No call on Ohio. That seems like good news for Obama, indicating that any delegate lead coming out of Ohio will be very small and making it extremely unlikely that Clinton will make any kind of meaningful dent in Obama's delegate lead. The bluster on television is that she's going to stay in even if it's mathematically impossible for her to make up the delegate gap but I don't see what kind of sense that makes. I mean, if she can't possibly win, she can't possibly win.
Too Close in Ohio
04 Mar 2008 07:35 pm
Comments (39)
Still early, but squeaking out a victory in Ohio after all the polls showing a widening lead doesn't fit with her "change in the momentum" meme she's been pushing. But she's going to keep going. She's like the terminator!
Hillary Clinton will stay in the race no matter what the numbers say, because she thinks an assassin's bullet is an unpredictable thing.
That's the only reason for her to stay in a race she can't win through elections, as far as I can reason. If she drops out, Gore is the go-to guy in that situation, not her, not now.
But let's pray we never know what would have happened in that case.
CNN's exit poll projects that Hillary will win Ohio 58 percent to 41.
--She's like the terminator!--
which means the only way to end this is crushing her in between two giant metal presses, which i hope are Ohio and Texas.
No call on Ohio. That seems like good news for Obama, indicating that any delegate lead coming out of Ohio will be very small and making it extremely unlikely that Clinton will make any kind of meaningful dent in Obama's delegate lead.
Did they call California right away?
It's been clear for a couple of weeks, now, that she's staked her entire campaign on getting the FL/MI delegates seated. She seems to actually believe she'll succeed. Given that, it's hardly surprising that she's not quitting; she thinks she's way ahead.
No, Jensen. They project 51-48.
I don't see overall numbers in the CNN polls, but calculating based on the numbers shown for men and women, I get 51%-48% for Clinton, which as far as I'm concerned is a tie.
haha. oh, yeah.
Except, Urbino, that she wouldn't be way ahead, even with FL + MI.
Actually I read this differently ... I think it means the epolls are all about 8 points skewed towards Obama in OH, TX, and RI.
Let's see how long this takes...
How close would Hillary have to get to Obama in the pledged delegate total to come out on top with superdelegates so that the superdelegates wouldn't be accused of "thwarting the will of the voters"? Obviously if Obama beats Hillary's total by just one pledged delegate, nobody could complain if Hillary won on the strength of superdelegates. And on the other extreme end, if Obama had like a 600 pledged delegate lead even Clinton supporters would have to concede it would be wrong for superdelegates to swing it her way. But what if it's under 100 and Hillary was the preferred candidate in all polls by the time of the convention?
And Benjamin beat me to it.
Does anyone have the CNN exit poll link?
Obviously if Obama beats Hillary's total by just one pledged delegate, nobody could complain if Hillary won on the strength of superdelegates.
This is very far from obvious to me.
Baker has a story at WashPo that she's going to paint Obama as a paper tiger who can't win and go after the superdelegates to change the game around and pull a Mondale.
That's the way I see it: coupled with seating MI and FL she sees a path to the nomination.
And on the other extreme end, if Obama had like a 600 pledged delegate lead even Clinton supporters would have to concede it would be wrong for superdelegates to swing it her way.
This is also--based on the rhetoric of Clinton campaign officials and Clinton partisans here--far from obvious to me. Especially if you look at a more realistic number like 200 (aka 10% of the total needed to win.)
Basically, Obama will win in Vermont and the other three will be essential ties. Obama might come out of the three with net delegates. This makes it impossible for Clinton to ever gather more delegates. Supers will not go over the people, so it is over.
Now, all reasonable people can see it is over (but I guess not Ohio voters who I think made more of a NAFTA protest vote than anything else). But the news networks are making a lot of money off this and have a vested interest in keeping things going. The Republicans and their supporters (e.g. Buchanan and Scarb on MSNBC) see an advantage in Clinton continuing her negative attacks.
So, almost all the talking heads will probably push the vote win and downplay the delegate loss for Clinton and fall in behind her if she wants to continue. I think Clinton would keep going as long as she is funded. Too bad for the Democratic party.
two words, Mike Huckabee
Do the exit polls take early voting (which favored Clinton heavily in Ohio) into account?
Nicholas, can you expand? If Ohio is too close to call, and the polls had Hillary Clinton ahead in Ohio, how does this indicate that the polls are skewed in favor of Obama?
"Baker has a story at WashPo that she's going to paint Obama as a paper tiger who can't win"
It sounds like something she'd say, but it doesn't make much sense. It's not like she's not a bigger paper tiger than he is. Where's her stack of victories?
Baker has a story at WashPo that she's going to paint Obama as a paper tiger who can't win and go after the superdelegates to change the game around and pull a Mondale.
Yeah, but Obama can simply go back to the superdelegates and say: "Look at the oppo research I have on Clinton. I'm holding this back for party unity's sake. But if we don't shut this down in the next couple of weeks, I'm gonna drop this on her like a ten megaton H-bomb. And I'll do it through the blogs, where I'll have plausible deniability."
There's a lot of dirt on the Clintons out there that's being kept in reserve. I imagine the threat of mutually assured destruction will be persuasive to the Supers.
I guess you meant to say, "If she can't possibly win according to the rules,," because I'm sure her whole strategy right now is to get the rules changed and lawyer-up...big time. She's going to send James Baker III down to Florida any day now.
It sounds like something she'd say, but it doesn't make much sense. It's not like she's not a bigger paper tiger than he is. Where's her stack of victories?
When has that ever stopped her?
"When has that ever stopped her?"
Oh, don't get me wrong. Like I said, I can imagine her saying it. I just don't think it's something the super delegates will take seriously.
GObama!
mathematically impossible
I don't think that phrase means quite what you think it means.
Terry McAuliffe was just on MSNBC. Three things stuck out. First, he spoke as if she already has OH and TX in the bag. How can that be possible? I thought TX is totally up in the air. Second, he said over and over again we have a lot of states coming up -- and then only mentioned PA, WV and KY, which are the only states she has a chance in. How does she catch up on pledged delegates if she is not going to contest most of the states? Third, he spoke as if FL and MI were already solidly in her column. What the hell is going on?
What time can expect to see a trend if not result from Ohio? It's late here and I have class tomorrow.
This makes it impossible for Clinton to ever gather more delegates. Supers will not go over the people, so it is over.
But if that's the case, then Obama's hold on superdelegates has at least one vulnerability, namely that of the popular vote. You can make just as strong a case that the "will of the people" is expressed in the popular vote as it is in the pledged delegate count. Clinton only needs something like 53% of the popular vote here on out (including tonight's results) to pass Obama in this category if you include Florida. I think this is her plan. Survive tonight, maybe even eke out a popular vote victory, continue to make attacks (and let the media do their thing) and see if any of it sticks. And then continue to plow forward. She could yet end up with a small popular vote lead in June even if she doesn't pass him in pledged delegates. And that would give her a fighting shot at winning the popularity contest among superdelegates.
Clinton only needs something like 53% of the popular vote here on out (including tonight's results) to pass Obama in this category if you include Florida.
When the Florida and Michigan Dems decided to give two fingers to the rest of the country in general, and the people of Nevada and South Carolina in particular, they ceased being "included" in the fair and transparent primary process now underway. So stop including them.
When the Florida and Michigan Dems decided to give two fingers to the rest of the country in general, and the people of Nevada and South Carolina in particular, they ceased being "included" in the fair and transparent primary process now underway. So stop including them.
I'm not including Michigan.
Florida's decision to move up its primary was a result of a vote by the GOP majority legislature. Why should Florida's Democratic-leaning voters be penalized as a result? And at any rate, the DNC's decision was to refrain from allowing the delegates chosen in Florida's primary to be seated in Denver. That certainly doesn't mean the 1.8 million or so folks who participated in the primary aren't real people.
And still no one has told Matt that there's math involved. Obama can't win on the pledged delegates alone, either. It's all about the media/momentum narrative at this point, because the super delegates will decide the nomination.
This whole "popular vote" thing is a transparent attempt by Clinton supporters to discount caucuses. It's like arguing that the team that got the most hits ought to win a baseball game, or the team that had the most field goals should win a basketball game. But that's not how it's played, and it's never been how it's played. It's delegates, folks. Delegates.
Maybe Clinton might be winning if she'd concentrated on actually winning delegates and not playing stupid games with the rules.
And at any rate, the DNC's decision was to refrain from allowing the delegates chosen in Florida's primary to be seated in Denver. That certainly doesn't mean the 1.8 million or so folks who participated in the primary aren't real people.
No one questions their humanity; it's simply stated that they have no voice at the Democratic convention.
Clinton only needs something like 53% of the popular vote here on out (including tonight's results) to pass Obama in this category if you include Florida.
And how likely is that to happen?
Comments closed March 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't think Hillary cares about the delegates. As long as she wins buy 1% in Texas and Ohio, she will declare victory and the media will go along in the interest of prolonging the contest.
Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 7:39 PM