hippie_hunter]

:whatever:

Hillary NOW has the Momentum. She WILL win Pennsylvania - she will win it by a double digit margin.

She will force the DNC to redo primaries in Michigan and Florida and she may very well end up with more elected delegates than Obama. The Super Delegates may be pressured to support, not Obama - but Hillary.

I dunno, I can see her forcing them to seat the delegates instead (which she has a huge advantage with) instead of having the DNC spend millions on two redos.

[souvlaki]

Or let me rephrase that. The media is going to promote whomever is the underdog. They've done that with Clinton the last week. Now that she's built herself back up, the media will push Obama again. It's been happening throughout the whole election.

[hippie_hunter]

Hey, if you say so man.

All I know is that statistics say that it is pretty much impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama with the numbers that I assume you believe she can win. And the American people are not gonna rally behind Clinton knowing in the back of their heads that Obama won the general vote. I sure as hell wouldn't.

You do have a point that Americans are going to be pissed if Obama doesn't get the nomination because it is as you said, it is impossible for Clinton to win with pledged delegates.

But Clinton can probably get Michigan and Florida seated in the convention and she has an advantage with the Superdelegates.

[kal-el2006]

lol she loses 12..and wins 2..now she has momentum? PLUS she's still behind in delegates..so explain how is that "momentum"

[hippie_hunter]

Or let me rephrase that. The media is going to promote whomever is the underdog. They've done that with Clinton the last week. Now that she's built herself back up, the media will push Obama again. It's been happening throughout the whole election.

Now that's funny because it's true :woot:

[souvlaki]

I think people should wait and see what the delegate count is after tonight. If Obama still has a 150 delegate lead after tonight, it's far from a walk in the park for Clinton. This whole thing about a brokered convention is stupid. If Obama goes into the convention with more delegates, about the only thing Hillary is going to broker is possibly a VP position.

[hippie_hunter]

CNN is saying that Chris Dodd is winning in Brooks County, Texas :wow:

[redfirebird2008]

I think people should wait and see what the delegate count is after tonight. If Obama still has a 150 delegate lead after tonight, it's far from a walk in the park for Clinton. This whole thing about a brokered convention is stupid. If Obama goes into the convention with more delegates, about the only thing Hillary is going to broker is possibly a VP position.

Nah, she'll get all the insiders to go for her...and she can kiss my vote goodbye. Hello Nader!

[crd1682]

:whatever:

Hillary NOW has the Momentum. She WILL win Pennsylvania - she will win it by a double digit margin.

She will force the DNC to redo primaries in Michigan and Florida and she may very well end up with more elected delegates than Obama. The Super Delegates may be pressured to support, not Obama - but Hillary.


Clinton FORCING the DNC to redo primaries?? That's a pretty tall order you've come up with man. And to be honest, I don't see it happening.

Besides the argument for momentum is useless. UNLESS you're talking about Obama winning 12 primaries in a row. Then you can make an argument.

[kal-el2006]

Hilarys math problem...she could win 16 ina row and still lose

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

[The Senator]

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

[StorminNorman]

Clinton FORCING the DNC to redo primaries?? That's a pretty tall order you've come up with man. And to be honest, I don't see it happening.

Besides the argument for momentum is useless. UNLESS you're talking about Obama winning 12 primaries in a row. Then you can make an argument.

If the Democratic party simply dismisses Florida and Michigan and this race - they will lose as a party.

[The Senator]

If Clinton wins TX, plus PA and a few of the states she's been close in all along, she may very well win this nomination...

[kal-el2006]

That cant sit florida and michigan..RULES ARE RULES...u cant change the rules in the middle of the game just because your losing..thats petty as hell

[kal-el2006]

If Clinton wins TX, plus PA and a few of the states she's been close in all along, she may very well win this nomination...
how so? even if she does..she's still behind in pledged delegates..feel free to explain that

[crd1682]

Hilarys math problem...she could win 16 ina row and still lose

http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240

That's what I've been saying this whole time, but nobody believes me...

:whatever:

[The Senator]

how so? even if she does..she's still behind in pledged delegates..feel free to explain that

Um, she's only a little over a hundred delegates behind, plus she won Ohio by a significant margin. If she wins by that much in PA, and manages to win a few of the big primaries, such as North Carolina and Puerto Rico, where she's been consistently close or tied, she will at least prevent Obama from gaining a majority of the delegates... therefore ensuring a win at the convention...

[The Senator]

That cant sit florida and michigan..RULES ARE RULES...u cant change the rules in the middle of the game just because your losing..thats petty as hell

Obama would try to do the same thing if he was in Hillary's shoes :o

[crd1682]

If the Democratic party simply dismisses Florida and Michigan and this race - they will lose as a party.

Hmmmmmm.

Okay. Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain.

[kal-el2006]

Um, she's only a little over a hundred delegates behind, plus she won Ohio by a significant margin. If she wins by that much in PA, and manages to win a few of the big primaries, such as North Carolina and Puerto Rico, where she's been consistently close or tied, she will at least prevent Obama from gaining a majority of the delegates... therefore ensuring a win at the convention...

refer to that link i just posted...even if she wins..those she's still BEHIND do your own math

CNN) — In what may be bad news for Clinton, Democrats across all four states overwhelmingly say they want super delegates to vote based on which candidate finishes ahead in the pledged delegate count at the end of the primary season. Majorities of Democrats in Texas (62 percent), Ohio (61 percent), Rhode Island (57 percent) and Vermont (66 percent) all said the super delegates should cast their vote for the primary winner, not for who they think can best win in November.
Why is this bad news for Clinton? As CNN's John King has made clear on his interactive delegate map, (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html)it is nearly impossible for Clinton to catch up to Obama's pledged delegate count. She would have to win the rest of the states convincingly to do so, given that the party allots delegates proportionally. Barring large blowouts in the remaining contests, its likely Clinton will finish behind Obama in pledged delegates.

[kal-el2006]

and...tx is not over with yet...so all this is moot

[Marx]

Obama would try to do the same thing if he was in Hillary's shoes :o

Exactly. You cannot ignore voters. Something has to be done to validate Michigan and Florida.

[redfirebird2008]

59% of Ohio's voters (based on exit polls) are women? That's hilarious. She definitely got out the vote with the females in Ohio.

[Excel]

dallas has only 35% reporting; Obama leads 113,982 to 65,946 for Hillary.

Travis county: 64%....Obama leads 95,506 to 55,147

But the biggie, right here....

HARRIS COUNTY: 14% reporting, Obama leads 126,961 to 80,775.

Harris County is having vote delays. If Obama keeps it close, like with 30-40,000...he may still win.

[crd1682]

Um, she's only a little over a hundred delegates behind, plus she won Ohio by a significant margin. If she wins by that much in PA, and manages to win a few of the big primaries, such as North Carolina and Puerto Rico, where she's been consistently close or tied, she will at least prevent Obama from gaining a majority of the delegates... therefore ensuring a win at the convention...

Yeah, it's true that she won in Ohio by a significant amount. I'm arguing that it wasn't significant ENOUGH. Same thing with Texas. With numbers like these I don't see a Clinton nomination happening.

[The Senator]

refer to that link i just posted...even if she wins..those she's still BEHIND do your own math

CNN) — In what may be bad news for Clinton, Democrats across all four states overwhelmingly say they want super delegates to vote based on which candidate finishes ahead in the pledged delegate count at the end of the primary season. Majorities of Democrats in Texas (62 percent), Ohio (61 percent), Rhode Island (57 percent) and Vermont (66 percent) all said the super delegates should cast their vote for the primary winner, not for who they think can best win in November.
Why is this bad news for Clinton? As CNN's John King has made clear on his interactive delegate map, (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html)it is nearly impossible for Clinton to catch up to Obama's pledged delegate count. She would have to win the rest of the states convincingly to do so, given that the party allots delegates proportionally. Barring large blowouts in the remaining contests, its likely Clinton will finish behind Obama in pledged delegates.

Stop acting like a child and learn a thing or two about party conventions:

If Hillary Clinton is in an excellent position come June 8, meaning she has at least prevented Obama from taking the majority of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. She can roll into the convention and pull off a win; it doesn't matter by how much Obama leads by, whether popularly, by delegates, or both. This has happened before, in case you didn't know, and is part of the reason why this is so interesting.

[The Senator]

Yeah, it's true that she won in Ohio by a significant amount. I'm arguing that it wasn't significant ENOUGH. Same thing with Texas. With numbers like these I don't see a Clinton nomination happening.

16 points is a pretty big number. It prevents Obama from taking a majority of the delegates there without having a majority of the vote, and if she also wins Texas, she will have incredible influence and credibility through the remaining contests. She may lose the delegate count, but if she's in a strong enough position with the party come August, she can win at the convention and take this nomination.

[hippie_hunter]

refer to that link i just posted...even if she wins..those she's still BEHIND do your own math

CNN) — In what may be bad news for Clinton, Democrats across all four states overwhelmingly say they want super delegates to vote based on which candidate finishes ahead in the pledged delegate count at the end of the primary season. Majorities of Democrats in Texas (62 percent), Ohio (61 percent), Rhode Island (57 percent) and Vermont (66 percent) all said the super delegates should cast their vote for the primary winner, not for who they think can best win in November.
Why is this bad news for Clinton? As CNN's John King has made clear on his interactive delegate map, (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html)it is nearly impossible for Clinton to catch up to Obama's pledged delegate count. She would have to win the rest of the states convincingly to do so, given that the party allots delegates proportionally. Barring large blowouts in the remaining contests, its likely Clinton will finish behind Obama in pledged delegates.

And John King has made it clear that Obama can't win with pledged delegates either. This is going to go down to the Superdelegates, most of whom still haven't announced their preference.

If it goes down to a brokered convention, that will be Clinton's advantage.

[The Senator]

59% of Ohio's voters (based on exit polls) are women? That's hilarious. She definitely got out the vote with the females in Ohio.

Yeah... she definitely won Ohio... at least.

[Marx]

And John King has made it clear that Obama can't win with pledged delegates either. This is going to go down to the Superdelegates, most of whom still haven't announced their preference.

If it goes down to a brokered convention, that will be Clinton's advantage.

I agree completely Hippie

[hippie_hunter]

dallas has only 35% reporting; Obama leads 113,982 to 65,946 for Hillary.

Travis county: 64%....Obama leads 95,506 to 55,147

But the biggie, right here....

HARRIS COUNTY: 14% reporting, Obama leads 126,961 to 80,775.

Harris County is having vote delays. If Obama keeps it close, like with 30-40,000...he may still win.

Right now Clinton's leading by 47,000. It's going to be tough, but Obama certainly can still win this state.

[redfirebird2008]

Of course a brokered convention favors her. She better hope to God Obama accepts a VP spot because otherwise there will be a split in the party if the loser in pledged delegates gets the nomination. There WILL be riots outside the convention if that happens, EITHER way -- whether she has more or he has more and something like that happens.

[Knives]

Most of Obama's voters will vote for Hillary.

A part of Obama's voters will not vote at all.

A smaller part will vote for McCain.

More importantly - Clinton won't steal any support McCain already has, which Obama would do.

Exactly. She loses the independents along with the republicans who have jumped shi to Obama. I think she will have a FAR more difficult time beating McCain, IF she even can. I don't think she can. Her negatives are too high.

And now tomorrow we'll have the media kissing her ass once again, and blowing its mind over how she's the comeback kid and this and that and the other. Then Obama will win something and vice versa. This is going to be a long election.

[Excel]

looking at the numbers, too hold off harris county, where hell probably beat her by 100's of thousands of votes...she'll need to have a good 100k lead to hold him off.

But again-WHAT OF THE CAUCUS!

Just becase you win the primary doesnt mean you win texas, right? The cuacus is included.

[crd1682]

If Hillary Clinton is in an excellent position come June 8, meaning she has at least prevented Obama from taking the majority of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. She can roll into the convention and pull off a win; it doesn't matter by how much Obama leads by, whether popularly, by delegates, or both. This has happened before, in case you didn't know, and is part of the reason why this is so interesting.

I don't want to sound mean, but it sounds like you want the Democratic party to crumble. Going against popular vote? Especially with a support base as huge as Obama's? You must be joking. Do you honestly think that people will get behind Clinton knowing that the DNC shafted the vote of the general public?

[redfirebird2008]

Right now Clinton's leading by 47,000. It's going to be tough, but Obama certainly can still win this state.

This only accounts for 2/3 of the delegates. The other 1/3 comes from caucuses. She won Lubbock by 10% in the primary, but my precinct's caucus in Lubbock went 69-31 in favor of Obama. She might win the primary by 2-3% but lose the caucus by 10% or more, which means she loses the delegates. Plus, she could lose the delegate count based on the primary alone because the black districts will get more delegates than the Hispanic ones based on turnout for 2004 against GWB (blacks went with Kerry, whereas the Hispanic vote was split more evenly between GWB and Kerry).

[The Senator]

Of course a brokered convention favors her. She better hope to God Obama accepts a VP spot because otherwise there will be a split in the party if the loser in pledged delegates gets the nomination. There WILL be riots outside the convention if that happens, EITHER way -- whether she has more or he has more and something like that happens.

Um, that's not true either, considering MSNBC has exit polls which say at least 72% of Democratic voters will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is. The only people who will be out there rioting can't take how the process works. They'll also be the ultra-left crazies who love Obama; you wouldn't see Clinton's supporters charging the convention because she didn't win. I don't know whether that's because Clinton's voters are grown up, or if Obama's voters are childish...

[The Senator]

I don't want to sound mean, but it sounds like you want the Democratic party to crumble. Going against popular vote? Especially with a support base as huge as Obama's? You must be joking. Do you honestly think that people will get behind Clinton knowing that the DNC shafted the vote of the general public?

Um... yes, because it's happened before. And no, the party won't crumble, due to aforementioned reasons above.

What are they teaching you kids in history these days??

[redfirebird2008]

Um, that's not true either, considering MSNBC has exit polls which say at least 72% of Democratic voters will vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is. The only people who will be out there rioting can't take how the process works. They'll also be the ultra-left crazies who love Obama; you wouldn't see Clinton's supporters charging the convention because she didn't win. I don't know whether that's because Clinton's voters are grown up, or if Obama's voters are childish...

Uhhh, judging by how her people were chanting tonight and some of the nasty stuff I've encountered here in Lubbock, I'd say you're stereotyping big time and full of nonsense on this. If it was the other way around, her people would be PISSED. There is no doubt about it. The poll you cited doesn't ask the question, "If it's a brokered convention and the person with less pledged delegates gets the nomination, will you be happy?" You and the Clinton supporters need to get off your damn high horse because I'm pretty sure her people, judging by the constant barrage of nasty comments on the CNN blogs about Obama and his supporters, would be absolutely outraged if she got robbed by superdelegates. It goes both ways so get off the high horse.

[hippie_hunter]

looking at the numbers, too hold off harris county, where hell probably beat her by 100's of thousands of votes...she'll need to have a good 100k lead to hold him off.

But again-WHAT OF THE CAUCUS!

Just becase you win the primary doesnt mean you win texas, right? The cuacus is included.

Well her lead is still growing, it's now 50,000. If Clinton wins the primary, she'll most likely claim victory.

The caucus is just plain dumb. It's downright stupid to vote twice.

[Excel]

Well her lead is still growing, it's now 50,000. If Clinton wins the primary, she'll most likely claim victory.

The caucus is just plain dumb. It's downright stupid to vote twice.

Hillary, you know that doesn't matter. Just becuase its stupid doesnt mean it doesnt count. Rules are rules, anmd you dont change them in the middle of the game :rolleyes:

[The Senator]

Uhhh, judging by how her people were chanting tonight and some of the nasty stuff I've encountered here in Lubbock, I'd say you're stereotyping big time and full of nonsense on this. If it was the other way around, her people would be PISSED. There is no doubt about it. The poll you cited doesn't ask the question, "If it's a brokered convention and the person with less pledged delegates gets the nomination, will you be happy?"

I'm pretty sure most people are quite aware of how this will play out, and I'm pretty sure that the poll which says 72% of all Democratic voters will support the Democratic nominee no matter what is on top of that little fact. If they don't know the risk of a brokered convention, as well as the risk of what a Hillary win may mean, then they have been living under a damn rock, considering this is a primary and usually only active voters who constantly keep an eye on these sort of things come out to vote.

So okay... I'll concede and extra 5%... so only 67% of Democratic voters will support the Democratic nominee...

Scary :eek: :whatever:

[souvlaki]

Um... yes, because it's happened before. And no, the party won't crumble, due to aforementioned reasons above.

What are they teaching you kids in history these days??

Yeah, it happened in 1968. You bring this up time and time again, and I keep pointing out time and time again that they lost that year. I have yet to see you point out a time where this happened and it worked out to the party's advantage. It's a bad argument to make, and if your only hope is the convention, you are going to be disappointed. If it is a brokered convention and he has a lead in delegates the best Hillary can hope for is a VP slot. If you like, come convention time if we are in that position I will be more than willing to place a friendly wager on this.

[Marx]

I'm pretty sure most people are quite aware of how this will play out, and I'm pretty sure that the poll which says 72% of all Democratic voters will support the Democratic nominee no matter what is on top of that little fact. If they don't know the risk of a brokered convention, as well as the risk of what a Hillary win may mean, then they have been living under a damn rock, considering this is a primary and usually only active voters who constantly keep an eye on these sort of things come out to vote.

So okay... I'll concede and extra 5%... so only 67% of Democratic voters will support the Democratic nominee...

Scary :eek: :whatever:

I agree but the Democratic party will be united. One way or the other.

[hippie_hunter]

Hillary, you know that doesn't matter. Just becuase its stupid doesnt mean it doesnt count. Rules are rules, anmd you dont change them in the middle of the game :rolleyes:

Oh I know that it doesn't mean that it doesn't count. But winning the primary, despite losing the caucus, Clinton will probably still claim victory.

Although it is still rather dumb to vote twice no matter whom it favored.

[redfirebird2008]

Another thing, if you think Hillary's campaign is so subdued and mature, then why were they considering SUING the Texas Democratic Party for the way the election is set up? Seriously, there's bitter crap going on in both directions and like I said, get off the high horse. If it was her with a delegate lead and having the potential of getting it taken, her people would be fighting tooth and nail over it. They've been fighting tooth and nail over the most petty crap already for crying out loud. Wolfson in particular seems like a really petty person.

[The Senator]

Yeah, it happened in 1968. You bring this up time and time again, and I keep pointing out time and time again that they lost that year. I have yet to see you point out a time where this happened and it worked out to the party's advantage. It's a bad argument to make, and if your only hope is the convention, you are going to be disappointed. If it is a brokered convention and he has a lead in delegates the best Hillary can hope for is a VP slot. If you like, come convention time if we are in that position I will be more than willing to place a friendly wager on this.

A loss this year, in exchange for a horrible McCain presidency which would yield almost certain Democratic control, is a price I may be willing to pay. Especially if that future Democratic president might be Mark Warner or Russ Feingold, true Democrats who know which way this party should head, regardless of some of their ideological clashes.

[souvlaki]

A loss this year, in exchange for a horrible McCain presidency which would yield almost certain Democratic control, is a price I may be willing to pay. Especially if that future Democratic president might be Mark Warner or Russ Feingold, true Democrats who know which way this party should head, regardless of some of their ideological clashes.

A horrible McCain presidency also means at least one judicial nominee to the Supreme Court. Think this through, seriously. Is that what you really want?

[Marx]

The media is already tripping over their words and are now praising Hillary's comeback. This is just getting hilarious! :funny:

[The Senator]

Another thing, if you think Hillary's campaign is so subdued and mature, then why were they considering SUING the Texas Democratic Party for the way the election is set up? Seriously, there's bitter crap going on in both directions and like I said, get off the high horse. If it was her with a delegate lead and having the potential of getting it taken, her people would be fighting tooth and nail over it. They've been fighting tooth and nail over the most petty crap already for crying out loud. Wolfson in particular seems like a really petty person.

Oh please. If Obama won tonight, and I still made the case for Clinton, I'd still be told to get "off my high horse." Face it: She won, you don't like it, and you're in denial that she may actually win.

[souvlaki]

The media is already tripping over their words and are now praising Hillary's comeback. This is just getting hilarious! :funny:

They've been knocking Obama for the last three days. Trust me, they were working toward this, and hoping for this. All this means is higher ratings for them for another couple weeks.

[The Senator]

A horrible McCain presidency also means at least one judicial nominee to the Supreme Court. Think this through, seriously. Is that what you really want?

God, the nominee who gets put on the Supreme Court will not have a record which would overturn Roe v. Wade, so I really don't know what all the fuss is about. If you have 54 Democratic Senators, which is what the number is expected to be, you will get at least 52 of them to vote against the nominee. Maybe even a Republican or two, judging by the confirmation numbers for Roberts and Alito during a Republican-controlled legislature. Mark my words, the Democrats do not want to lose that fight, and they'll see to it that they don't.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm starting to think that she will win Texas, her lead has grown to almost 60,000 votes.

[crd1682]

Um... yes, because it's happened before. And no, the party won't crumble, due to aforementioned reasons above.

What are they teaching you kids in history these days??

They're not teaching kids ****. That's the problem. I guess you're right.

Ummmm....except for the fact that you seem to be under the delusion that every single scenario you've managed to concoct tonight (despite preceding primaries that you so willingly flock to) will never come to pass in THIS election.

Reading ain't that hard.

[The Senator]

I'm starting to think that she will win Texas, her lead has grown to almost 60,000 votes.

I don't see those numbers reversing now that they're starting to count votes from Austin, El Paso and Dallas...

[souvlaki]

Oh please. If Obama won tonight, and I still made the case for Clinton, I'd still be told to get "off my high horse." Face it: She won, you don't like it, and you're in denial that she may actually win.

I'll take that bet. She is not going to win. Not legally, at least. All this does is delay it another couple months. It really amazes me how naive some of you are being about the math.

[redfirebird2008]

Oh please. If Obama won tonight, and I still made the case for Clinton, I'd still be told to get "off my high horse." Face it: She won, you don't like it, and you're in denial that she may actually win.

It's not about you making a case for Clinton. It's about you claiming that Obama's supporters are the only ones that would be bitter over a brokered convention. Believe me, if Obama was the establishment candidate and Hillary was in his position, and he got the nomination through superdelegates, her campaign as well as her supporters would be outraged. That's what I'm telling you to get off your high horse about. Her supporters are no more calm towards this than Obama's. She was gonna friggin' sue the Texas Democrats for crying out loud. That's not subdued, that's bitterness.

If she wins, it'll be interesting to see how it goes. She will have to seriously repair some things in my book for me to vote for her, but I don't rule it out at all (which YOU have done completely regarding Obama). If she can get the pledged delegate lead, I would probably vote for her. And if she has Obama on her ticket, I would probably vote for her even if it's a superdelegate victory for her.

[The Senator]

They're not teaching kids ****. That's the problem. I guess you're right.

Ummmm....except for the fact that you seem to be under the delusion that every single scenario you've managed to concoct tonight (despite preceding primaries that you so willingly flock to) will never come to pass in THIS election.

Reading ain't that hard.

Hahahahaha! Are from teh futurez??

[souvlaki]

I don't see those numbers reversing now that they're starting to count votes from Austin, El Paso and Dallas...

John King would like to have a word with you about that right now.

[The Senator]

It's not about you making a case for Clinton. It's about you claiming that Obama's supporters are the only ones that would be bitter over a brokered convention. Believe me, if Obama was the establishment candidate and Hillary was in his position, and he got the nomination through superdelegates, her campaign as well as her supporters would be outraged. That's what I'm telling you to get off your high horse about. Her supporters are no more calm towards this than Obama's. She was gonna friggin' sue the Texas Democrats for crying out loud. That's not subdued, that's bitterness.

If she wins, it'll be interesting to see how it goes. She will have to seriously repair some things in my book for me to vote for her, but I don't rule it out at all (which YOU have done completely regarding Obama). If she can get the pledged delegate lead, I would probably vote for her. And if she has Obama on her ticket, I would probably vote for her even if it's a superdelegate victory for her.

I haven't ruled out voting for Obama. I've said it repeatedly that if he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him, though I may come to regret it.

[crd1682]

Hahahahaha! Are from teh futurez??

No, it's just that I enjoy a little something called....

THINKING.

[The Senator]

John King would like to have a word with you about that right now.

He and David Gregory can duke it out, then.

[redfirebird2008]

He and David Gregory can duke it out, then.

Gregory would own him; he's 6-5 or 6-6. :woot:

[hippie_hunter]

Who's David Gregory?

[The Senator]

No, it's just that I enjoy a little something called....

THINKING.

Yeah, there's something I enjoy doing too:

It's called working for the Democratic Party and two members of Congress, while studying political science and kicking ass at it.

So I do my fair share of thinking as well... and I actually put it into the system.

[Marx]

I'm starting to think that she will win Texas, her lead has grown to almost 60,000 votes.

I'm still concerned about Texas. I think it could go either way. Houston is still only reporting about 20 percent.

[souvlaki]

He and David Gregory can duke it out, then.

Well, he just kind of contradicted everything you said. If Obama holds up the lead he has in those big counties, he will overtake her pretty easily. So says John King at least. Hillary is running out of rural areas, and most the big cities have yet to be even above the 50% mark.

[kal-el2006]

He can still win tx its not over by any means

[redfirebird2008]

Who's David Gregory?

NBC reporter, constantly gives the Bush administration hell.

[The Senator]

He can still win tx its not over by any means

But what if he loses TX like it looks like he will do?

[Marx]

I'll take that bet. She is not going to win. Not legally, at least. All this does is delay it another couple months. It really amazes me how naive some of you are being about the math.

If it goes to the convention Souv, no matter who is leading in delegates...popular vote...it favors Hillary Clinton. Regardless.

[redfirebird2008]

Well, he just kind of contradicted everything you said. If Obama holds up the lead he has in those big counties, he will overtake her pretty easily. So says John King at least. Hillary is running out of rural areas, and most the big cities have yet to be even above the 50% mark.

She's got big leads in other counties though that balance it out. It will be very close. My guess is she might narrowly win the popular vote. He'll probably win the caucus by at least 5% and the delegate count will mostly be a wash. However, she will gain more delegates over the 4 states tonight because of her double digit Ohio win.

[crd1682]

Yeah, there's something I enjoy doing too:

It's called working for the Democratic Party and two members of Congress, while studying political science and kicking ass at it.

So I do my fair share of thinking as well... and I actually put it into the system.

Okay man. That's cool. I'm going to bed.

But Hillary Clinton loses the nomination. You heard it here first. Well, actually many other people have stated this before me but whatever.

[The Senator]

Okay man. That's cool. I'm going to bed.

But Hillary Clinton loses the nomination. You heard it here first. Well, actually many other people have stated this before me but whatever.

Nah, Hillary wins. You heard it here first. Well, actually, many other people have said it will come down to the convention before me but whatever.

[hippie_hunter]

If it goes to the convention Souv, no matter who is leading in delegates...popular vote...it favors Hillary Clinton. Regardless.

If the delegate count is slim like it is now (thanks to her more recent wins, the margin is less than 100), it will favor Hillary.

A much bigger margin, it would favor Obama IMO.

[Marx]

If the delegate count is slim like it is now (thanks to her more recent wins, the margin is less than 100), it will favor Hillary.

A much bigger margin, it would favor Obama IMO.

If it gets to be an extremely larger difference, it would be more difficult for Hillary to gain the nomination. I agree.

[souvlaki]

If it goes to the convention Souv, no matter who is leading in delegates...popular vote...it favors Hillary Clinton. Regardless.

But it really doesn't. I keep hearing this argument over and over, but I have yet to hear anything better than "because the superdelegates like the Clintons". Say that to the 50 super delegates going public for Obama in the next week. Yes, they can vote against the winner in delegates. Will they? No. The DNC do not have the balls to follow through with that. The only way I can see that happening is if she wins all the remaining states, trails Obama by only a few delegates once the convention comes around, and she makes a strong case for seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida. What people fail to notice though is other than Pennsylvania, and maybe Costa Rica, the remaining contests favor Obama.

[StorminNorman]

But it really doesn't. I keep hearing this argument over and over, but I have yet to hear anything better than "because the superdelegates like the Clintons". Say that to the 50 super delegates going public for Obama in the next week. Yes, they can vote against the winner in delegates. Will they? No. The DNC do not have the balls to follow through with that. The only way I can see that happening is if she wins all the remaining states, trails Obama by only a few delegates once the convention comes around, and she makes a strong case for seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida. What people fail to notice though is other than Pennsylvania, and maybe Costa Rica, the remaining contests favor Obama.

You ignore Michigan and Florida.

[The Senator]

But it really doesn't. I keep hearing this argument over and over, but I have yet to hear anything better than "because the superdelegates like the Clintons". Say that to the 50 super delegates going public for Obama in the next week. Yes, they can vote against the winner in delegates. Will they? No. The DNC do not have the balls to follow through with that. The only way I can see that happening is if she wins all the remaining states, trails Obama by only a few delegates once the convention comes around, and she makes a strong case for seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida. What people fail to notice though is other than Pennsylvania, and maybe Costa Rica, the remaining contests favor Obama.

When did Costa Rica become a U.S. territory? :huh:

[redfirebird2008]

Michigan and Florida need to be re-done as primaries with actual campaigns in the states.

[The Senator]

double post

[hippie_hunter]

But it really doesn't. I keep hearing this argument over and over, but I have yet to hear anything better than "because the superdelegates like the Clintons". Say that to the 50 super delegates going public for Obama in the next week. Yes, they can vote against the winner in delegates. Will they? No. The DNC do not have the balls to follow through with that. The only way I can see that happening is if she wins all the remaining states, trails Obama by only a few delegates once the convention comes around, and she makes a strong case for seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida. What people fail to notice though is other than Pennsylvania, and maybe Costa Rica, the remaining contests favor Obama.

Let's see if Clinton gets some resurgent momentum and how it will affect races in states like North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, and Indiana

[The Senator]

Michigan and Florida need to be re-done as primaries with actual campaigns in the states.

Florida doesn't need to be redone. Florida had the highest turnout ever for a Democratic primary, despite the fact that neither candidate really campaigned in the state. Michigan should be discarded completely because only Hillary, Dodd and Kucinich were on the ballot, if I am correct.

[souvlaki]

When did Costa Rica become a U.S. territory? :huh:

Durr... Puerto Rico. Sorry. Had a temporary brain fart.

[Marx]

Florida doesn't need to be redone. Florida had the highest turnout ever for a Democratic primary, despite the fact that neither candidate really campaigned in the state. Michigan should be discarded completely because only Hillary, Dodd and Kucinich were on the ballot, if I am correct.

Something needs to be done to rectify this situation with Florida and Michigan. I honestly believe that something will be done. (Whether some people like it or not, the Democratic Party will not ignore these voters.)

[redfirebird2008]

Florida doesn't need to be redone. Florida had the highest turnout ever for a Democratic primary, despite the fact that neither candidate really campaigned in the state. Michigan should be discarded completely because only Hillary, Dodd and Kucinich were on the ballot, if I am correct.

So you think it's fair that the name Clinton was able to carry the Florida election without even being campaigned against? The name itself is iconic in the party. That's not a fair fight. We might as well not have a campaign if that's the logic. Just tell people to vote based on name brand and recognizability. There's a good chance she would win by the same amount. There is no harm in doing it again, yet her supporters are somehow afraid of this? Why? It's the only fair way to do it, otherwise it's heavily slanted towards Clinton. It would be the equivalent of having an election in Texas 2 weeks ago with no campaigning. She would have won by 20 based on her name alone.

[souvlaki]

Let's see if Clinton gets some resurgent momentum and how it will affect races in states like North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, and Indiana

There is no such thing as momentum. Today is proof of that. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the uninformed voter in this race is simply voting for whomever they perceive to be the underdog. People also change their vote over something as trivial as what a president will do when they pick up the phone at 3 am. Really, it's all dependent upon who has more negative stories in the news cycle, and who is behind. Americans love the underdog. Obama got to cocky in the last week, that's probably why he did bad tonight.

[Excel]

I still cant see Hillarygetting the nomination. Its highly unlikely Obama will drop out prior to the convention so assuming she doesnt either, I think Obama will win the nomination for 2 reasons.

1. better shot against john mccain
2. no ceiling, appeals to more voters

dont think for a second people are forgetting that he was down in polls in texas by doubvle didgets just over 2 weeks ago.

[StorminNorman]

I still cant see Hillarygetting the nomination. Its highly unlikely Obama will drop out prior to the convention so assuming she doesnt either, I think Obama will win the nomination for 2 reasons.

1. better shot against john mccain
2. no ceiling, appeals to more voters

dont think for a second people are forgetting that he was down in polls in texas by doubvle didgets just over 2 weeks ago.

If Hillary wins in delegates, popular vote and doesn't the nomination - the DNC is screwed.

[hippie_hunter]

I still cant see Hillarygetting the nomination. Its highly unlikely Obama will drop out prior to the convention so assuming she doesnt either, I think Obama will win the nomination for 2 reasons.

1. better shot against john mccain
2. no ceiling, appeals to more voters

dont think for a second people are forgetting that he was down in polls in texas by doubvle didgets just over 2 weeks ago.

I don't see either candidate dropping out until after the convention now. It's far too close for either of them.

Even with Clinton winning Ohio, Rhode Island, and likely Texas tonight, I still can't see who will win the nomination.

[Excel]

If Hillary wins in delegates, popular vote and doesn't the nomination - the DNC is screwed.

Of course, at that point Id say she deserves it. That said, I doubt shell have either of those. And thats the point. It works both ways,

If Obama wins in delegates and popular vote and DOESNT get the nomination, the DNC is screwed. And clearly, Obamas the favorite to win in those categories. His leads he has right now, while not large, will be very hard to top given how close the race is.

[redfirebird2008]

If Hillary wins in delegates, popular vote and doesn't the nomination - the DNC is screwed.

I completely agree. And guess what, it goes the other way too.

[souvlaki]

If Hillary wins in delegates, popular vote and doesn't the nomination - the DNC is screwed.

Yet they wouldn't be if Obama does the same? It really is down to simple math though. Can we all at least agree that Clinton has to win all the remaining contests by a decent margin just to regain the delegate lead? We both agree to disagree about the convention, but I think the majority of you are stretching logic to say either of them can go into the convention with a delegate lead, and a lead in the popular vote yet still be at a disadvantage. Clinton still has a chance if that happens, but if that is what Clinton supporters are hoping for, if they are putting all their eggs in that basket... well, it's a bad argument. If you all want to argue that gives her a chance, fine. But don't try and make that out to be an advantage for Clinton.

[hippie_hunter]

Clinton: 51%
Obama: 48%

71% of the vote in

Clinton's 50,000 - 60,000 vote margin lead is still consistent, even as the vote from Houston, Austin, and Dallas come in.

[Cory]

what exactly is the caucus thing in texas... i understand primarys...but whats the diff between the two?

[Excel]

Houston is at 50% and Dallas 70%. Travis county is 60%.

I thinking Missouri 2.0; look for Obama to pull it out at the very end.

[hippie_hunter]

Houston is at 50% and Dallas 70%. Travis county is 60%.

I thinking Missouri 2.0; look for Obama to pull it out at the very end.

While Clinton's lead has grown to almost 65,000. It's becoming less likely for Obama to pull it if her lead keeps on growing.

[Knives]

Hillary wins Texas

[hippie_hunter]

Her lead has grown to 70,000 votes.

[hippie_hunter]

CNN has projected Clinton winning the Texas Primary.

[Cory]

ah damn

[Marx]

CNN proclaims that Hillary has won the Primary in Texas

[Excel]

shes only going to win ohio by bout 10-11%

if the caucus goes as planned, obama will have added tohis delegate lead by the end of the night, possilby significantly.

[Gamma Ray]

Go Hilldog!!!!

[StorminNorman]

I predicted a 4 point win for Hillary.

Right now she is at 3%.

[BatMatt]

CNN just called it for Hillary, however Obama is up early in the Texas Caucus race

[redfirebird2008]

Hillary wins the Texas primary. Obama is currently ahead in the caucus by 13% with 5% reporting.

Let's see, if she wins the primary by say 4% and he wins the caucus by 10% (these are both favorable to her at the moment), the delegate split would be:

Clinton: 95.67 - 65.52 primary, 30.15 caucus
Obama: 97.33 - 60.48 primary, 36.85 caucus

This assumes that each district gets an equal representation, even though the rules state that black districts will get more delegates in the primary than Hispanic districts because Hispanics favored Bush too much in the '04 election. It's very interesting, but it's looking like Obama could end up with more Texas delegates.

[Marx]

Hillary wins the Texas primary. Obama is currently ahead in the caucus by 13% with 5% reporting.

Let's see, if she wins the primary by say 4% and he wins the caucus by 10% (these are both favorable to her at the moment), the delegate split would be:

Clinton: 95.67 - 65.52 primary, 30.15 caucus
Obama: 97.33 - 60.48 primary, 36.85 caucus

This assumes that each district gets an equal representation, even though the rules state that black districts will get more delegates in the primary than Hispanic districts because Hispanics favored Bush too much in the '04 election. It's very interesting, but it's looking like Obama could end up with more Texas delegates.

That would also mean though that the overall delegate count narrows with her double-digit win in Ohio.

[hippie_hunter]

I predicted a 4 point win for Hillary.

Right now she is at 3%.

Right now she's at 4%

[Excel]

travis is stil at 50%, her leads growing as el paso comes in. He does very well in huge citiies which report LAST. Look at his late gains in Ohio.

[hippie_hunter]

travis is stil at 50%, her leads growing as el paso comes in. He does very well in huge citiies which report LAST. Look at his late gains in Ohio.

It really doesn't matter. Obama isn't going to win neither Texas or Ohio.

Today was a good day for Clinton and a rather bad one for Obama.

[redfirebird2008]

That would also mean though that the overall delegate count narrows with her double-digit win in Ohio.

Yes. I said this earlier that if Texas is close, then her double digit win in Ohio will mean a delegate gain for her. However, he could have a delegate lead in the PRIMARY even before the caucus is counted due to the way the delegates are divvied up to the districts.

[Marx]

It really doesn't matter. Obama isn't going to win neither Texas or Ohio.

Today was a good day for Clinton and a rather bad one for Obama.

I would say that's a fair statement.

[Matt]

Huge night for Clinton. At the very least she has broken up Obama's momentum and kept herself in the race, regardless of the caucus results (most eyes will be on the primary anyway). She is now in an excellent position to win PA and ensure a brokered convention, which means the question will be "who can offer the most to the party insiders who will serve as the super delegates deciding this thing?" I gotta say, that is Hillary Clinton. She has the connections and insider pull to give them what Obama can't. Should be fun to watch, at any rate.

[Matt]

It really doesn't matter. Obama isn't going to win neither Texas or Ohio.

Today was a good day for Clinton and a rather bad one for Obama.

The best part about this, for Clinton, anyhow, is that she seems to have found a strategy that works. Dropping the pretense of playing nice and just going for the jugular with attack ads. This election is going to get really dirty in PA, me thinks.

[hippie_hunter]

Even as the race is projected, Clinton's lead continues to grow to over 80,000.

[Marx]

Huge night for Clinton. At the very least she has broken up Obama's momentum and kept herself in the race, regardless of the caucus results (most eyes will be on the primary anyway). She is now in an excellent position to win PA and ensure a brokered convention, which means the question will be "who can offer the most to the party insiders who will serve as the super delegates deciding this thing?" I gotta say, that is Hillary Clinton. She has the connections and insider pull to give them what Obama can't. Should be fun to watch, at any rate.

Definately!

[redfirebird2008]

The best part about this, for Clinton, anyhow, is that she seems to have found a strategy that works. Dropping the pretense of playing nice and just going for the jugular with attack ads. This election is going to get really dirty in PA, me thinks.

Yep. Obama needs to start fighting back and stop pretending that he doesn't need to. If you get hit with negative crap, you gotta fight back. That's how politics work. Perhaps tonight was a lesson for him.

[Excel]

What are yall smoking?

She needed these 2 wins to JUSTIFY having a campaign. OK, she wins. She gets to stay in. But guess what? Obama leads where it counts. Delegates, states, and votes.

Tnoight means Hillary can live to fight another day. And thats honestly, from a non biased opinion, it. The thing is, she won cause she went negative. It will be very interesting to see what happens if he goes negative in return.

If it goes to August and Obama leads in delegates, states, and votes, hell get the nomination. If he doesn't, Howard Dean and co. know that they are virtually guarenteed a November loss. They wont let that happen. Matt, in order to fulfill promises of positions in the White House you have to get to the White House first.

[souvlaki]

So, in the end she may net a few delegates, and picks up the supposed "momentum" which changes about once a week. It's disappointing for me, but I got a bit cocky the last week so it serves me right. And so will the Clinton supporters the next few weeks. At any rate, I'm done with the horse races for a while. This is going to go on for a few more months, things are going to end up exactly where they are now, nothing significant will change. This election is the political equivalent of Groundhog's Day.

[hippie_hunter]

Yep. Obama needs to start fighting back and stop pretending that he doesn't need to. If you get hit with negative crap, you gotta fight back. That's how politics work. Perhaps tonight was a lesson for him.

While that was a reason why he lost tonight, I think the main reason he lost was because he got cocky and expected the media to continue kissing his ass.

His speech tonight showed that he expected something different IMO.

[Marx]

Yep. Obama needs to start fighting back and stop pretending that he doesn't need to. If you get hit with negative crap, you gotta fight back. That's how politics work. Perhaps tonight was a lesson for him.

Obama has seemed to be a little too confident, if you want my honest opinion. The same arrogance that Clinton showed in the beginning knocked her off her pedestal. I would dare say the same thing has now happened to Obama.

[redfirebird2008]

While that was a reason why he lost tonight, I think the main reason he lost was because he got cocky and expected the media to continue kissing his ass.

His speech tonight showed that he expected something different IMO.

He got cocky and chose not to run negative ads against Clinton? Right. :whatever: No, he just doesn't want to side with John McCain and tear the party apart like Hillary. She'll do anything to win. He needs to start using the same mentality. Start going negative right back at her. That little cheap shot where she sided with McCain was a low blow.

[Excel]

Obama did not get arrogant. You cannot call "not running negative ads" cocky. It might be confidence, but arrogant it aint and for Obama in particular, it defiently isn't. In fact he may be doing something very smart actually. Should the campaign go to the convention, one of the biggest things will obviously be: whose better prepared to defeat McCain?

Obama's spent the past 2 weeks setting himself up for John McCain. Looking back,. it defiently woulda been wiser to spend more attention on Hillary Clinton. However, he still leads, and can simply start doing that, and get back to winning in Mississippi and Wyoming.

[redfirebird2008]

I want to see which way the Republicans in Texas and Ohio went for the Democratic primary. It'd be hilarious if they went for Clinton in a big way after Limbaugh has been calling for them to do just that.

[Marx]

While that was a reason why he lost tonight, I think the main reason he lost was because he got cocky and expected the media to continue kissing his ass.

His speech tonight showed that he expected something different IMO.

I agree Hippie. I think we posted that at the same time. Obama became arrogant, much the same way that Clinton did in the beginning. It has ended up hurting the both of them.

[redfirebird2008]

I agree Hippie. I think we posted that at the same time. Obama became arrogant, much the same way that Clinton did in the beginning. It has ended up hurting the both of them.

Difference is, Obama wasn't throwing everything including the kitchen sink at her in order to beat her earlier in the campaign. He simply out-campaigned her in grassroots organization. Perhaps he will get a wake-up call and realize that he should dig his heels in and fight back. I'd like to see him bring up the $20 million Dubai deal her husband recently had and the issue of her tax returns. She's still getting a free pass on this issue...and I can guarantee you the Republicans will HAMMER her on the Dubai thing if she is the nominee.

[hippie_hunter]

He got cocky and chose not to run negative ads against Clinton? Right. :whatever: No, he just doesn't want to side with John McCain and tear the party apart like Hillary. She'll do anything to win. He needs to start using the same mentality. Start going negative right back at her. That little cheap shot where she sided with McCain was a low blow.

Oh I agree that Clinton will say anything and do low blows like you say.

But he got cocky expecting that negative attacks would not work like in the past and expecting the media to continue kissing his ass.

Also NAFTAGate really hurt him and showed that he was a liar when it came to NAFTA.

[Matt]

He got cocky and chose not to run negative ads against Clinton? Right. :whatever: No, he just doesn't want to side with John McCain and tear the party apart like Hillary. She'll do anything to win. He needs to start using the same mentality. Start going negative right back at her. That little cheap shot where she sided with McCain was a low blow.

If he strikes back with negative ads he will run the risk of turning off the independents who vote for him because he is seen as "fresh" and above politics-as-usual. The reason he was even close tonight in Texas, according to exit polls is because he won the independent vote by a huge margain.If he loses independent voters, even if he does pull off a win against Hillary, he will get killed by McCain (who the independents will flock to, because 8 years ago, he was their original Obama). He is in a very difficult position right now. He can either stay on the high ground, which isn't working or shoot out negative ads of his own which could bite him in the ass.

[Matt]

Obama did not get arrogant. You cannot call "not running negative ads" cocky. It might be confidence, but arrogant it aint and for Obama in particular, it defiently isn't. In fact he may be doing something very smart actually. Should the campaign go to the convention, one of the biggest things will obviously be: whose better prepared to defeat McCain?

Obama's spent the past 2 weeks setting himself up for John McCain. Looking back,. it defiently woulda been wiser to spend more attention on Hillary Clinton. However, he still leads, and can simply start doing that, and get back to winning in Mississippi and Wyoming.

So assuming you are the winner and setting yourself up for November is not cocky? Also, simply ignoring negative ads against him IS cocky. It is the assumption that he is bullet-proof and the negative ads wouldn't work which is seen as cocky. Not the fact that he did not make his own.

[Marx]

If he strikes back with negative ads he will run the risk of turning off the independents who vote for him because he is seen as "fresh" and above politics-as-usual. The reason he was even close tonight in Texas, according to exit polls is because he won the independent vote by a huge margain.If he loses independent voters, even if he does pull off a win against Hillary, he will get killed by McCain (who the independents will flock to, because 8 years ago, he was their original Obama). He is in a very difficult position right now. He can either stay on the high ground, which isn't working or shoot out negative ads of his own which could bite him in the ass.

What a difficult position to be in. That's going to be a tough one to figure out a balance on. If there could truly even be a balance.

[souvlaki]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/sect/politics/huckabee.jpg

Looks like one of the graphic designers on the CNN staff has a sense of humor. Love the color choice for the background.

[Matt]

What are yall smoking?

She needed these 2 wins to JUSTIFY having a campaign. OK, she wins. She gets to stay in. But guess what? Obama leads where it counts. Delegates, states, and votes.

Tnoight means Hillary can live to fight another day. And thats honestly, from a non biased opinion, it. The thing is, she won cause she went negative. It will be very interesting to see what happens if he goes negative in return.

If it goes to August and Obama leads in delegates, states, and votes, hell get the nomination. If he doesn't, Howard Dean and co. know that they are virtually guarenteed a November loss. They wont let that happen. Matt, in order to fulfill promises of positions in the White House you have to get to the White House first.

Oh Excel, I love how little you know about politics. How can Howard Dean stop Hillary? He can't force her to drop out. She isn't going to take a number 2 spot. Tonight has pretty much guaranteed a brokered convention unless Obama steps aside to the number 2 position or pulls off a miracle in PA.

[redfirebird2008]

Ah, I see. So negativity works for Clinton but backfires on Obama. That's funny. You are probably right too. She will not have any 75-25 Hispanic vote in some of these other states. I'm shocked at how the Hispanic vote went. I really do wonder if it's a case of the strife between blacks and Hispanics. And don't try to say that there aren't problems between those communities. One of Hillary's own surrogates in Texas said it recently that Hispanics in Texas didn't want to vote for Obama because they don't trust blacks.

[hippie_hunter]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/sect/politics/huckabee.jpg

Looks like one of the graphic designers on the CNN staff has a sense of humor. Love the color choice for the background.

:lmao:

[Matt]

Ah, I see. So negativity works for Clinton but backfires on Obama. That's funny. You are probably right too. She will not have any 75-25 Hispanic vote in some of these other states. I'm shocked at how the Hispanic vote went. I really do wonder if it's a case of the strife between blacks and Hispanics. And don't try to say that there aren't problems between those communities. One of Hillary's own surrogates in Texas said it recently that Hispanics in Texas didn't want to vote for Obama because they don't trust blacks.

Clinton dominated in the Hispanic vote in every state tonight. But the only states where there are enough Hispanic voters to matter (as in can make or break an election) are California, New Mexico, Texas, etc. The southern border states (and Florida).

And yes, negativity does work for Clinton because she never put herself on a pedestal of being above negative attack ads. Obama put himself up there and in doing so has created a hell of a catch 22 for himself.

[Excel]

Oh Excel, I love how little you know about politics. How can Howard Dean stop Hillary? He can't force her to drop out. She isn't going to take a number 2 spot. Tonight has pretty much guaranteed a brokered convention unless Obama steps aside to the number 2 position or pulls off a miracle in PA.

if you think the super delegates will ignore the urging of the party leader to vote for who their districts voted for, you know about as much about politics as i do.

[Marx]

Oh Excel, I love how little you know about politics. How can Howard Dean stop Hillary? He can't force her to drop out. She isn't going to take a number 2 spot. Tonight has pretty much guaranteed a brokered convention unless Obama steps aside to the number 2 position or pulls off a miracle in PA.

Howard Dean will not stop Hillary Clinton. I honesty think tonight set up a Clinton/Obama ticket. (If indeed it does go to the convention, which seems inevitable at this point.)

[hippie_hunter]

There's no way a Clinton/Obama ticket will happen. They downright can't stand each other.

[Marx]

There's no way a Clinton/Obama ticket will happen. They downright can't stand each other.

I don't think Hillary Clinton can successfully run without him. If it unites the party, that will be the ticket.

[redfirebird2008]

John McCain and the Republicans are loving this, no doubt. Talk about getting out the popcorn and kicking back. It's gotta be a barrel of laughs for them. This is gonna be a mess all the way to the convention. LOL.

[Matt]

if you think the super delegates will ignore the urging of the party leader to vote for who their districts voted for, you know about as much about politics as i do.

Of course they will. How much power do you think the head of the DNC has? Absolutely zero. Dean is a figure head and fund-raiser. That is about it. Officially he is not even allowed to take a stance on who should win the primary. Super delegates are not going to listen to him as both Clinton and Obama (Senators) can offer them far more than Dean can. They are going to listen to whoever can give them the most.

[Matt]

John McCain and the Republicans are loving this, no doubt. Talk about getting out the popcorn and kicking back. It's gotta be a barrel of laughs for them. This is gonna be a mess all the way to the convention. LOL.

Hmm, I wonder. On one hand, it is free publicity. Maybe not good publicity, but publicity none the less and now that McCain can start VP hunting, all stories about him and his VP choice will be pushed to the side. There will be very little speculation or coverage in the media as their time and effort will be devoted to what will no doubt be an increasingly ugly Democratic primary.

[redfirebird2008]

$ Cha ching!

[Matt]

There's no way a Clinton/Obama ticket will happen. They downright can't stand each other.

They may not have a choice. I wonder if Obama would step aside and take the VP chair if that is the only deal that could be worked out as opposed to taking it to the convention?

[souvlaki]

Howard Dean will not stop Hillary Clinton. I honesty think tonight set up a Clinton/Obama ticket. (If indeed it does go to the convention, which seems inevitable at this point.)

The party leader I think has a little more influence than a two term senator. I dont care who she sleeps next to at night.

[Matt]

$ Cha ching!

Are you implying Dean can hold money over their heads? Please. Whichever takes the nomination will have the full financial backing of the DNC as will any future senate races either candidates have as the DNC does not wish to lose Senate seats. Dean holds no cards over the candidates or the super delegates at all.

[redfirebird2008]

They may not have a choice. I wonder if Obama would step aside and take the VP chair if that is the only deal that could be worked out as opposed to taking it to the convention?

Would Hillary? Of course not. LOL!

[Matt]

The party leader I think has a little more influence than a two term senator. I dont care who she sleeps next to at night.

Not really. If Clinton does not want to drop out Dean cannot force her to and under party rules he cannot endorse a candidate until they win the nomination.

[Matt]

Would Hillary? Of course not. LOL!

We've already established that Clinton will not, which is why I am asking about Obama.

[redfirebird2008]

Are you implying Dean can hold money over their heads? Please. Whichever takes the nomination will have the full financial backing of the DNC as will any future senate races either candidates have as the DNC does not wish to lose Senate seats. Dean holds no cards over the candidates or the super delegates at all.

No, I'm implying that Obama and Clinton can hold money over their heads. In fact, plenty of bribing of super delegates has already gone on from both candidates. Obama had given around $900,000 and Hillary had given around $300,000 in the most recent tally that I've seen.

[Matt]

The party leader I think has a little more influence than a two term senator. I dont care who she sleeps next to at night.

Also souvlaki, I gotta say, I expected you to be a lot smarter. I mean really, how stupid can you be to make such an absurd comment. You must be a real idiot.

Everyone knows Bill doesn't sleep in the same bed as Hillary :cwink: :woot:

[Marx]

The party leader I think has a little more influence than a two term senator. I dont care who she sleeps next to at night.

Do you realize how much pull The Clintons have Souv? I gurantee you that it is a little bit more than Howard Dean could ever hope to have.

[redfirebird2008]

We've already established that Clinton will not, which is why I am asking about Obama.

I say if he has the popular vote lead and pledged delegate lead, then he should stand his ground. If she takes it at the convention with superdelegates, then so be it. There's no reason he should give up before then though. None whatsoever, unless he is behind in pledged delegates and/or the popular vote.

[Matt]

No, I'm implying that Obama and Clinton can hold money over their heads. In fact, plenty of bribing of super delegates has already gone on from both candidates. Obama had given around $900,000 and Hillary had given around $300,000 in the most recent tally that I've seen.

Oh, well, yeah. That is definitely going to happen. Democracy loses. Fatality. :csad:

[souvlaki]

Would Hillary? Of course not. LOL!

Personally, I think that's what she may be going for at this point. She knows she probably cant go into the convention with a delegate lead, and she knows that will make her argument a lot more difficult. She also knows if she loses this her political career is over. What could save her political career at this point? A VP position with a possible run in eight years. There is your answer right there. Obama/Clinton ftw.

[Matt]

I say if he has the popular vote lead and pledged delegate lead, then he should stand his ground.

Maybe he should, but what is better a 50/50 chance of winning a shot at the big chair or a guaranteed shot at the vice-presidency? I guess no one can really answer that as it would be different for each person.

[hippie_hunter]

The party leader I think has a little more influence than a two term senator. I dont care who she sleeps next to at night.

The two term Senator who's one of the party's head figures, is the former First Lady and wife to a former President holds way more influence to a party "leader" who is just a mere figure head.

[Marx]

Personally, I think that's what she may be going for at this point. She knows she probably cant go into the convention with a delegate lead, and she knows that will make her argument a lot more difficult. She also knows if she loses this her political career is over. What could save her political career at this point? A VP position with a possible run in eight years. There is your answer right there. Obama/Clinton ftw.

Obama has a lot more to gain by taking VP this time than Hillary would, and running on his own accord in 8 years.

[Matt]

Personally, I think that's what she may be going for at this point. She knows she probably cant go into the convention with a delegate lead, and she knows that will make her argument a lot more difficult. She also knows if she loses this her political career is over. What could save her political career at this point? A VP position with a possible run in eight years. There is your answer right there. Obama/Clinton ftw.

If Hillary wanted the VP spot she could've easily brokered it by now instead of dragging this out in such a dirty manner. She is in this for the win or nothing.

Not to mention, she is no spring chicken. She will be as old as McCain by the time Obama's 8 years are up. A VP spot would likely put her out to pasture.

[redfirebird2008]

Maybe he should, but what is better a 50/50 chance of winning a shot at the big chair or a guaranteed shot at the vice-presidency? I guess no one can really answer that as it would be different for each person.

Who says he wants to work under her? She's attacked his integrity, which is the lowest of low blows as far as I'm concerned. If I was him and I got accused of plagiarism or told "Shame on you" when she's doing the same crap, I wouldn't want to work for her. But that's just me.

[Marx]

Who says he wants to work under her? She's attacked his integrity, which is the lowest of low blows as far as I'm concerned. If I was him and I got accused of plagiarism or told "Shame on you" when she's doing the same crap, I wouldn't want to work for her. But that's just me.

It would benefit him in the end and he knows it. All's fair in politics. Everyone wants to win.

[redfirebird2008]

It would benefit him in the end and he knows it. All's fair in politics. Everyone wants to win.

Speaking of that "shame on you" thing. If she's shouting at him like that on the campaign trail, what would happen working under her as one of her employees? Uh, that could get ugly. The plagiarism thing to me would be very tough to swallow. I take that kind of thing very seriously, but maybe that's just me and maybe I'm biased because I'm still a student.

[StorminNorman]

Hillary will win this nomination.

Obama will win Wyoming and North Carolina - but Hillary will win in Pennsylvania in Ohioan type numbers. Maybe more. Hillary and Bill did more for Pennsylvania than possibly any other person right now - and the Pennsylvania Governor does a fantastic job selling it (and them).

Pennsylvania is also made up of the Steel workers in Pittsberg and other sorts of Blue Collar jobs which Hillary reclaimed and shouted proudly she owned.

Again - assuming we get Florida and Michigan: Part Deux - you have the possibility of Obama going 0-5 in the last five IMPORTANT primaries, holding a vote count higher in popular vote AND a slight lead if not a minuscule trail.

That is all very likely to happen.

[Marx]

Speaking of that "shame on you" thing. If she's shouting at him like that on the campaign trail, what would happen working under her as one of her employees? Uh, that could get ugly. The plagiarism thing to me would be very tough to swallow. I take that kind of thing very seriously, but maybe that's just me and maybe I'm biased because I'm still a student.

You're absolutely right Firebird. But the bigger point is that it would be extremely beneficial for Obama to take a VP slot this time as opposed to Hillary Clinton. She has no need to be VP. It does not benefit her at all. After 8 years as VP to a Clinton Administration, Obama can run again. (And more than likely, win easily.)

[redfirebird2008]

You're absolutely right Firebird. But the bigger point is that it would be extremely beneficial for Obama to take a VP slot this time as opposed to Hillary Clinton. She has no need to be VP. It does not benefit her at all. After 8 years as VP to a Clinton Administration, Obama can run again. (And more than likely, win easily.)

Al Gore ran after being VP for 8 years with a Clinton and it cost him the election. Hillary would not have the scandals that Bill did, well not the sexual ones (she has skeletons in her fundraising closet, no doubt), but if another Clinton administration is seen as red meat for the right wing...Obama would lose for sure. And hell, he could be her VP candidate and she still might lose.

[Marx]

Al Gore ran after being VP for 8 years with a Clinton and it cost him the election. Hillary would not have the scandals that Bill did, well not the sexual ones (she has skeletons in her fundraising closet, no doubt), but if another Clinton administration is seen as red meat for the right wing...Obama would lose for sure. And hell, he could be her VP candidate and she still might lose.

Al Gore didn't lose. I still maintain that, I always will. In my opinion, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable. Think of all the record breaking numbers that they are bringing in. Not to mention the fundraising totals of Clinton and Obama, compared to all of the Republicans combined.

[Matt]

You're absolutely right Firebird. But the bigger point is that it would be extremely beneficial for Obama to take a VP slot this time as opposed to Hillary Clinton. She has no need to be VP. It does not benefit her at all. After 8 years as VP to a Clinton Administration, Obama can run again. (And more than likely, win easily.)

Its a gamble. He is pretty much guaranteed another 8 years in the Senate, but risks cooling off. There are a lot of variables with the VP spot. Clinton is a lousy president, has a Nixon-esque scandal, doesn't even get 4 years, etc. And if any of those come to pass, Obama is tied to that. On the other hand it will keep him in the national spotlight for at least 8 years guaranteeing him at the very least name recognition in 2016. It is a gamble and a call that only he can make. I'm not sure I would take it if I were him. The next president's job is going to suck. Bush has dug a lot of holes and it will be a hard task for that person to fill them. It could very well result in 4 years of cleaning up someone elses' mess which creates the perception of being useless and losing in 2012.

[souvlaki]

But going into the convention with less delegates I think she has a much better argument for a VP position than the nomination. It just looks a lot less shady than her going into that convention with less delegates and coming out the winner. Even with Obama coming out with a VP position, it just looks shady all around if the winner in delegates and the popular vote loses the nomination. I'm okay with a Clinton/Obama ticket, but it just doesn't make sense if he still has a lead in delegates and the popular vote at the end. If the difference in either is negligible then she has a decent argument. But if we are talking a 50+ delegate lead, noone is going to look at that and say it doesn't smell funny when Clinton comes out on top. People are going to look at that and just decide in the future that the whole primary process is completely useless, and become completely apathetic toward it in the future. She may be up there in age after those eight years are through, but it saves her an embarrassing loss, and for that matter, a potential career ending loss. Maybe she can broker a deal with Obama allowing her to appoint some of her own choices to his cabinet.

Hell, maybe she might even broker an agreement for a Supreme Court appointment. That is the kind of power I could picture her dreaming about.

[Matt]

Al Gore didn't lose. I still maintain that, I always will. In my opinion, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable. Think of all the record breaking numbers that they are bringing in. Not to mention the fundraising totals of Clinton and Obama, compared to all of the Republicans combined.

It is hard at this time to judge how unstoppable they would be. An Obama loss could disillusion a lot of the young voters who are giving him record numbers. Not to mention it is much easier to organize a state get out the vote movement than a nation wide one on election day. Plus you will have tons of soundbites played on Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly each day of the VP candidate trashing the Presidential candidate and vice-versa. At any rate, nothing is certain and there is no such thing as a sure win.

[redfirebird2008]

Al Gore didn't lose. I still maintain that, I always will. In my opinion, a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unstoppable. Think of all the record breaking numbers that they are bringing in. Not to mention the fundraising totals of Clinton and Obama, compared to all of the Republicans combined.

OK you are right, he didn't lose. One thing I will say. If Obama is a running mate, he'd be the strongest in history. A running mate that can raise $50 million in a month? That's unheard of. Speaking of which, if he was the running mate I would want his people to take over all the grassroots work because Hillary's campaign is AWFUL at the grassroots level. Her website is ugly, cluttered, etc. and the organization on the ground is lacking.