Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

On June 4, 2008, the primaries and caucuses will have ended.

If HRC gets 55% of the remaining 404 delegates, she will have 1562 pledged delegates.  Barack Obama will have 1672 pledged delegates.

269 Superdelegates have pledged to support Clinton; 249 have pledged to support Obama.

If no other Superdelegates commit, Obama has 1921 delegates and Clinton has 1831.

Put another way, Obama will need 103.5 delegates to seal the nomination and Clinton will need 193.5.  

HRC has three options on June 5

First, she can press the remaining Superdelegates to give her the nod.  Its a hard sell but not impossible.  What is she up against here?  Well, she's been bleeding these delegates for months now and Obama has been succesful in closing the gap.  Furthermoe, she will need an argument that will beat more democratically elected delegates, more states and more votes for Obama.  (While its possible she could get more votes, its impossible for her to overcome the first two).  

My guess is a combination of demographics, polling, states put in play by her nomination and what states become strongly Democratic as a result will be the crux of her argument.

Second, she can take the fight to the convention.  To make this strategy work, she needs to keep Superdelegates from committing.  While we are all aware that Superdelegates have not voted and will not vote until after the pledged delegates have, it is worth noting that while Obama needs 41% of uncommitted Supers, Clinton needs 78% --- thus stopping Supers from announcing becomes critical between June 4 and the end of August.  In addition, Clinton needs to find pledged Obama delegates that could be swayed to switch sides after the first vote.  And, she will need to spin this to the media and the public as something other than an anti-democratic move and power grab.  In her favor, she can argue neither candidate has a majority of elected delegates so this is essentially a run-off.

In the first two options, Clinton will need to keep Florida and Michigan out of play.  If you go by the results of Florida (where Clinton won handily), the delegate breakdown would give Clinton a 38 vote edge or 112 delegates to 73 delegates for Obama.  Michigan creates more problems, which if you just go by the vote tally would give Clinton 73 delegates and Obama 55 delegates.  If Obama is going to be short 103 delegates, give or take, Florida puts him 30 delgates short and Michigan puts him over the top.  You may have noticed Clinton stopped talking about Florida and Michigan's delegates.  Why?  They are death to her, until after a first round of voting at the convention.

The first option is the equivaklent of herding cats; the second is like juggling chainsaws on a tightrope over a pit of molten lava.

The third option is to concede and cut herself a deal.  A few cabinet posts, heads of key agencies, etc filled by Clinton loyalists, get the judges you want in NY and on the Courts of Appeal.  Ambassadorships.  

Before I am flamed, attacked, vilified, burned in effigy; be the political scientists and activists you all are.  How does she get it done tactically.  Whats her gameplan?  I say this because, I am convinced her plan was to win the whole thing within a day or two of February 5, 2008 (the fundraising fiasco on her campaign's part kind of makes this likely.  She expected it to be done in early Feb, so raising money was back-burnered for other priorities) and little or no thought was given to what happens if Clinton not close the deal.  For the record, neither candiate can close the deal at this point (Actually, its been mathematically improbable since late February)

Anyway, if I were Clinton, here would be my strategy.  I strongly encourage those with opinions to respond with a plan or strategy rather than attacking the math or me.  (I've got two ex-wives so you won't be original)

1. Pick a VP on June 3 and challenge Obama to do the same.  This helps the argument that neither candidate has enough pledged delegates and that all the Superdelegates should consider the potential tickets before committing.  

2. Get a head to head poll done for all the swing states versus McCain.

3. Meet with Dean.  Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated as uncommitted and without voting privileges for the first vote.

4. Play the party uniter.  Chastise the blogs and the vitriol of over-enthusiastic supporters.  Attack the attackers.  Play the "If you can't support Obama don't support me" card (Obama will respond in kind)

5. Start in on McCain.  Dovetail into number 4. "Senator Obama and I oppose the Bush McCain plan to..."

Please, I'd like your input. How can she close this? I think picking a VP makes this doable.  Yes, I support Obama. (Voted for him, vulteered for him and gave him money)  Do I support Clinton as the nominee, if she gets it.  F--- Yeah!

Tags: 2008 election, clinton, Democratic nomination, obama (all tags)



Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Interesting points. I would only correct the fact that MI & FL inclusion into the delegate selection process would increase the delegates needed to win to 2209 or something like that. If they don't count, it's 2024.

by VAAlex 2008-05-05 10:58AM | 0 recs
She sure as hell

   didn't have a plan for past Super Tuesday. Why would she need an endgame now? After all...she's Hillary Clinton...the party will eventually see the error of it's ways, overturn the will of the voters and hand her the nomination. Why would she need an endgame? She's Hillary Clinton.

  Same attitude as before. Why should she campaign? She's Hillary Clinton, people like me, they'll vote for me.

   Boy did that strategy backfire.


by southernman 2008-05-05 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: She sure as hell

Except that people keep voting for her.  Please don't underestimate the level of her support--I'm sure BHO's campaign isn't.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-05 12:23PM | 0 recs
Hillary's Endgame

raise enough money to pay off her $15,000,000 of debt.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Endgame

As long as HRC is raising enough money to keep running I suspect she will stay in the game.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 11:30AM | 0 recs
Her endgame is her Plan B.

She's planning to be President in 2012, after serving a term as McCain's VP.

I am more and more convinced of it every day.

It's the only way she can "beat" Obama, who dared to challenge her right to the throne;  take her acolytes away from the Democratic party, and con them into voting for McCain in 2008.  He's a one-term President because of his age, and she runs in 2012.  

Plan A (overwhelm all the other candidates on Super-Duper Tuesday) failed her back in February, and this is her Plan B.

I just can't find a more rational explanation for her recent behavior than this.

People insist that Hillary Clinton is a lifelong Democrat, that she would never run as McCain's VP.

But I ask you, does a Democrat...

... tell other Democrats, "If you aren't with us, you are against us?"

... threaten to obliterate a nation that has never attacked the United States?

... press for Congress to pass bad legislation first proposed by the Republican presidential candidate, despite the opposition of every expert in the area of the legislation, and the expressed opposition of the Democratic leadership in Congress, for the sake of picking up a few meaningless primary votes?

Her game plan has changed since it became clear that the Superdelegates are trending, along with the pledged delegates, toward Obama, since it became clear that there is no way for her to legitimately earn the Democratic nomination.

There's no way that McCain, if elected, is going to serve more than one term in the White House.

What better way for Hillary to give Barack Obama and Howard Dean a big "f*@k you", and make it as likely as possible that she'll be well-positioned for the presidency in 2012, than to take her ardent supporters and convince them to vote with the Republicans for a McCain/Clinton ticket?

by tbetz 2008-05-05 10:59AM | 0 recs
McCain's VP.

No. Way. In. Hell.

Hillary Clinton is a loyal, fiercely partisan Democrat.  To suggest otherwise is patently outrageous.

by jarhead5536 2008-05-05 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's VP.

Think about it though.

Conservatives hate McCain already, but with Clinton on his ticket they come to despise him.

Hilary Clinton goes down as the Democratic party legend that helped Barack Obama win all 50 states.

by SFValues 2008-05-05 11:25AM | 0 recs
by tbetz 2008-05-05 12:28PM | 0 recs
How would McCain/HRC ticket fare?

And would Bill Clinton support that ticket?

Bill Clinton would be a reviled figure in Dem circles if he supported the GOP after the Dems took the hit for him over Lewinsky.

And would rank-and-file Republicans back a McCain-Clinton ticket?

Ralph Nader would seem to be vindicated that there is not much difference between Dems and GOP.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 11:42AM | 0 recs
It depends upon how willing her acolytes are...

... to accept the rationalizations that she will feed them.  I think they will be more than willing.  We already have half of them saying thay can't vote for Obama under any circumstances;  this really wouldn't be much of a move for the alegres or the TeresaInPAs or the linfars among them.

For it to happen, McCain needs to make the calculation that she will bring more people (security moms, the elderly, etc.) over with her than he will lose on the ultra-right.  If it is successful -- and it may be the only way McCain could have a chance to win the election --  it might even be good for the Republican party, making it more DLC-like, holding on to the neocons, militarists and corporate-welfare crowd while pushing the theocrats and the paleocons (with whom the vast majority of Americans just do not relate) to the Conservative Party or some such construction.

Hell,we already have The Weekly Standard praising her as "one of our own" -- is it so big a step for her, once it becomes impossible for her to gain the Democratic nomination, to go ahead and join up with her friend John McCain?

by tbetz 2008-05-05 12:38PM | 0 recs
As to Bill Clinton...

... anyone who paid attention to the policy side of his Presidency already considers him the best Republican president since Eisenhower, "right up there with Nixon".

He's got his, and he can get more respect supporting Republicans than he can supporting Democrats, especially if he works with Hillary to restructure the Republican Party.

by tbetz 2008-05-05 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Her endgame is that by winning the popular vote, the large industrial states needed to win in November, and by positioning herself as a "fighter" and tough-as-nails no-nonsense leader, the supers will not be foolish enough to take a gamble on a novice like Obama.

I can't stress the popular vote enough. My gut tells me that the supers are looking for something concrete to point to which makes their argument easy for supporting Clinton. When Clinton clinches the popular vote after all the primaries, I think her argument will be just as effective as Obama's argument that he leads by about 100 pledged delegates.

When evaluating their strengths, Obama played well with the grassroots activists in caucus states. Clinton won all of the large state primaries because of her appeal to more traditional democrats.

Something tells me that the party elders force Obama to be on Hillary's ticket as a VP, knowing that she is the more seasoned and electable, while acknowledging that he is more charismatic and appealing to younger voters and AA's.

by njsketch 2008-05-05 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Good points --- can she have the popular vote:  Michigan cannot count 9(he ran against a blank slate).  Will she have it on June 3.

Like you I think the Clinton Obam ticket may be impossible to beat three months ago but can the hatchet be buried today

by kmwray 2008-05-05 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

I don't know where you are getting your popular vote argument from.  Everything that I have read seems to  show that the superdelegates see the "popular vote" metric at it's face value, which is spin.  Just because it comes out of Howard Wolfson's mouth doesn't make it gospel.

by belicheat 2008-05-05 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

The problem is that I don't think she can name a VP. If she were to somehow get this, she would not only have to offer the VP slot to Obama but the party would have to find a way to force him to take it.

I think Chris Matthews put it best when he asked that if Clinton finds a way to beat Obama, where does she hide the body?

Obama will still be a huge figure and will be a constant reminder of what could have been.

by SFValues 2008-05-05 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Once I fantasized about the dream ticket, but Obama is toxic now with white swing voters.  Putting him on the ticket would doom her candidacy.  Nevertheless, the offer must be publicly made, and he must publicly refuse it.

by jarhead5536 2008-05-05 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

If Obama is toxic to white voters, what is Clinton to black voters?

by SFValues 2008-05-05 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Touche', although how that came to be will be studied by sociologists and political scientists for generations to come.  I wouldn't have believed this demonization as a racist could happen to a Clinton if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.

by jarhead5536 2008-05-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Pure media.

The media wanted somebody to go racist, and the fact that they could paint Bill Clinton as the racist made the story all the better.

The "fairy tale" statement was a BS charge, but you gotta admit that the Jesse Jackson, while not racist, was moronic on Bill's part.

I think Olberman put it best. Real or not, people saw it and that's the problem.

by SFValues 2008-05-05 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

"The "fairy tale" statement was a BS charge, but you gotta admit that the Jesse Jackson, while not racist, was moronic on Bill's part."

As was implying that Hillary was stronger than Nelson Mandella or that LBJ was more instrumental to the Civil Rights movement than MLK.  Even if these things are true (and I seriously doubt the first one), how dumb can you be say these things in front of media that is itching to portray you as a racist.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-05-05 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

The opposite is also true.  If in the end it is Obama, he must offer her VP, and she must refuse it.  She cannot afford to be connected to him.

by jarhead5536 2008-05-05 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

No one can afford to be connected to her.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-05 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

I think the fact the super delegates haven't all rushed to Obama is encouraging for Clinton, something is holding them back.

Here's a few things she could do or try to do:

- Get an Edwards endorsement and hope his 25 delegates follow his lead

- Get the FL and MI delegates seated netting her 55 delegates

- Promise Obama the VP slot, this would allow supers to vote for her worrying less about offending AAs

- As you have said, get some extensive polling done that shows her as more electable

These aren't easy things for her to do, but she's in a difficult position and there is no easy way out.

If she can keep it very close in NC tomorrow and win a blow out in Indiana it will become a lot easier for her.

by liberalj 2008-05-05 11:03AM | 0 recs
Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

she just had a BLOWOUT win in Pennsylvania ?

She just raised $10 million in a single day?

Obama is collapsing in the polls?

And yet, she's still BLEEDING supers.

Why can't Hillary close the deal with Super delegates ?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

She's not bleeding supers.  The Obama camp and the MSM play up Obama's endorsements, but he's still behind in SD.

I think many are staying out of the limelight right now because they want to watch what happens in the next month.  The story is changing every moment and even people who thought they didn't like Hillary are really admiring her strength and perseverance.  Hillary's been impressing people while Obama has been disappointing people.

by stefystef 2008-05-05 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

She isn't bleeding supers at all, especially when you consider how she has 'no chance' of winning according to some people. If all of Hillary's support amongst the supers was down to her early inevitability, then why haven't more of them switched?  As far as i know, maybe i'm wrong. No more than 10 have switched. And in the case of Joe Lewis its clear that he switched because of intense pressure to back the black candidate.

She raised $10m and won in PA but she's still got only a small chance of winning the nomination, so why would the supers be switching to her in big numbers? I predict that they will if she does very well tomorrow.

Hillary isn't the one who's in a position to close the deal, she's far behind. Closing the deal is something only Obama is in a position to do, but he's failed several times.

by liberalj 2008-05-05 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

I'll take the candidate who can't "close the deal" ove the candidate who can't "get the job done" any day of the week.

by SFValues 2008-05-05 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

I'll take the fighter, until she's out then i'll back the uniter all the way.

by liberalj 2008-05-05 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

Clinton lost a lot of my respect in this contest, but she'll never lose my vote in a general.

I look forward to being on the same side with Clinton supporters against McCain.

by SFValues 2008-05-05 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

Obama has gained more respect from me during this campaign, he's taken on the Clintons and nearly beaten them. Whenever i worry about his electability i remember that if he can beat the Clintons in the Democratic Party then surely he can beat McCain in the general.

by liberalj 2008-05-05 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Why haven't they rushed to Hillary

I think if Clitnon had a good arguement for what you just said, she would have a shot at this nomination.

by SFValues 2008-05-05 11:45AM | 0 recs
You're delusional

"I predict that they will if she does very well tomorrow."

that's what you guys said about Pennsylvania.

And she did win by double digits.

The dam was supposed to BURST!

It didn't.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: You're delusional

I never said that, so there goes that straw man.

HRC winning NC would be huge, it would be bigger than her game changing NH win. Its very, very unlikely which is why it would be a game changer. Her win in PA wasn't unexpected, even though she beat expectations by winning by 10pta.

by liberalj 2008-05-05 12:38PM | 0 recs
You're STILL delusional

What' expectations?  she started out with a 19 pt lead, per SUSA.

instead of hold her lead, instead of growing her lead, she lost her lead.

yes, polls showed the lead dwindled to 6pts, but she always wins late undecideds which, by definition are undecided, and not included in the final poll.  

still she lost half her lead, in spite of bittergate, the reverend wright firestorm, and the ABC debate.

You must face reality.  Under these circumstances, she had the wind to her back.  Not only that, she had every local party machine cranking out voters, and she still lost half of her lead.  

that is not exceeding expectations.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: You're STILL delusional

You are one of those people that thinks their opinion is undisputed fact, theres very little point in talking to people like you.

We have differing views on it, she was massively outspent, the media were against her and she was facing the presumptive nominee. She still won by 10pts.

by liberalj 2008-05-05 01:11PM | 0 recs
And yet you do

"theres very little point in talking to people like you."

Come to the darkside, liberalj!

Come to the darkside!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: And yet you do

There may be little point, but as with my support of Hillary, i live in hope

by liberalj 2008-05-05 02:47PM | 0 recs
You know you love Barack

You know you love me and my fellow Barackies!

You're powerless to resist.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Interesting post.

I agree what many Supers want to endorse Hillary, but are waiting to see what happens over the next couple of weeks.  They have until June, so there's still time.  If Hillary really gets momentum from these primaries, they is a strong possibility that she will get their vote.  Especially if she wins the majority of the remaining elections.  I can't see why SD would support Obama if he can't close the deal.

Edwards should be her VP.  Obama would NEVER, EVER be VP to Hillary Clinton.  His ego would never allow it.

Hillary has been reaching out to all Americans.  These interviews with FoxNews and other conservative newspapers shows that Hillary is talking to Republicans and conservatives who don't want McCain and are sick of Bush et al.

If she wins both NC and IN, Obama will be in serious trouble.  And DailyKos will go mad (that I will enjoy).

by stefystef 2008-05-05 11:10AM | 0 recs
What's holding them back is Clintonian revenge.

They don't want to be Bill Richardsoned.

Most want to hold off until they can tell the Clintons "I really had no choice."  This will probably all change after tomorrow.

by tbetz 2008-05-05 12:45PM | 0 recs

Bill Richardson apparently promised Bill Clinton he would never endorse Obama. If thats true, then he is a judas and it was fair comment.

by liberalj 2008-05-05 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

(1) Adding Florida and Michigan change both the numerator and denominator.  The total number of delegates required would be substantially more if those two states are counted.

(2) You are assuming that Obama  will get 100% of the uncommitted delegates.  But the uncommitted delegates have already been selected, and he won about 2/3 of them.  The others belong to union slates that could go either way.  I suspect they'll go with whoever has strong momentum.

(3) Hillary also has a good lead among super delegates in Michigan and Florida who have declared their preference..

The bottom line--if she finishes very strong in the next 8 contests, you will positive movement on the MI/FL questions giving her many more delegates from those two contests, as well as super delegates swinging her way.  On the other hand, if Obama finishes strong, he's got the nomination.

In other words, it all comes down to the remaining contests, starting with the two key contests tomorrow.

by markjay 2008-05-05 11:05AM | 0 recs
Obama will get 100% of the uncommitted

That's what Hillary says.  Hillary is on record saying a vote for uncommitted was a vote for Obama

"His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to get people to vote uncommitted," [in his favor.]


I guess she could Flip-Flop and retract her statement.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama will get 100% of the uncommitted

That's not what her statement says. It's true that there was a campaign to get Obama supporters to vote "Uncomitted." It doesn't follow that "a vote for "uncommitted is a vote for Obama." Some might have been true votes for "uncommitted" or for those who wanted someone else, like Edward.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-05 11:14AM | 0 recs
You're full of CHEESE!!

Lightn' up on the Cheese, buddy!!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-05 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

If Obama has the most delegates going into the convention, I will have serious problems with the legitimacy of the process if the second-place finisher is arbitrarily given the nomination.

Thought experiment: If HRC got the most pledged delegates but through some secret process the superdelegates gave the nomination to some other candidate, how would you feel? Would you support the other candidate?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

It's not a secret process; it is the stated reason for superdelegates.  Even more plainly, it's their job.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-05 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Who besides HRC partisans believes that Obama is such a flawed candidate that superdelegates should overturn the will of the voters as measured by pledged delegates?

What is Obama's flaw that hasn't been taken into account by the voters?

One of the arguments HRC has used is that she would have gotten the nomination if the Dems under the GOP rules. However, there are no super-delegates under the GOP rules. So, once again HRC is picking-and-choosing which rules she wants to play by.

Obama is winning by the rules announced in advance. HRC wants to change the rules b/c she's losing under the official rules.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

I didn't say he was flawed.  I pointed out the job description for superdelegates--I didn't make it up.  They are supposed to exercise their best judgement and choose the person they deem most electable. Certainly, that's subjective, but that's their purpose.  Those are the rules, and just because they're inconvenient (for your candidate), doesn't mean they don't remain the rules.  I'm clear about supporting the Democratic nominee, whether HRC or BHO. I just think the process has to be fair for everyone to get closure.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-05 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

How is giving the nomination to the candidate with the most delegates unfair?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 01:53PM | 0 recs
She can't have an endgame

She's the team that 6 games out with 8 games left to play. The endgame is just to keep it alive, day by day, primary after primary and hope the opponent makes a mistake or that she catches a break.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-05-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: She can't have an endgame

What if Obama doesn't stumble or collapse?

Will HRC concede that Obama has won? At what point?

At what point do people get tired of her campaign waiting for the Obama collapse that isn't going to come?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 11:28AM | 0 recs
No endgame

No endgame, sleepy Obama:

Nevertheless, rather than growing weaker, she seems to have become more formidable. How is this possible? And, perhaps more to the point, how can it possibly end?

by catfish1 2008-05-05 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: No endgame

At the end of the poker game the competitors put the cards on the table.

Obama has the winning hand. He has more delegates.

HRC may have a formidable position. However, more delegates beats less delegates.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: No endgame

Only if that number of delegates is 2024.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-05 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No endgame

If Obama is 115 (or so) delegates from 2024 and HRC is 185 (or so) delegates from 2024, why should Obama delegates abandon their candidate to give the nomination to the candidate with fewer delegates?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: No endgame

Since I'm not a mindreader, I can only hazard a guess.  They'll look at the election results and see who voted for whom.  Then they'll decide whether the coalition each candidate has is enough to win the general election.

by TinaH1963 2008-05-05 01:57PM | 0 recs
She doesn't owe him the nomination

Aren't the primaries for voting...let the people vote.  This chorus of people wanting her out is so telling.  If Obama has won and there is no conceivable way for her to win, then just relax and be amused.  But all I hear is whining and gnashing of teeth.  I wonder why

by emmasaint 2008-05-05 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: She doesn't owe him the nomination

"I wonder why"

I guess it's because we're all weary of Hillary's reckless and irresponsible campaign.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-05 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: She doesn't owe him the nomination

I'm fine with having HRC stay in the game until every state and territory has had its primary or caucus.

What I'm detecting is HRC psychologically preparing her supporters to fight beyond this point. There are two arguments that seem to point to fighting after the the primaries and caucuses.

One, she's arguing about FL and MI.

Two, the HRC partisans are saying that superdelegates don't vote until the convention.

The second argument seems a prelude to staying in the contest and attacking the eventual Dem nominee even after he's gotten the most pledged delegates and obtain the support of sufficient super-delegates to get the nomination.

This seems like a scorched-earth campaign. And a bunch of HRC supporters seem to feel so wronged by the process--or something--that they are willing to take illogical positions and behave inappropriately.

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-05 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

I don't think Clinton can focus on netting delegates via FL and MI --- Obama get delegates too and he will hit his magic number.  

Clsing the gap is a win for Obama.  I think you need to stop the delegate count and force a rethink by Supers here.

Aslo finishing strong is impossible here (as far as gaining delegates), the margin is still going to be roughly 100.  FL and MI represents 185 and 128 pledged delegates respectively.  Geting only 40% puts him over the mark and plays into Supers falling like dominoes for him, I think

by kmwray 2008-05-05 11:13AM | 0 recs
YES. Her swearing in on

January 20, 2009

by LindaSFNM 2008-05-05 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: YES. Her swearing in on

I'm afraid it's going to be a very cold and rainy day for you.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-05 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

i think she needs both states tomorrow to have an endgame. otherwise, we will all suddenly hear about how west virginia and kentucky are now the microcosms of the entire democratic electorate.

here's how she wins:

1.) somehow, get michigan and florida seated as is, and get the supers to take their popular votes at face value, even though bho wasn't on the michigan ballot. that will net her 120 delegates, and probably put her into a slight lead over obama after all is said and done. for this to work, he CANNOT receive any part of the michigan delegation.

2.) convince the obama supporters that no. 1 isn't a completely bullshit move, and beg obama to be her veep candidate. keep in mind that scenario 1 only happens after a floor-fight, which decreases the eventual nominee's chances of winning in november substantially.

3.) win out. she needs to pull an upset in oregon or north carolina, something to show that obama has totally collapsed.

4.) win the popular vote without michigan and florida. this is nearly impossible.

of those, no. 1 is her best bet. but, i think, that basically destroys the party, clinton loses in november, and obama's the de facto nominee in 2012.  

point is, i see no scenario under which she becomes president. FWIW if she wins the nomination, i'll probably vote for her.

by jbill 2008-05-05 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Your math is wrong. Seating Michigan and Florida increase the number of delegates required to nominate. It would net Clinton at least a 55 delegate gain on Obama, probably more. If that happens later this month, the whole thing changes dramatically.

Without it, she must hope she demonstrates enough momentum and exposes Obama enough to gain a big nod from the remaining supers.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-05 11:34AM | 0 recs
looks like you'd be a better advisor

Than many of the people the HRC campaign is paying millions of dollars.

I think her major problem with super delegates, and this is just a guess, is that many of them resent the way the campaign has been run. Now, HRC supporters, please don't waste your time trying to tell me why they are wrong etc - it's just a hunch of mine, and anything you say probably wouldn't matter to a SD who thinks this way.

1) I think they don't like how she put McCain and herself on a pedastal and suggested Obama doesn't belong in the race;

  1. I think they are worried about the way her campaign has performed strategically (fund raising, lack of coherent messages), and tactically (disorganized after 2/5; losing caucus states)
  2. I think that there may be some SDs who see this as a generational/transitional primary - between the Clinton/DLC "machine" and whatever comes afterwards - and many may see Obama as one of th e future leaders of the party

4) I think many of the SDs are seriously worried that Hillary, even with the troubles with Wright, is still the candidate that the GOP thinks will be easier to defeat.

Those are the reasons I think it's unlikely that you're going to see SDs who have already chosen Obama to switch back. I don't know that there is anything more Hillary can do to win over the SDs - it's really up to the Obama campaign. That IMO is why Hillary is still in the race. If some catastrophic mistake is made or revelation comes out that absolutely sinks the Obama campaign, she wants to be in the perfect position to assume the spot.  

by highgrade 2008-05-05 11:36AM | 0 recs
Hillary's endgame

Let's start the scenario with her winning more than 55% of the remaining delegates, then add at least some delegates from MI and FL in proportion of votes won. The unpledged delegates (even some who say they support Obama) will exercise their right to vote for whomever they think will beat McCain in November.  All of a sudden we're talking about Obama's endgame instead, aren't we?

by pan230oh 2008-05-05 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

Obma's emdgame is simpler, he's likely to have won the most ledged delegates and the most states.  he will proably have the most votes (sans Michigan and Florida but more proable more votes win Florida included).

His argument is made.

When you are in second place and your votes keep the person in first place from being the winner,m can you leapfrog into first place.

I think, and I appreciate the toned down comments and the focus on how HRC can turn this, Clinton needs to neutralize three groups, uncommitted Supers, any pledged delegates from FL and MI (even those most are pledged to her), and the media apparatus.  

To me, boldly picking a VP nominee helps all three.  Plus finding a relatively young politician with minority appeal would dovetail nicely towards this end

Regardless of who they support now ---

Bobby Scott of VA
Kendrick Meek of FL
Hank Johnson of GA
Chaka Fattah of PA
Either Senator or Rep Salazar of CO

Just off the top of my head, any of these candidates could break uncommitted delegates towards HRC

by kmwray 2008-05-05 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Does Hillary Clinton have an endgame?

If she can hold NC to within say 5/6--IF

while she wins IND by say 8-9

then her pop vote gains in WV and KY and PR
would likely put her ahead of Barack in pop vote incl FLA as is and incl MI (with Barack getting all Undecided)

At that point,in early June,  she goes public and announces that she would select Barack as her VP

Winning 6 of the last 8 states + pulling ahead in the Pop Vote + winning most of the large ind states = 'The Big MO'"

Supers then see a way out for themselves--pressure Obama to accept a VP role--'no more MO'

Obama might privately fear that he could well lose to McCain-and if that happened his future Presidential cards would be ruined--by accepting the VP slot now, he would a) gain much needed exposure and experience, 2)ensure that he would likely be the Dem Nominee in 2012 if HRC loses to McCain/Rice in Nov--and he might even be able to wrestle HRC into agreeing to run only 1 term if she beats McCain/Rice---HRC might be prepared to agree to do that

by ionsys 2008-05-05 03:45PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads