Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island...

[Max Payne]

And will win the Democratic nomination.

They keep saying that its impossible for her to get the deligates needed to make it official unless she wins 70-30 the rest of the way, but the fact is, Obama cant get the right amount unless he does something very similar.

It doesnt matter who it is, cause who ever it is, the other will end up being there VP, the voters have made it clear, they love both, and they want both to win, and it will make this whole process alot easier for the voters to accept if they end up on the same ticket.

Clinton really did pull off quite an up set, they said it was over, the media favors Obama extremly, he is outspending her by insane amounts, and now she won 2 more big states.

Michigan and Florida is what will decide it, they are gonna have to re do those primary votes and have them count for something, and I think she walks away with Florida and who knows with Michigan.

[haydonobob]

well, this should be interesting

[CMax]

....fuuuuuuck.

Damn Texas fuckin' up again.

[Searcher]

Clinton/Oboma.......Oboma/Clinton I don't care, I just hope we get 'em both.

[hackerslacker]

Im not really worried about who is going to win. I looked over the charts and I agree with clinton and huckabee on different issues. more so than Obama etc.

My gf hates clinton, but she doesnt have a reason. The only reason she has is cause her mom and dad dont like clinton. Well no wait, because Bill got head from an intern. thats why.

my gf is such a sheep.

[Darkgod]

You date a sheep.

[Grendel]

And will win the Democratic nomination.

They keep saying that its impossible for her to get the deligates needed to make it official unless she wins 70-30 the rest of the way, but the fact is, Obama cant get the right amount unless he does something very similar.

It doesnt matter who it is, cause who ever it is, the other will end up being there VP, the voters have made it clear, they love both, and they want both to win, and it will make this whole process alot easier for the voters to accept if they end up on the same ticket.

Clinton really did pull off quite an up set, they said it was over, the media favors Obama extremly, he is outspending her by insane amounts, and now she won 2 more big states.

Michigan and Florida is what will decide it, they are gonna have to re do those primary votes and have them count for something, and I think she walks away with Florida and who knows with Michigan.Max, there's a number of problems with that. First, the 70/30 issue doesn't really apply to Obama due to his lead. It's all about the net gains at this point, and that's a much bigger issue to the trailing candidate.

As for a joint ticket come November, I see nothing that indicates Hillary's willingness to be the VP. Obama, possibly, but not the other way around. And, given Hillary's reliance on negative campaigning--even going so far as to try and highlight (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hillary-today-john-mccain-has-more.html) that the other party's candidate is "more experienced" than Obama--even that might be a reach.

The "upset" descriptor is a complete campaign fabrication. First of all, the conventional media wisdom has never been that "it's over" for Clinton. Across the board, the lead up to yesterday was some variation of "do or die." (A falsity in itself, considering that the math, even with wins, works against her). Secondly, and more to the point, Hillary has had a solid lead in Ohio for months and the Texas spread tightened up to be neck and neck--which is just about where it finished. Finally, with the split primary/caucus system in place in Texas, if Obama maintains the edge he has in the caucuses, he can still walk with the majority of Texas delegates and actually extend his lead. Not much of a "win" if the other guy gets the spoils.

Don't get me wrong, this could absolutely go either way, but the campaign Clinton is running is really turning me off.

[hackerslacker]

You date a sheep.

baahh baahh baah hehehe

[Max Payne]

Max, there's a number of problems with that. First, the 70/30 issue doesn't really apply to Obama due to his lead. It's all about the net gains at this point, and that's a much bigger issue to the trailing candidate.

As for a joint ticket come November, I see nothing that indicates Hillary's willingness to be the VP. Obama, possibly, but not the other way around. And, given Hillary's reliance on negative campaigning--even going so far as to try and highlight (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hillary-today-john-mccain-has-more.html) that the other party's candidate is "more experienced" than Obama--even that might be a reach.

The "upset" descriptor is a complete campaign fabrication. First of all, the conventional media wisdom has never been that "it's over" for Clinton. Across the board, the lead up to yesterday was some variation of "do or die." (A falsity in itself, considering that the math, even with wins, works against her). Secondly, and more to the point, Hillary has had a solid lead in Ohio for months and the Texas spread tightened up to be neck and neck--which is just about where it finished. Finally, with the split primary/caucus system in place in Texas, if Obama maintains the edge he has in the caucuses, he can still walk with the majority of Texas delegates and actually extend his lead. Not much of a "win" if the other guy gets the spoils.

Don't get me wrong, this could absolutely go either way, but the campaign Clinton is running is really turning me off.


Its not Clintons fault the math works against her, this whole process is broken and as of right now, neither one of these canidates can reach 2025 unless they both win out, and win big.

Clinton started Texas yesturday 75,000 votes down due to early voting, and made that up and won by close to 100,00 votes, but she isn't going to walk out of Texas with any deligates cause of how there awarded by purportion, which is crazy, this isn't the general election where they want to make smaller states count with the electoral vote. I mean, right now, there is less then a 2,000 vote lead in the Texas caucus for Obama, and alot of these people voted twice, and because of this she will lose deligates, that isn't fair. That is just really bad politics if you ask me, these votes should be put into the primary or disgarded.


I understand what your saying, but it's really a mis conception if people think she is the only one who is mathmatically in trouble, but he cant get there either unless he wins big too.

So how do we fix this, if he has a 100 deligate lead, but she reachs 2025 cause of super deligates people might cry foul, but first of all, that is how the game is played.

But ok, they all play fair, the super deligates go the way of the voter, but in the end neither is still at 2025, (even if they go the way of the voter, you have to look at who the voters are voting for now, instead of Jan-Feb) Obama who would likely be in the lead in this scenario will claim that he has more, the voters spoken and that he should be the nominee, but the fact is, he doesn't reach 2025 so he can not be.

So Clinton will want Michigan and Florida to count, but they already agreed that they would not, but it's not her fault that these two states moved up the dates and you cant punish these voters, you alienate them come the general election.

So in order for it to be fair and to have it mathmatically work out for one of these two, these two states have to count, but they have to be re done as well, and even though Howard Dean says no, it looks like the pressure will be too much and it will have to be done.


Clinton insinuated this morning that it is likely that it will be a Clinton/Obama Obama/Clinton ticket but right now they have to find out who will be on top of it.

Obama would be the perfect VP, he could get his 8 year experiance that he "lacks" and run for President following Clintons run, and unless Clinton has 8 years of Bush like policy, he should have no problem winning.

[réÐþÁ†µ]

Unfortunate turn of events.

IMO of course.

Obama needs another couple solid wins to solidify it but as now, he seems to be on his heels.

[Grendel]

I understand what your saying, but it's really a mis conception if people think she is the only one who is mathmatically in trouble, but he cant get there either unless he wins big too.The trouble is solely hers in that there's essentially no way she can overtake him with pledged delegates, even if she wins out, which is highly unlikely, to say the least.


Latest numbers (http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=480) have Democratic voters preferring 2:1 that the superdelegates respect the will of the primary and caucus voters. With the GOP nominee able to sit back and relax, there's going to be major pressure on those folks to keep the constituency happy to ensure they turn out in November.

But ok, they all play fair, the super deligates go the way of the voter, but in the end neither is still at 2025That's simply incorrect.

As it stands (pre-Texas caucus count), Obama already has 1321 pledged delegates. There are 790+ superdelegates. Assuming your "play fair" scenario, those votes put the pledged leader--whomever it may be--well over the necessary 2025 even if no solution is found for MI and FL.

EDIT:

And Hillary continues (http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hillary-again-says-three-more-times.html) to do the GOPs work for them, negatively contrasting Obama with John McCain in her TV appearances.

Un. Real.

This November, the "even a leader of your own party thinks...," attack ads will write themselves. Fighting to win is one thing, but destroying your party's chances in the general to do it is something else. This line of attack is reprehensible.

[Max Payne]

If Hillary won out, and didnt get the deligate lead, people would feel like the way these deligates are handid out cheated her.

That said, she will not win out, but if it goes ALL the way, she will win her fair share, on top of all the big ones.

I personally feel like, unless something big happens, neither one will get the deligates needed unless Florida and Michigan are re done.

[Aurone]

Here's an Article from a site I visit reguarly that talks about how Hilliary didn't really win much yesterday.

Hillary Clinton had a big night last night, winning the primaries in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, giving her campaign its best day since winning New Hampshire in early January. Barack Obama won the Vermont primary and the Texas caucuses. So what does this all mean and where does the race go from here?

The major news networks seem to be spinning Clinton's wins as major and seem to be framing the race as a "dead heat" now. While her wins in OH and TX are a very positive sign for her and something she deserves a lot of credit for (let's face it, she and Obama campaigned very hard in both states and she won both, plain and simple), the cold hard facts are that she still has virtually no chance at winning the nomination. The media and the Clinton camp will likely spin this a million different ways in the coming days, but unless she works out some sort of backroom deal to steal the nomination, she will not win it under the current rules. That is just a fact of the math. She needed to win OH and TX by 15-20 points to make any sort of game-changing dent in Obama's pledged delegate lead and despite having 15-20 point leads in both states as recently as two weeks ago, she blew them both and finished up gaining basically nothing except symbolic victories.

Looking ahead, Obama is likely to win Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on Tuesday. Then both campaigns put all focus on Pennsylvania which is on April 22nd. Pennsylvania is a closed primary that Clinton should win. But after that, the schedule becomes VERY favorable to Obama. He is likely to rack up several wins and build another long winning streak throughout May (including likely wins in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota). But the night to really watch will be May 6th. May 6th is the next biggest day, delegate wise, as it will feature both North Carolina and Indiana. And guess what? Obama is expected to win both of those easily. I won't go through all the numbers (I have an article up here that give Clinton the benefit in every state going forward and still has her finishing 100+ pledged delegates behind), but under normal assumptions about what will happen from here on out, Obama will have a near 200 pledged delegate lead on May 7th and an even bigger pledged delegate lead when the primary season ends in June. There is virtually no way that superdelegates will overturn a 200+ pledged delegate lead. It just won't happen (unless some sort of major scandal about Obama comes out).

The results of OH and TX remind me a lot of Super Tuesday. On Super Tuesday, Clinton won the big states and the media declared her the night's winner. It wasn't until a few days later that people started realizing that Obama WON the delegate race on Super Tuesday and that was what mattered. Looking at last night's results, Clinton did not really gain any delegates. Rhode Island and Vermont wiped each other out and whatever delegates Clinton gets out of Ohio (likely 7-10) will be wiped out by the delegates Obama wins in Texas (likely 7-10). That means that Clinton is now still just as far behind as she was before, and now has fewer states in which to make up the gap.

But some will argue that she now has the momentum. And that is probably true. She won two big states and deserves the momentum. But guess what? Momentum is only relevant in the short term. Obama will get his own momentum when he wins in Wyoming and Mississippi and then it is a MONTH until Pennsylvania, meaning that whatever momentum either candidate has will long disappear by the time PA votes. And if Clinton wins PA, the schedule again seems to lineup a bunch of favorable Obama states after that.

Clinton will eventually begin to argue that she should get the nomination despite losing the pledged delegates because she won big states. But guess what, the people who have to buy that argument are superdelegates, and most of them are from states that aren't New York and California. She already has most of the "big state" superdelegates. Will superdelegates from smaller states agree that their states don't matter and overturn the election results for Clinton? Highly unlikely.

What will also be interesting to see now is the strategy Obama and Clinton now take. Clinton obviously had some success with her "kitchen sink" strategy of throwing all kinds of attacks at Obama and hoping something sticks (and in the case of Ohio, NAFTAgate stuck). I'd expect them to continue that, especially now with the Rezko trial underway in Chicago. One thing Obama cannot do is sit around and take attack after attack. She made a big issue out of an Obama campaign economic policy guy apparently talking to Canada about some of Obama's views on NAFTA and he seemed to more or less let her say whatever she wanted. He will have to respond quickly and aggressively. He cannot just ignore Clinton. He knows that there is almost no chance that she can win, but ignoring her seems to make him come off arrogant and also serves to fire up her supporters. There will be plenty of time for McCain later.

The other thing to watch now is how superdelegates react this week. Some reports yesterday stated that Obama is sitting on 50 superdelegate endorsements that he has yet to announce. If that is true, and it is a big if, he will be able to halt Clinton's momentum almost instantly. He will also make the math against her winning even more daunting than it already is. I suspect, though, that superdelegates, for the most part, will now stay out of this until May 7th. I'd keep that date in mind because if things go as expected from here until May 7th (Clinton wins PA, Guam while Obama wins Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana), he will have a clearly dominant pledged delegate lead with only six contests left (four of which he'd likely win -- West Virginia, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana). That is the day I'd expect many superdelegates, including some high ranking members of the party, to begin to solidify behind Obama.

So how can Clinton possibly win? If a major Obama scandal comes out, that could change things. The other scenario is that if she somehow gets Obama's pledged delegate lead down under 100, in which case the Democratic party would probably hold new primaries or caucuses in Florida and Michigan. She still wouldn't be able to make up the pledged delegate gap, but if it's really close, say less than 50, maybe she has some sort of argument to convince some superdelegates to side with her. But this scenario would require that she win EVERY state from now on with 60%+ of the vote. She didn't even win 60% of the vote in her homestate of New York.

So to sum up, winning Ohio and Texas are very positive wins for Clinton. She fought hard for them. But at some point, she will have to explain how she wins the nomination. The fact is that last night was Clinton's best chance to bite into Obama's delegate lead, and she failed miserably. She didn't even gain 20-30 delegates. She gained basically nothing. The media will spin this to her because they jump from one extreme to the next, somebody has to have all the momentum in the weird world of cable news. But the longterm picture is that NOTHING changed last night and, if anything, it is now even harder for Clinton to eat into Obama's delegate lead because she blew her best chance and now has four fewer states in which to gain ground. Don't fall for the short term media hype. At the end of this thing, the media AND the superdelegates will talk NOT about who won what states and how big they are, they will talk about who won more delegates and THAT is the person who will be the nominee. Looking at the delegate count and the upcoming states, there really is no way she wins unless she somehow steals the nomination, in which case none of this matters because the Democratic party would be saying that people's votes don't matter, thus ripping the party apart and handing the November election to John McCain. At this point, she may be positioning herself to get into a position at the end where the party forces Obama to pick her as his Vice President in hopes of uniting the party. Obama probably doesn't want her as his VP, but the longer this goes and the more Clinton supporters begin to dislike Obama (and vice-versa), the more likely it will be that he will have to put her on the ticket to appease her supporters. Even though he is winning, he isn't winning by enough to take the risk of blowing off Clinton supporters and figuring he can win in November without even 20-30% of them.

But Clinton and the media want this to go on, so she bought herself two more months with her wins in OH and TX and on and on we go.

[Grendel]

If Hillary won out, and didnt get the deligate lead, people would feel like the way these deligates are handid out cheated her.How do you figure?

While the odd Texas caucus/primary split is one thing, there has been no controversy over the proportional allotment structure that would foreshadow any such claims of "cheating."

I personally feel like, unless something big happens, neither one will get the deligates needed unless Florida and Michigan are re done.Max, just look at the numbers. This isn't a matter of feeling or belief. With the superdelegates able to account for 40% of the necessary total, this could easily be decided without those states' input. That said, so as not to totally piss off that voter pool, I presume some sort of accomodation--likely caucuses--would be used.

[Grendel]

Here's an Article from a site I visit reguarly that talks about how Hilliary didn't really win much yesterday.Slate.com has a handy-dandy delegate counter (http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/) that can work out the numbers.

Assuming the scenario your story presents plays out, even with relatively narrow 53/47 Obama wins in those contests (55/45 in the "easy" ones in Indiana and NC) and a 55/45 Hillary triumph in "crucial" Pennsylvania, she's still down about 150 heading to the convention.

[Driden]

You should tell your gf - "I'd rather have someone fuck the President (Clinton) then have a President fuck me (Bush/Obama/McCain)"

[Max Payne]

How do you figure?

While the odd Texas caucus/primary split is one thing, there has been no controversy over the proportional allotment structure that would foreshadow any such claims of "cheating."

Max, just look at the numbers. This isn't a matter of feeling or belief. With the superdelegates able to account for 40% of the necessary total, this could easily be decided without those states' input. That said, so as not to totally piss off that voter pool, I presume some sort of accomodation--likely caucuses--would be used.


Neither one of these canidates are reaching 2025 without the super deligates that this point, that is an almost certainty.

All I see on the tv is if Hillary wins this cause she has more there will be outcry, but right now they are only seperated by about 100 pledged deligates and people keep crying foul at the potential that she could win this on super deligates taken it away from Obama.

They say, if they vote the way of the people, this wont be a problem.

But that isnt there obligation, there obligation is to make up the differance between what the voters at the start of this process didnt have at their exposal that the voters at the end of it do, Obama is winning now, but what if a scandal came out?


Clinton has this thing won if she wins Penslyvania, book it.

[Grendel]

I don't think there's too many people who doubt she'll win Pennsylvania. She's got around a 46/37 edge there, much like Ohio. Once again, not an upset if it happens.

As noted before, should the polls bear themselves out, we go to the convention with Obama up by 150 or more. It's shaping up more and more that the only way she gets in is if anointed by the supers, something you seem to concede would taint the race, introducing the distraction of forcing her to play defense with her own party while fending off GOP attacks of not only not being her party's popular choice, but getting in by virtue of loyalists.

Especially with that scenario, if Obama continues polling (http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4394014&page=1) much better against McCain, how do you figure that getting the Pennsylvania scalp for her wall is that much of a deal-sealer?

[Max Payne]

I do think, that if one or the other gets the nomination solely on super deligates that it is an issue.

And neither one can at this point get 2025 without them.

So if, at the end, it's 100 or less deligate lead, and maybe she has the popular vote. Then you can say the system failed in more ways then one.

Which is why I keep saying, that MI and FL have to be re done.

[killerinme]

I think both McCain and Clinton will be aweful presidents.

I think Obama will be a bad President.