Hillary's Sure Path to the Nomination: The Coleman Scenario

If Pennsylvania made one thing clear tonight, it is that Hillary Clinton has a clear path to the nomination: she can win it the way Norm Coleman won his Senate seat in 2002.

Sure, Hillary didn't win big enough to close the delegate gap, or popular vote gap. Her fundraising bump probably won't be enough to get her out of the red, much less close in on Obama's $40 million advantage. But this thing is not over.

Despite being impossibly behind in delegates, Hillary Clinton is certain to become the Democratic nominee if Obama's campaign plane crashes. Also, if he is attacked by wolves. Or dies of shame from hanging out in front of a bunch of d-bags in A&F t-shirts.

Sure, it's a long shot, but no less likely than any other scenario she can cook up.  Plus, under the Coleman scenario she wouldn't have to explain how the country born with the stain of African slavery voted to nominate an African-American for the first time in history but then a bunch of rich party insiders pushed him aside in favor of a rich white woman ascending to the throne once controlled by her husband.

So perhaps she'd better get busy doing what her new BFF Richard Mellon Scaife once accused her of doing. Hillary all the way! Over Obama's dead body!

Tags: Hillary Clinton, only chance (all tags)



Typical example Obamamanic's...

...irrational response to Hillary having the audacity to actually win another big-state primary...and by a convincing 10-point margin, too, despite being outspent by anywhere from 2:1 to 4:1, depending upon whose nos. you're reading on that type of thing.

Yep...this is a real sane unifying diary I'm commenting on...uh huh...

I'm kind of thirsty. Anyone have any Kool-Aid?

by bobswern 2008-04-22 10:01PM | 0 recs
That's an 8.6 margin to be exact.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-22 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: That's an 8.6 margin to be exact.

Right! Thank you for providing facts instead of fantasy.

by alvernon 2008-04-22 10:09PM | 0 recs
And you brag about math?

@99% reporting:

214,832 vote margin
2,285,554 votes cast

9.4% "to be exact"

by bobbank 2008-04-22 10:15PM | 0 recs
Major props for using decimals

the rounded off figures annoys this biology degree holder.  They are way too imprecise.  Precision matters.

Mojo to you!

by Student Guy 2008-04-22 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Major props for using decimals

Actually, by another analysis, Hillary's vote is 20.71847 percent greater than Obama's vote.

by Beltway Dem 2008-04-23 03:29AM | 0 recs
Isn't math fun

another way of putting it is Obama's vote is 82.95805% of Clinton's

by Student Guy 2008-04-23 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: And you brag about math?

Not sure where you got that data, but as of posting time the official returns have an 8.6% lead for Clinton with 98.91% of precincts reporting.

Not that it matters, as they both round to 9%, which turns out to be a single digit number. We'll see if it bumps up when all votes are counted.

by alvernon 2008-04-22 10:26PM | 0 recs
That number is the one from CNN


by Student Guy 2008-04-22 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: And you brag about math?

The link you provided did not show an 8.6% lead at the time you posted, so that was misinformation.  It was also not current, reporting 2,267,368 votes.

The data I used was updated less than an hour ago, and reported 2,300,851 - clearly more recent - from CNN.com.

Anyway, it matters not which form of rounding you want to use.  Hillary exceeded my expectation of a 200k vote pickup, and I would rather discuss issues instead of distractions like this.

by bobbank 2008-04-23 08:03AM | 0 recs
It's back to 8.6 bob.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-23 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: It's back to 8.6 bob.

You are incorrect.

by bobbank 2008-04-23 08:04AM | 0 recs
Now it's 9.2, bobby.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-23 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Now it's 9.2, bobby.

And you are incorrect.  Pattern.

by bobbank 2008-04-23 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical example Obamamanic's...

Oh, Bob, we love being insulted by you. It makes us giddy.

We can has schadenfraude when Obama wins nom? ;)

by ragekage 2008-04-22 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical example Obamamanic's...

That would be an 8.5% margin, not 10%.

It also becomes much less convincing when you consider PA is pretty much the perfect Hillary state in terms of demographics, not to mention all the institutional advantages she has there, or that her "big" will looks likely to net her at best, 14 more delegates than Obama got.

She was outspent because she was outraised. I wouldn't go boasting about that one if I were you.

by Huck 2008-04-23 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Could Win "The Obama Way!"

She could begin a massive voter suppression drive to disenfranchise voters in North Carolina and Indiana!

by Tennessean 2008-04-23 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Sure Path to the Nomination: The Col

Speaking of bitter - -

by johnnygunn 2008-04-22 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Sure Path to the Nomination: The Col

Hey, I'm just spitballing here. You think it's easy to come up with plausible scenarios for Clinton to take the nomination? It's fucking hard!

by alvernon 2008-04-22 10:17PM | 0 recs
As opposed to Obama/Bush?

If Florida and Michigan are counted, Clinton is now ahead in the popular vote - at least according to Real Clear Politics. She's also ahead in the delegate count. The only question is whether Michigan and Florida will be counted. Ultimately, if those numbers are decisive, then they will count. if they aren't, then they won't.

The Dems will not annoint a candidate who wouldn't have the requisite number of delegates if Florida and Michigan are counted.

by Little Otter 2008-04-22 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Of course, let's give zero votes to Obama from Michigan and ignore caucus states. Because when I think about disenfranchisment, I think about selective disenfranchisement of those whom it benefits me.

by ragekage 2008-04-22 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Enough with this "ignore caucus states." The popular vote for caucus states are AVAILABLE!

by RJEvans 2008-04-22 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Actually, the point being made is that RCP has a line listing the popular vote totals with FL and MI, but that line excludes the caucus states. When the caucus state estimates are added in, Obama has a 200,000+ lead.

If we really count ALL of the votes, Clinton is still a loser. Presuming Obama is breathing.

by alvernon 2008-04-22 11:04PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Caucuses are cheating; get lost.

by ragekage 2008-04-22 11:05PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Caucuses are a normal part of the nominating process and all were conducted under DNC rules.  

Unlike FL and MI, caucus states were not told in advance that they would not count.  

If the state parties thought that delegates from their states wouldn't matter because they used caucuses, they would have pressured their state legislatures to fund primaries.

Because of this it is illegitimate to use the popular vote as a metric and certainly illegitimate to not include caucus numbers.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-23 04:10AM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

I don't care what you say; if they don't favor Clinton, they're cheating.

by ragekage 2008-04-23 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Not for all of them.

Iowa for one doesn't release counts. I think NV, ME and WA don't either.

by Huck 2008-04-23 12:16AM | 0 recs
Michigan counts?

Wow, even Terry McAuliffe wasn't so shameless as to count Michigan in his cooked-up popular vote total.

Besides, you'd better get on board the spin train. The Clinton camp doesn't want to announce that popular vote is a definitive criteria. Rather, they'll wait until June 3 and then announce a rule that guarantees that they win.

Hillary has already proven that she can win big when Obama is not even on the ballot -- that's the lesson of Michigan. Since only a Wellstone event will get him off the ballot in the upcoming states, that's her best shot.

by alvernon 2008-04-22 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Try again.

While counting Michigan is suspect at best, you cannot just ignore IA, NV, ME, and WA and then claim she is the popular vote leader.

The totals from RCP really are:

Obama           Clinton
15,288,857    15,076,842

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

What's particularly interesting is that RCP offers several different popular vote counts, depending on if you accept estimates etc.

Of the five differing counts offered, Obama leads in four of them. Only the one which includes all of Hillary's MI total and a big fat zero for Obama does she - barely - take the lead.

Since the arguments about MI apparently hinge in determining the intent of the voter, should we attempt fairness by giving Obama at least a chunk of the uncommitted?

If so, do we give him the full 45%? That would give him something like 268,000 votes, putting him back into the lead. Or do we suggest that, since Edwards was still arguably viable, he should get, say, 10-15%? Let's say 15%, and give the other few 5% or so, with the remaining 25% going to Obama. That'd give him about 150K, give or take -- more than Hillary's current lead.

Ah, "but that's not fair!", I hear you cry! "It was Obama's decision to take his name off the ballot!". Yes, it was -- his interpretation of the agreement involved doing that, and Hillary said she didn't need to because it wouldn't count anyway. But the "Count MI and FL!" argument hinges on making sure people's votes counted, and those who voted "uncommitted" specifically rejected Hillary when they voted thus. Why is it okay to disenfranchise those voters?

by Huck 2008-04-23 12:31AM | 0 recs
You missed the point.

The count showing Hillary in the lead ignores IA, NV, ME, and WA.

Therefore, if you add those back in, Obama still leads even after MI is added in.

by auboy2006 2008-04-23 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: As opposed to Obama/Bush?

Right now she is, barely. Given that assumes 0 for Obama in MI, it doesn't exatly pass the "smell test".

Soon we have NC where Obama's widely expected to gain, in terms of the popular vote, what he lost in PA. Will you still make the same argument then?

by Huck 2008-04-23 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Sure Path to the Nomination

I think the A&F shirts are going to do him in.

by asherrem 2008-04-22 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Sure Path to the Nomination

You noticed that too?  What. the. fuck.

by Mostly 2008-04-22 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Sure Path to the Nomination

I was embarrassed for them.  I kept playing the scenario in my head:

Steve:  Hey Joe!  I'm gonna wear that super cool A&F shirt to the Obama rally tonight!!!!!

Joe:  OMG!!  Me too Steve!  We totally have to call Paul and let him know.  Hold on...party line

Paul:  I am so wearing my shirt too!!!  OMG you guys, we're gonna look so totally awesome!

Steve:  You're not at all concerned we may be standing directly behind Obama on tv while committing a group fashion faux pas?

Joe:  OMG!!!  WHO CARES!!  These shirts are awesome!

by asherrem 2008-04-22 10:22PM | 0 recs
As of a few years ago

I wore A&F a lot.  I am ashamed of those times now.   Now I wear unbranded (no logo on them) dress shirts.

by Student Guy 2008-04-22 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: As of a few years ago

^-------------I'm with stupid.

by Mostly 2008-04-22 10:29PM | 0 recs
That was during my college days

I was just like those people.  They will mature and grow up beyond the A&F.

by Student Guy 2008-04-22 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: As of a few years ago

Don't be ashamed.

I used to be a cheerleader.  We all have dark spots in our history.

Seriously though, that was horrible.  I have to admit I didn't hear a word Obama said because I was staring at those shirts.

by asherrem 2008-04-22 10:31PM | 0 recs
thats nice Rush

again not only spewing bs conspiracy theory about Wellstone, but to even think that Hillary would do such a thing is what the Redneck Party did with Foster.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-22 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: thats nice Rush

Redneck Party? Don't you mean Hillary Clinton endorser Richard Mellon Scaife? The man who Hillary bragged about bridging the divide with on Olbermann?

by alvernon 2008-04-22 10:35PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads