cash did not win PA, TX, OH and IN. You can take your cash and shove it! I do not need to tell you where.

like to have elections bought. At least that's the way it appeared when I vol'd in TX.

the Clintons.

And God knows the Clintons need it.  They need our monetary support so they can continue to live the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.  For Christ's sake, the poor woman doesn't know how to pump her own gas or pour her own coffee!!  Think of what she would do if she had to fire all her personal assistants and drivers.  OBAMA SAVE HER!!!

fund their own campaigns, men think that is just great - when women do it, men get the vapors.  Hillary is far from bankrupt.  She would be crazy not to fund her own campaign as it needs it.

Afterall things could be worse, she could have outspent her opponent 4:1 in two major swing states and LOST, just like Obama did.

HA! now the obma crowd are proud of MONEY being the bottomline in elections!!!! always the same, if my guy does it it's OK then....

Thanks for the reminder.  

Give it up people!!!

%10.00, $20.00, $50.00, $100.00. Whatever you can spare to pull her through.  Team Obama's strategy is to outspend until she has nothing more.  Don't let that happen!!

You're in SF right? I'll bet you $100 she's our nominee. Will pick up my winnings in August somewhere in the city you name the spot.

No concern for Obama, linc, just concern for you.

It is in the bag.  

If Clinton keeps on fighting by making ridiculous arguments like the one you are making then that will  hurt the party.  That is what the concern is about.  

No concern, best of luck.  

Another crap diary whining about FL and MI.  Nothing to see here...same ole same ole.  I wish her luck in the NY Senate Primary.  Be a real shame if some of those "neo libral" sites like MoveOn or Kos of HuffPo decide to turn on the fundraising spigot for her primary challenger.  Be a real shame if people already start pledging money in their head to whomever that candidate maybe.  Then she can go back to doing her civic duty bettering the community by working for the Walmart Board of Directors crafting insurance policies to screw over their workers.

your numbers appear to be out of date...

or simply made up. Going by RCP's table, the primaries are 15,568,576 Obama vs. 15,019,856 Clinton. Clinton get's 300,000 closer if you include Florida, but the only measure where she's ahead includes Michigan without a single vote going to Obama and excludes all caucus states altogether.

...and you're calling throwing out the results of 14 states "democratic" now?

voted and she wasn't.

and this is a constructive, purposive comment how?

we still have the delegates.

Who is counting the results of the TX caucus in the popular vote totals?  WA doesn't release popular vote totals.

If you docked Obama the difference between the Texas caucus and primary in every caucus state- he'd still win every single one of them that still fell in his column with the exception of Iowa (which, of course, would have gone to Edwards if Obama magically lost support). If, in turn, that margin of victory received the average turnout of primaries in this election, Obama would be due 350,000 extra votes over Clinton than what he is presently credited with.

The caucus system is a legitimate means of contributing to the nomination process... if you think we should do away with caucuses altogether I suggest you bring that up in four years. In the meantime, you're suggesting that we penalize those states after the fact for a system they had every right to use.

Thats "undemocratic."

lol.  All we have left is the popular vote and electibility?  

Its absolutely amazing that the only metric that actually counts is the only one Clinton supporters ignore at this point.

And I don't think the popular vote totals do count the TX caucus results, do they?  As for Washington, the primary doesn't count for anything, so of course those votes shouldn't count.  It would be like if California held another primary and then we counted those votes.  It makes no sense.

How horrendously immoral!  Didn't anyone teach you, in about kindergarten, about agreeing to the rules and then playing in accordance with them?  Caucuses have been kosher (and not whimpered about) in America in one regard or another since its birth.  Caucus states broke no rules and you want to take away their influence over the nomination entirely in order to accommodate states that did break the rules despite being warned ahead of time and provided an opportunity to undo the transgression afterward?!  Plus, and this is the unbelievable part, you have the incredible chutzpah to to be all sanctimonious about how undemocratic caucuses are while you attempt to subvert the democratic nomination process!  

Congrats.  That is among the top 5 most disingenuous things that I have ever seen.  

No offense, but your argument makes no sense.  The legal status of the election is a completely different issue than whether a private organization chooses to allocate delegates based on those results.  There is no superseding of anything.  Your legal analysis is sorely lacking.

It seems to me that you're saying the rules of a private organization, the Democratic Party of the United States, supersedes laws passed by state legislatures and approved by the chief executive officer of the states; the Governor.

Actually, wasn't the law that established the Michigan primary annulled by a Michigan court, because it restricted access to the voter lists to only the Democratic and Republican parties? Unless the law had a clause allowing the invalidation of only a part of the law (and I don't think it did), that means that the entire law establishing the election was invalidated, so the primary had no legal basis. Really just a point of pedantry, since the decision as to whether the delegates elected in the Democratic party primary have votes at the convention is entirely the decision of the Democratic party, not the Michigan legislature.

Just being a pedant.

Please see the latest polling out of Michigan.

Obama does better than Hillary in a matchup against McCain.  This is not even a little bit surprising - Obama has demonstrated that he's much more appealing to Dems in the upper Midwest than Clinton - see, e.g., MN, WI, IL, IA.

So, the argument that nominating Obama is going to cost us MI is entirely made up - zero evidence to support it.

That is specifically anathematic in the Obama camp.

If some other candidate can win this campaign and instill hope in this country, then good on them.

I think either other option has a near-zero chance of that, and also that it is the most important thing that can be done for this nation.  If I thought another candidate could turn around the ennui and cynicism of this country I wouldn't be as opposed to them as I am, but for pete's sake, hope all you can.

-chris

I really think my fellow Obama supporters need to back off and let this thing play out through the final primaries, if only for the perception of a legitimate resolution.  Nothing is gained by trying to pressure the Clinton supporters into giving up hope.  Sure, the chances aren't good, but this thing really is not certain until the superdelegates do their thing.  It seems obvious to me at this point that quite a few are going to put off announcing until after the voters have their say, if only to avoid accusations of pulling off a coup.

So don't give up hope, continue supporting your candidate until the nomination concludes, and please believe that not all Obama supporters are as, um, 'expressive' as those that make themselves most noticeable on the interweb.

Peace

changing the result of an election after the fact automatically makes that vote completely illegitimate. I supported revotes in Michigan and Florida... absent a revote neither contest is valid regarding the selection of the nominee.

indeed, Clinton started out with a 100 vote advantage in supers before a single vote was cast. Now she's behind... and it appears that even by the standards you suggest she falls short.

Out of one side of your mouth you promote a (nonexistent) "popular vote in the spirit of democracy and then, from the other side suggest that the superdelegates overturn the results of a process that is designed to equally weight caucuses, open primaries and closed primaries to the benefit of no single candidate.

...how principled.

that the remaining unpledged SD's are all of a sudden going to break 70-30 for HRC based on the convoluted 'this state counts but this one doesn't' math you presented here?

I have no real preference other than to beat McCain and if HRC wants to wait a few more weeks before bowing to reality, that's her choice. Obama and McCain have already moved on as has the media.

But I have a hard time believing that people still think HRC has a chance to get the nomination. This is over and it's time to move on.

base their decision on the amount of spam email they receive from supporters threatening to vote republican in November if they don't get their way.

Using that metric, you should have nothing to worry about.

I thought you wanted to express the will of the people - that was your basis for preferring the popular vote.

You honestly believe that Obama did not have even one supporter in Michigan?  That giving him zero reflects the will of the Michigan electorate?

If you want to replace Iowa as first in the nation, fine. I disagree, but I'll admit I'm wholly and totally biased on that issue. But don't you dare disregard the state's ability to go blue, or decide our votes don't count because you don't like the caucuses.

Then since Obama won Georgia handily I assume you agree he's following in the fine tradition of Bill Clinton and will be our next President.

I saw the RCP article too...I believe it did the Mi 91-0 count to get there

He trusted her when she said she was leaving her name on the ballot but it didn't matter because it didn't count.

He should have known that she was lying and would come back later and want to claim that the voters really wanted her even though she was the only choice they had.

So it's not a big deal if pro-Obama voters get disenfranchished (they were screwed by the decisions of party higher ups), but not including the votes of Clinton supporters in Florida would be a travesty.  

And you expect to sell that?  

And what about all the voters in FL and MI who didn't vote in the primaries because they were told, by Hillary among others, that they wouldn't count?

Sometime soon, we're all going to get tired of these arguments. Nobody buys them: not the SDs, not the voters.

Reality sucks.

Clinton would have been the stronger candidate -
Edwards would have been stronger still.
Both have the capacity to operate politically.

Obama has a "movement" and a big list of donors.
But movements require true believers and purity -
And Hillary supporters will never be true believers
Or meet the standards of purity that seem to emanate from the Obama camp.

Movement candidates from both parties have fared horribly.
The movement always looks overwhelming from within,
but it fizzles - either before the convention or in the general election.

For example -
William Jennings Bryan - the populist appeal with Democrats
Teddy Roosevelt - the progressive challenge to the Republican Party
Robert Taft - "Mr. Republican" and the conservative movement
Barry Goldwater - ideologically pure, but trounced at th polls
George McGovern - reforming the Dems at the cost of a landslide loss

Im actually pretty good at reading.  You start off by throwing out the caucus states.

"Right now, if you include Florida and exclude MI and the undemocratic estimates from caucus states, then Hillary is just behind in the popular vote by slightly over 440,000 votes. That's right, just 440,000 votes out of a total of over 40,000,000 million that we should expect from this primary. That's 1%- just 1%."

Then you acknowledge the caucus states briefly but throw them out again at the conclusion of your diary by using the popular vote difference that doesn't count the caucus states:

"If the polling out of KY and WV holds, then Hillary can get very close to those 440,000 votes in just those two states alone- we need to GOTV and GOTV in a big way. OR will be closer, SD and MT will be closer and then Hillary will finish it all off with a big win in PR"

I know making such ridiculous arguments must take considerable creativity so maybe the scenario you wrote about isn't the one you thought you did...

You are correct. I was using the british system. gets me in trouble every time...

Exactly what I do, but i actually have called Ted Kennedy's office along with John Kerry's and Nancy Pelosi's, with a few uncommitted onces as well. I've also been making calls, and reminding our voters "keep that faith, keep your courage, stick together, stay strong, do not yield, stand up, WE SUPPORT CLINTON AND WE'LL NEVER SURRENDER!"