Obama has already beaten Clinton, so why isn't it over?

Returns are coming in on election night; the race has been close and polls show either candidate could win.  Now, with 83% of precincts reporting, candidate A is leading 53% to 47% over B.  It's an insurmountable lead, and the race is called for candidate A.  That's where the Democratic primaries are: Of the 3253 pledged delegates available, about 83% have already been voted on, and Obama is leading Clinton by about 53% to 47%.  We can call the race now.

Look at it another way: There are 566 pledged delegates left from states that haven't voted yet.  To catch up with Obama, Clinton needs to win about 65% of those, which means she needs to average about 65% of the vote in the remaining states.  She doesn't win by such margins: So far, Clinton has received more than 60% of the vote in exactly one state: Arkansas.  Her second-best result was 58% in Rhode Island.  Her other home state, New York, gave her 57%.

If every state from now on goes as well for Clinton as her home state of New York did, she'll still lose.

[ MyDD readers already know this stuff.  I wrote this as an overview you can point people to. ]

If every state from now on goes as well for Clinton as her home state of New York did, then she will get about 322 of the remaining pledged delegates, and Obama will get about 244, for a net gain of about 78... leaving Obama still ahead by about 80-90 pledged delegates!  Remember, that's what will happen if Clinton gets a New York level win in every state.  Not gonna happen.  She might do that well in Pennsylvania, but the next-biggest state to come is North Carolina.  We also have states like Oregon and Indiana coming.

One way to look at it is this: For every state where Clinton gets less than 65% of the vote from now on, she's losing ground!  Imagine you're a runner 100 feet from the finish line, and there's someone ahead of you who's only 50 feet from the line.  If, in the next second, you run 30 feet while the leader only runs 25, now you're 70 feet from the finish and the leader is 25 feet from it.  Sure, you just ran a little faster, but your chances of overtaking the leader before the finish have gotten even smaller.

In other words, even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania 57-43, that actually puts her further away from catching up to Obama, not closer.  She'll do considerably worse than that in most remaining states.

It's over: Obama will go to the convention with more pledged delegates, and will be the Democratic nominee for President.

What about the Superdelegates?

Democratic members of the US House and Senate, Democratic governors, members of the DNC, and a few other party leaders, are automatically delegates to the convention and can vote for whomever they choose.  They're called "unpledged delegates" or "superdelegates" (informally).  Even though Obama will have more pledged delegates (from winning actual votes in actual states) that Clinton, if enough superdelegates vote for her, she could have a higher overall total and get the nomination, theoretically.

It's extremely unlikely, for two reasons.  First, for superdelegates to overturn the decision of the voters would be a major scandal.  Obama's supporters would not see it as legitimate: they'd mostly feel that he won, and the nomination was stolen from him.  Black voters, in particular, would rightly feel that the system is rigged against them: finally a black candidate manages to win, only to have party insiders take it away.  Superdelegates know this, and of all delegates, they're the ones with the most to care about the party as a whole.  They know that if this happens it will greviously wound the Democratic party, and almost ensure that McCain wins.  They won't let that happen.

Second, there just aren't that many superdelegates left to go, either.  Of the 794 superdelegates, various polls & surveys show about 220-230 say they'll vote for Obama, and about 250-260 say they've vote for Clinton.  That leaves only about 240-250 who haven't chosen yet (plus 68 who haven't been chosen yet).  Clinton would have to get an overwhelming majority of those delegates to make up for Obama's 100-200 delegate lead.  If those remaining 250 feel so strongly about supporting Clinton that they'd be willing to cause such a major scandal, why have they remained undeclared so long?  Obviously, because most of them don't.  Clinton will not get an overwhelming majority of them.

What about Michigan and Florida?

Michigan and Florida held their primaries too early, and according to Democratic Party rules, their delegates are not supposed to count, so they're not included in any of the counts above.  Clinton's campaign is pushing to have them counted, because she won both states.  If they're counted as-is, Obama gets 67 more delegates and Clinton gets 178 more, for a net gain of 111 for Clinton.

That, also, will not happen.  To begin with, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and you can't vote write-in in a primary.  No credible argument can be made that Michigan's election was fair, and there is no way Michigan's delegation will be seated as-is.  They'll probably come up with a compromise, like splitting it 50/50 between the two candidates.  Florida did have both candidates on the ballot, but neither candidate campaigned there, and many voters stayed home because they were told it wouldn't count.  A compromise is likely there too.

Who decides what is to be done with Michigan and Florida?  A committee at the Democratic National Convention, whose membership will be proportional from the pledged delegates: in other words, a committee with a majority of Obama supporters.  There's no way they'll give Clinton the full 111-delegate advantage that comes with counting the entirely unfair Michigan primary.

However, even if they did, 111 still probably won't be enough to overcome Obama's advantage.  He's 160+ ahead of Clinton now; she's not likely to whittle that down to under 120 in the few states left.

Is there any way Clinton can win?

Yes, there are still two possible scenarios in which Clinton gets the nomination, both very unlikely:

  • The "Spitzer" scenario: Something very big and very unexpected happens that destroys Obama's viability as a candidate, or forces him to drop out, before the convention.  Even if that happens after the last state has voted, superdelegates would still switch to Clinton en masse, and she'd get the nomination.  Note, however, that for this scenario it doesn't matter whether Clinton is still running.  She could suspend her campaign right now, and she'd still be in position to step back in and accept the nomination if something of that magnitude occurred.
  • The convention fight scenario: Clinton keeps camapigning all the way to the convention, whittles down Obama's lead to below 140, and tries to get superdelegates to put her over the top.  She can do this with her strategy of racial division.  As I explained, this is also very unlikely, but it's the only thing she has left to try for.

Should Clinton drop out?

Obviously this question would make little sense if the outcome were still unclear.  I wouldn't want any candidate dropping out until it became clear that they couldn't win.  But since it is now clear that Clinton can't win by continuing to campaign, it's a reasonable question to think about.  So here's where I switch from factual argument, to opinion.

Contested primaries have a lot of advantages.  Voter registration drives, activating local networks, volunteer recruitment and training: Obama will benefit from having to campaign for votes in more states, particularly swing states like Pennsylvania and Oregon.  And since Clinton is using a lot of McCain's arguments against Obama, he's also getting practice in dealing with those.  On the other hand, McCain's arguments are getting extra credibility coming from a Democrat, and McCain is getting extra time to establish his message and identity for this election, so it's a mixed bag.  And there's that racial division Clinton is exploiting, which also does long term damage.

For Clinton's own sake, she'd do much better to stop campaigning soon.  The longer she stays in this when people can see she has lost and is only campaigning for a convention fight, the more enemies she makes in the party and the more bridges she burns.  For example, if she wants to become Senate Majority Leader sometime, she's hurting her chances.

But from my point of view, as someone who doesn't particularly care about Clinton's future prospects, I think on balance having a primary in Pennsylvania at least would be good.  And possibly a few more.  Rather than Clinton abruptly dropping out, I think we'd be much better off if she lost some more primaries.  Speaking as someone who wants to see Obama become president, the best thing would be for Clinton to lose more votes.  Not good for Clinton, but good for the Democrats and for Obama.

Why you should still vote

If you want a Democratic president and were planning to vote in an upcoming primary, you may wonder: Why bother?  If Obama has already won, does it matter?  Yes, it still matters, because Clinton is still campaigning.  By doing so, she is preventing Obama from getting a lock on the nomination by getting enough pledged delegates for a solid majority even without superdelegates.  As I described above, there's only one thing she could still be campaigning for: a convention fight, where she can get enough superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate plurality, and ensure that she will be the loser in November.  The closer to Obama she gets, the more likely she is to think of that as a resonable option; the further ahead of her he is, the more likely she is to give it up.

So you're not voting on whether to nominate Clinton or Obama - as far as the primaries go, that choice is made.  What you're voting on is the probability of Clinton trying to take it to a convention fight she would likely lose.  If you want her to try that, vote for her; if you don't want her to try that, vote for Obama.

In other words, if you want a Democratic president, you should vote for Obama, regardless of which candidate you prefer.

States that still have primaries coming up:
 * April 22: Pennsylvania - 158 delegates
 * May 3: Guam - 4 delegates
 * May 6: Indiana - 72 delegates
 * May 6: North Carolina - 115 delegates
 * May 13: West Virginia - 28 delegates
 * May 20: Kentucky - 51 delegates
 * May 20: Oregon - 52 delegates
 * June 1: Puerto Rico - 55 delegates
 * June 3: Montana - 16 delegates
 * June 3: South Dakota - 15 delegates

[ table of delegate counts by state ]

Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



It will be over soon

It's getting old, I agree. Many other Democrats agree. They just want this over, and they know that voting for Obama is the best way to do it.

by Democratic Unity 2008-04-16 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: It will be over soon

And many other democrats don't agree. In the past there was not a lull in the primaries because they were more spread out. My state CA didn't vote in the primary until Jun as a lot of other states didn't. It gave us time to hear the candidates and make an informed choice before we went to the polls. I think we all made a mistake by rushing to be early in the primary, but certainly understand because of the constant favoritism to Iowa and NH. If you think 4 months into the democratic primary seems long- an 8 month general election would wear you very very thin.

In your scenario, which would favor the candidate you support, that everyone vote for Obama...he still would not have enough pledged delagates to win the 2024,  without MI & FL or the 2228 (?) to win considering the MI & FL vote. So no matter how you look at it....be patient...chill out...it's not going to be decided any time soon and it WILL be decided by the super delegates. Try to relax and see 'democracy in action' and then fight to change our parties nomination contest for the next cycle. I'd prefer popular vote and winner take all (closer to the general election rules)...no superdelegates, no pledged delegates...none of the messy stuff we are having to suffer through now. I would also like to see more candidates stay in the race so we have more choices than they all dropping out at Iowa, NH and now two more states.

How would you like to see the democratic primary change to think it was fair for all 50 states? (and territories) What about campaign finance laws so more candidates can run longer and we have a bigger and better field to pick from, would that be of interest to you?

by Justwords 2008-04-16 07:10AM | 0 recs
Primary calendar

I'd like to see at least two weeks pass between each set or primaries, because you're right, when they're too close together, there's a pile-on effect.  What has happened in recent cycles is that Iowa and New Hampshire decide it.  If they both go for the same candidate (Kerry in 2004), that's pretty much it.  If they give us a split decision (like this year), then we get a real contest, but only with the two winners of Iowa and New Hampshire - nobody else has a chance at that point.  I don't like it, and think we'd do better spacing them out more.

However, that's irrelevant here.  The calendar was already set, most of the votes have already happened, Obama and Clinton had a real, fair contest in the plethora of states that voted in February and early March, and Obama won the contest.  We can't re-do the calendar, space out the states, give Edwards a real chance past New Hampshire, etc.  We can do better in the future, but the past is past.

by cos 2008-04-16 07:33AM | 0 recs
what do you have against democracy?

why is your choice important but not the vote of the remaining people who have not voted?  Why do you all want the votes of people in MI and FL not to count?

I am very sure you would like this to be over before   Obama loses ground, because he will over the next two months.

Remember that Bill Clinton did not wrap it up in 92 until June and he is the only two term democratic president in decades.  Having the primaries play out may not suit Obama, but I think millions of democrats disagree.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-16 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: what do you have against democracy?

Straw man.  Actually, two straw men.

Everyone's choice is important, but that doesn't mean Clinton can win.  Enough people have already voted that Obama wins because of everyone's choices - and that includes all the people who haven't voted yet.  They can, of course, still vote, and I hope they do, but that's not going to change the result.

You will note that my argument isn't that people shouldn't vote, it's that they should vote for Obama because the only thing Clinton is still campaigning for is a damaging, losing convention fight.

Now, I didn't decide the electoral calendar.  And I'm a noncitizen (I have a green card) so I didn't even get to vote.  Your presumption is amusing but irrelevant.

As for Michigan and Florida: I've advocated on several blogs that they should hold new elections, and offerred to contribute money if they needed to fundraise for it.  Unfortunately, it looks like that won't happen.  Your presumption that I don't want MI and FL voters to count is less amusing because it's clearly empty rhetoric.

However, I did answer it in two prongs:

1. Michigan and Florida did not have free and fair elections.  All candidates were barred from campaigning (or did you volunteer at a Clinton field office in Florida that I somehow missed?).  Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and there are no write-ins in a primary.  Counting that election would not undo the problem: those voters did not get to count due to things that have already happened.

2. Even if we count Michigan and Florida, Obama still wins.

by cos 2008-04-16 04:30AM | 0 recs
not a strawman

Obama doesn't have enough and can not win enough dekegates,  Super delegates will decide and they are not obligated to ignore MI and FL when making their choice...despite the spin of Obamaites.

by TeresaInPa 2008-04-16 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: not a strawman

Why do you use derivative terms to address supporters of Senator Obama? I've asked you before to stop trolling politely but you don't seem to care about acting in a respectful manner to people who are acting respectful towards you.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: not a strawman

I try to use Obama supporters or Clinton Supporters rather than other terms..however when you and I weren't looking Obamabots and Clintonistas were bad form and hateful (totally agree) and Obamaites and Clintonites became the politically correct terms. Like you I don't think either of the new politically correct terms sound great, but the Obama campaign is referring to his supporters as the Obamaites (like a cheerleading team) and the MSM referring to Clintonites (like her cheerleading team). I take it you don't feel like a cheerleader for your candidate. I don't feel like a cheerleader either.

by Justwords 2008-04-16 06:19AM | 0 recs
RE: "...so I didn't even get to vote"

If you're not registered to vote.  If you're not even an American citizen, then tell me why in the world are you sticking your nose in the Democratic Party's business?

by Andre Walker 2008-04-16 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: "...so I didn't even get to vote"

Are you serious?

I'm a permanent resident, I've lived here my entire adult life, I've donated thousands of dollars and volunteered thousands of hours and knocked on thousands of doors for Democratic candidates, and you ask me why I'm "sticking my nose" in?

Wow.  I thought immigrant-bashing was a Republican thing.

by cos 2008-04-16 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The Memphis Corollary
Memphis had already beaten Kansas, too.
I just don't understand why they play the last two minutes.
by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: The Memphis Corollary

Because it's only a game, clearly, and the point is to play it :)

by cos 2008-04-16 04:54AM | 0 recs
Okay, more seriously

I don't know the specific game you're referring to, but in general sports analogies don't hold up because there isn't a fixed allotment of points per unit of time.  I once saw the Miami Dolphins score three touchdowns in the last four minutes of gameplay - more points than had been scored in the whole game until then.  In a game, if you play really well, you can score really fast.  But no matter how you stack it up, 83% of delegates have already been voted on, and only 17% remain.  That makes the analysis very different than it would be for most sports.

by cos 2008-04-16 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, more seriously

If Obama does poorly in the last group of primaries, then he will not get the nomination. If he loses badly in Penna - then does only so-so in NC, but loses badly in Indiana, Kentucky, and WV - his situation will be dire.  Given a string of losses, he might then barely lose Oregon, followed by Puerto Rico, SD, and Mont.  Such a string of losses would also rekindle demands for a Florida and Michigan revote.

No party will nominate a person who lacks the delegates plus has lost seven out of the last eight races. Whether they nominate Hillary Clinton is another question.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, more seriously

This is simply not true. Obama could lose every contest from here on out and he'll still get the nomination. The diarist's argument that the supers just won't overturn the pledged is valid.

Plus, he isn't going to lose all the remaining contests, and Clinton isn't going to win many by large margins.

by Travis Stark 2008-04-16 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, more seriously

So "Blue Jean", do you just go around troll rating everyone who disagrees with you or what?

by Travis Stark 2008-04-16 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, more seriously


I've been on the other side of troll-rating, too.
If you simply disagree - say so.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, more seriously

Your scenario only makes sense (holds out any hope for Clinton) if Obama loses very badly in PA.  If Clinton just gets a New York level high-50s win in PA that doesn't change my analysis.  She'd have to get nearly 70% to have any chance, and that is just not going to happen without something so big that she doesn't even need to still be running - what I called the "Spitzer scenario".

So yes, in the very unlikely event of a Spitzer scenario (or terminal disease or whatever), Clinton can be nominated.  But she doesn't need to keep running for that; she can just step back in when it happens.  If that doesn't happen, though, there's no way she's getting a big enough win in PA to change this analysis.

by cos 2008-04-16 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem -

I see you missed my point.

It's not a question of whether or not Clinton will get the nomination as it is whether or not Obama will.

I repeat, if Obama loses seven out of eight - regardless of the ultimate delegate allocation of each one - he will be seen as unelectable coming into the convention.  I doubt many superdelegates will go over to Clinton - thus a brokered convention. But an Obama with seven out of eight recent losses will not get nominated.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem -

No, we just disagree.  I see your scenario as so far-fetched as to not be worth considering.  I don't think I can convince you of it.  Oh well.

by cos 2008-04-16 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem -

7 out of 8, or a vast majority of all states? I think the latter says a lot more about his ability to be elected than the former. Are you saying that the superdelegates would summarily ignore the voters' choice from the other states?

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ahem -

Yes, they would.

If he lost seven out of the last eight, they would.
Plus the fact that he won those states that the Dems are unlikely to carry in Nov. and lost the states the Dems need.

Here's a list of Obama's core Dem states:

Obama does better than HRC in the Upper Midwest and the Pac Northwest, but worse than her in the Northeast and Southwest.  If he loses in Indiana, coupled with the Ohio loss, it will bring into question his Midwestern strength.  If he struggles in Oregon, it will hurt his Northwest bonafides.

Obama has to prevent a double digit loss in Penna, win by double digits in NC, then win in Indiana.  If he loses by double digits in Penna, wins only by single digits in NC, then loses in Indiana, the unravelling scenario is in place.

I'm not saying that HRC would get the nod - it would be too divisive, esp. if Obama still had a delegate & popular vote lead.  I suspect that the Dems would try to find an alternative that was acceptable to both wings.  It's happened before.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, more seriously

Also, even though they are competing against each other now, Obama and Clinton are really on the same team.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, more seriously

Ya couldda fooled me.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has already beaten Clinton, so why isn't

If you have a problem with the fact that Florida and Michigan don't have a vote blame their State Legislators.  They flaunted the rules.  Go to utube and see the Florida Democratic legislators laugh at the fact that their votes might not count.

Why end it now? Clinton is just lashing out and not adding to the quality of the debate.  

Once again her supporters have injected race into the debate.  They do this in spite of the fact that no basis for their argument. Race was a factor Mississippi through South Carolina but North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Vermont, Maine, Utah, Minnesota... Poor Campaign management cost her this election.

Calling Al Gore, John Kerry and Obama elitist helps Democrats.

She is just having us burn money that could be going to congressional candidates and the General Election.

We are spending moneh  

by jproctor 2008-04-16 04:58AM | 0 recs
I hate to break this to you,

but NEITHER candidate is "winning" - they are both "losing", since neither can reach the magic number without the superdelegates, who will decide the nomination (with the help of the American people - even in states that haven't voted yet).

by AnnC 2008-04-16 05:03AM | 0 recs
You didn't read the post, did you?

I talked about the superdelegates at length.  A pledged delegate plurality will result in a win.

by cos 2008-04-16 05:06AM | 0 recs
With all due respect...

...That's not what the rules say.

The rules do not, and I repeat, do not say "A pledged delegate plurality vote of the Convention's delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate."

Article VIII.C.7.b of the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention says "A majority vote of the Convention's delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate."

Until a presidential candidate receives a majority vote of the Convention's delegates no one has won and no one has lost.  Consequently, any and all mechanisms at the disposal of a presidential candidate to achieve a majority vote of the Convention's delegates are fair game so long as they comply with the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the Regulations of the Rules & Bylaws Committee for the 2008 Democratic National Convention, and the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

by Andre Walker 2008-04-16 06:51AM | 0 recs
Correct, but misses the point

Really, read my post.

Nowhere did I say that the rules require the pledged delegate leader to be nominated.  I did, however, explain why most superdelegates would choose to make sure that the pledged delegate leader will be nominated.

Stating that they could choose otherwise, and be in keeping with the rules, is technically correct but ignores my analysis.  It's not a difference of opinion; you're simply not addressing it at all.

by cos 2008-04-16 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Correct, but misses the point

  So why do you keep asking for Hillary to drop. Let the voting be over and let the SD's decide for themselves.

by NewCommer 2008-04-16 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Correct, but misses the point

Actually, I don't.  Both in my post and in several comments here, I said that I'm not asking her to drop out.  I'm asking people to stop voting for her.

Seriously, did you read what I wrote before commenting on it?

by cos 2008-04-16 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: If It Really Were Over - -

It would be over.

by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has already beaten Clinton, so why isn't
I am really getting tired of this!
As Bill Clinton said: "they want us to quit every time we are in a position to win"...
Believe me, everything is going to change after Pennsylvania.
by darlene25 2008-04-16 05:29AM | 0 recs
Everything was going to change last time, too?

Okay, let's remember to come back to this comment next week and see how that turned out, shall we?

Everything was supposed to change after Ohio and Texas, remember?  In reality, that was the day Obama's win was pretty much sealed.  Despite Clinton's narrow win that day, it put so many more delegates on the "already voted" side of the ledger that it pushed her future targets out of range.  Before that day, she just needed to average high 50s, which she could conceivably do.  But she got high 50s only in Ohio and Rhode Island, while losing Vermont and winning Texas narrowly (then losing its caucus).  Without getting high 50s everywhere, she pushed her target to 65%, which she has demonstrated she cannot achieve.

I will make one thing clear: In this post, I did not call on Clinton to quit.  Rather, I called on people to stop voting for her.  You may think that's a trivial difference, but I don't.
Now, what exactly is going to change after Pennsylvania?  A high 50s win for Clinton won't do it for her.  And she's not even sure to do that well (she might, but she might not).

by cos 2008-04-16 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Everything was going to change last time, too?

Darlene has already said she doesn't believe polls that don't tell her what she wants to believe, so ultimately it doesn't really matter what her justification is - she's going to believe it utterly, regardless of anything logical to back it up.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 05:37AM | 0 recs
The ongoing effort of Obama supporters

To change the rules...

In fact it takes 2024 delegates to be the nominee. Neither candidate will have that number at the end of the primary process.

It is then up to the Supers...who unless you are a mind reader...no one knows which way they will go. Much can change in three months...

It's like calling the runner ahead at 75 yards of a 100 meter dash the winner...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-16 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has already beaten Clinton, so why isn't

Unfortunatley, it seems your canidiate has missed this memo because it is wrong. If Senator Obama has already "Won" per se, then he would do much like McCain did with Huckabee and move along to attacking Senator McCain and preparing for the General Election. However, Clinton can and will win in a fight at the convention and I have no qualms with her doing so because Barack Obama, if he wins this nomination, will have done it illegitimately without Florida and Michigan being counted in favor of Hillary Clinton. If you have an issue with "magic numbers" and the amount of pledged delegates needed to win at the convention, then perhaps you should take up your fight with the DNC, unfortunately, however, since Obama says "rules are rules", Hillary Clinton has every right to be in this race right now and will go all the way to the convention. I guess if the DNC were so worried about "unity", they shouldn't have disenfranchised two states and millions of Democrats.

If this is so over, then I'm curious, why is there such an outpouring of "PLEASE DROP OUT HILLARY?". It's obviously not as over as you would like it to be.

by zcflint05 2008-04-16 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has already beaten Clinton, so why isn't

Actually, if you take the trouble to read my post, I'm not saying "please drop out Hillary", I'm staying "please stop voting for her".  And I explain the reason, too: It's not because I think Hillary can win the primaries (she can't), it's because I want to reduce the probability of a convention fight (which she would probably lose too, but would be damaging).  Saying "It's obviously not as over as you would like it to be" just shows you didn't actually read my post.

Now, there's an obvious reason Obama isn't doing what McCain is: Obama still has someone campaigning against him.  He's in the same position McCain was in late February and early March: Huckabee was still in, and McCain and Huckabee were actively campaigning against each other, even though the outcome was already known.  Then Huckabee dropped out.

You can bet that if Hillary dropped out, Obama would be preparing for the general too, just as McCain has been doing ever since Huckabee dropped out.

Also, as I pointed out in my post, Obama wins even with counting Michigan and Florida.  And counting Michigan would be illegitimate, since he wasn't on the ballot there.

by cos 2008-04-16 05:59AM | 0 recs
Who is "Blue Jean"?

Someone named Blue Jean just went through all the comments here and troll-rated every comment that appears to support either Obama or the fact that he has won, and mojo-rated every pro-Hillary comment, regardless of the quality or depth of any of those comments.

Class act, huh?

by cos 2008-04-16 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Who is "Blue Jean"?

Write a comment to the site administrators using the link below - sometimes they actually respond to rating abuse.

by upstate girl 2008-04-16 05:56AM | 0 recs
Ratings Abuse?

Like failing to enthusiastically applaud everytime someone says "Why doesn't the stupid bitch quit?" or "take your boobs and go home!" or "You Clinton voters are racists!"  Even though some of us are black or mixed race. (like me)

Yeah, that kinda ratings abuse. (/snark)

by Blue Jean 2008-04-16 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Who is "Blue Jean"?

I'm someone who actually wants the Democratic party to win the GE, and your trollish diary is hurting that prospect by calling Clinton and her supporters racists.

That's my opinion.  Deal with it.

by Blue Jean 2008-04-16 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Who is "Blue Jean"?

I just read the diary. Do you honestly believe he is calling their supporters racists?

Which paragraph or line are you twisting around in your head that makes you believe that?

Going to have to go with a 0 on that one, until you provide proof, friend.

by Darknesse 2008-04-16 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Who is "Blue Jean"?

Yep -

I'd gladly do without that mojo.
I hate it when I get trolled for merely disagreeing.
Even when I am disagreeable. ;-)

by johnnygunn 2008-04-16 07:10AM | 0 recs
Obama has already out-talked Clinton

more words from the campaign of words. this is the same old haka they've been dancing since iowa. if talk were votes, it WOULD be over. but votes matter, and we haven't heard from everyone whose support the nominee needs to have to win in november.

by campskunk 2008-04-16 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: so why isn't it over?

Just cos.

by Caldonia 2008-04-16 06:23AM | 0 recs

Best comment!

Even though my name isn't actually pronounced like that.

by cos 2008-04-16 07:40AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads