Looks Like We Are Headed To Pennsylvania

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 18:08

There is a decent amount of talk right now among pundits about various scenarios for how Obama and Clinton can seal the nomination. The following scenarios presented by Mark Halperin seems to be about as good a repository of CW on the matter as one will be about to find:

For Obama to win, he needs some combination of the following:

--Beat Clinton in Texas and/or Ohio.
--Maintain his elected delegate lead by grinding out victories and keeping losses close.
--Convince superdelegates to coalesce around the leader in elected delegates.

For Clinton to win, she needs some combination of the following:

--Win the most delegates in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
--Whittle Obama's elected delegate lead down to a statistically insignificant margin.
--Convince superdelegates that she is the stronger general election candidate and better prepared to be president - an argument which could be helped by an intervening outside event and/or negative campaigning.

The major problem with this analysis is that it is vague to the point of almost saying nothing. What does "a statistically insignificant margin" of elected delegates mean? Roughly how many superdelegates does each campaign have to convince of its arguments? Why does Clinton have to win the most delegates in all three of the largest remaining states? Wouldn't, for example, winning by large margins in two of the states be perfectly adequate even when coupled with a narrow defeat in the other state? To put this another way, exactly how many delegates are we talking about here?

To answer this question, in the extended entry I provide excruciating details on delegate counts. From those details, I extrapolate how long the campaign will last, and provide winning scenarios for each candidate. If you don't have the patience to read all the way through, here is my conclusion:

Obama needs a net gain of 61 delegates of any sort, while Clinton needs a net gain of 87 among pledged delegates and a net gain of zero among superdelegates. Pennsylvania also appears to be a potentially decisive, and inevitable, showdown.

Full explanation in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: Looks Like We Are Headed To Pennsylvania
Delegate Statistics

  • Current Pledged Delegate Totals. Looking over a survey of delegate totals by six organizations covering the election, the highest, non-contradictory pledged delegate total currently stand at Obama 1,135, Clinton 993 and Edwards 12. I have updated these numbers in a chart that can be seen here.

  • Remaining pledged delegates. Including Democrats Abroad, which has yet to announce its results, there are 1,081 pledged delegates up for grabs in the contests that will take place between now and Puerto Rico on June 7th. Additionally, there are another 14 delegates in Iowa that were originally assigned to Edwards but which both campaigns will fight for at country conventions on March 15th. Further, there are 18 pledged delegates from states that have already held nominating contests and announced the results, but where counting and the delegate allocation process continues: Colorado (9), California (3), Maryland (3), D.C. (1), New York (1), Washington (1). All told, that makes for 1,113 pledged delegates that could still be added to either Obama or Clinton's column.

  • Super Delegates: The best superdelegate count available is Democratic Convention Watch. Currently, it lists the superdelegate endorsement totals at Clinton 238 and Obama 161.5. While every superdelegate could still change his or her mind, that leaves 396.5 superdelegates who have yet to make an endorsement.

  • Florida and Michigan: In the event that either Michigan or Florida have their delegations seated at the convention, a substantial number of delegates will be added to the above totals. In Florida, that means 185 pledged delegates and 25 superdelegates. In Michigan, that means 128 pledged delegates and 29 superdelegates. The delegation currently projected from Florida is Clinton 105, Obama 67, Edwards 13 in terms of pledged delegates, and Clinton 7, Obama 3, undecided 15 in terms of superdelegates. The delegation currently projected from Michigan is Clinton 73, uncommitted 55 in terms of pledged delegates, and Clinton 7, Obama 1, uncommitted 21 in terms of superdelegates.

Six Delegate Counts

All told, this leads to the following six delegate counts, sorted from lowest to highest totals:

  1. Pledged delegates only, no Florida or Michigan: Obama 1,135--993 Clinton. 50% +1 equals 1,627. Currently, 1,113 delegates are outstanding or committed to other candidates. Obama magic number 492 (44.2%), Clinton magic number 634 (57.0%)..

  2. Pledged delegates only, with Florida but without Michigan: Obama 1,202-1,098 Clinton. 50% + 1 equals 1,720. Currently, 1,126 delegates are outstanding or committed to other candidates. Obama magic number 518 (46.0%), Clinton magic number 622 (55.2%)

  3. Pledged delegates only, including Florida and Michigan: Obama 1,202--1,171 Clinton. 50 % + 1 equals 1,784. Currently, 1,179 delegates are outstanding or committed to other candidates. Obama magic number 582 (49.4%), Clinton magic number 613 (52.0%)

  4. Pledged plus super delegates, no Florida or Michigan: Obama 1,296.5--1,231 Clinton. 50% +1 equals 2,025. Currently, 1,509.5 delegates are outstanding or committed to other candidates. Obama magic number 728.5 (48.3%), Clinton magic number 794 (52.6%).

  5. Pledged plus super delegates, with Florida but without Michigan: Obama 1,366.5-1,343 Clinton. 50% + 1 equals 2,130. Currently, 1,537.5 delegates are outstanding or committed to other candidates. Obama magic number 763.5 (49.7%), Clinton magic number 787 (51.2%)

  6. Pledged plus super delegates, plus Florida and Michigan: Clinton 1,423--Obama 1,367.5. 50% +1 equals 2,208. Currently, 1,611.5 delegates are outstanding or committed to other candidates. Clinton magic number 785 (48.7%), Obama magic number 840.5 (52.2%)

Extrapolated Scenarios

It is unlikely that either campaign will concede as long as it leads in at least one of these six counts. The first step to ending the campaign is thus for one candidate to take the lead in all six of these counts.

For Obama, 61 net delegates of any sort is a key number right now, as it would give him a lead in all six delegate counts. With 534 pledged delegates up for grabs between now and then, he would need 55.8% of the pledged delegates at stake, and less if he continues to pick up super delegates at a faster rate than Clinton. This seems quite possible, though certainly not easy. If Obama leads in all six of the above delegate counts before Pennsylvania, and he wins Pennsylvania, then the campaign ends on April 23rd. If Obama leads in most, but not all, of the above six delegate counts before Pennsylvania and wins Pennsylvania, then he will wrap up the nomination at some point between April 23rd and June 7th. If Obama leads in most, but not all, of the six above delegate counts and loses Pennsylvania, then the campaign will continue until at least June 8th with messy fights over credentials waiting in the wings.

For Clinton, 87 net pledged delegates, and zero net superdelegates, are the key numbers right now. In order to take the lead in all six delegate counts, she needs a net gain of 143 delegates on Obama within pledged delegates. As such, it is not realistic for her to pass Obama in all six counts by Pennsylvania (which would require 60% of the delegates between now and then) or possibly ever (which requires 54% of the delegates between now and June 7th). As such, the key for Clinton is not to take the lead in all of the above delegate counts, but to take the lead in as many delegate counts as possible.

Clinton can win the nomination by taking Pennsylvania, moving ahead in at least four of the above delegate counts, and moving within 55 or fewer pledged delegates in the first count. A pledged delegate deficit of 55 or fewer is key for Clinton, because at that point she can stake a claim to the pledged delegate lead via Michigan and Florida. This would probably keep her super delegates more or less in line, swing the credentials committee her way, and generally give her the necessary momentum to slowly seal the deal. Right now, in order to pull that off, she needs to manage a net gain of 87 pledged delegates on Obama between now and June 7th, all the while making sure that Obama does not make further gains within superdelegates (which is why zero is also a key number for her campaign). At this point, barring a spectacular reversal of fortunes in Wisconsin and a crushing March 4th sweep, I don't see any way for Clinton to knock out Obama before at least May 6th, which is the date of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. In truth, she probably can't knock Obama out before Puerto Rico on June 7th.

My best guess is that as long as Clinton wins either Ohio or Texas, her campaign will continue on to Pennsylvania no matter what. Even if Obama reaches his key number of a net gain of 61 by March 15th, it is unlikely that he will do so by a margin that Pennsylvania would be unable to reverse. As such, there is no reason for Clinton to not at least try Pennsylvania, given the long break and that the demographics there are reasonably favorable to her (very old, not very creative class, and a closed primary).

So, Obama needs a net gain of 61 delegates of any sort, while Clinton needs a net gain of 87 among pledged delegates and a net gain of zero among superdelegates. Additionally, Pennsylvania also appears to be a potentially decisive, and inevitable, showdown. That is a far more specific than you will find from major news outlets, but if I wasn't providing something they lacked, there would be no reason to read me at all.  

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Texas and Ohio (0.00 / 0)
There was the anonymous leak from the Clinton campaign supporters that said if she does not comfortably win Ohio and Texas, they will stop supporting her.  Don't you think that will play out, if it happens?  Comfortably is meaningless, but if she loses one, doesn't that lead to people pressuring her to drop out?

In terms of "comfortably" (0.00 / 0)
I think losing the delegate race in Texas, even if she wins the primary, would likely qualify as not a terribly "comfortable" win.

If she nets less than ten delegates out of Ohio, that would probably also be not especially comfortable.

[ Parent ]
Very good analysis (4.00 / 1)
I'm glad you crunched the numbers for us. This gives us a good picture of when the race will have to end.

But there's also the chance that the Clinton camp is going to take a Mitt Romney approach instead of the Mike Huckabee way. They might drop out when it is virtually impossible to win, instead of sticking around until it is mathematically impossible.

The Clinton campaign has been playing up their chances in Texas and Ohio so much that there is going to be pressure on Clinton to drop out if she loses either. If she loses both, everyone will be placing calls, including Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Gore, and Carter.

All this talk about Super Delegates (Oops, I mean "Automatic Delegates!") swinging the nomination to Clinton always seemed like fantasy to me. It's based on the assumption that Obama wouldn't keep winning and the Super Delegates would vote against their own self-interest. If Obama keeps winning, though (say, TX/OH), no amount of Super Delegate fantasy will save Clinton. She'll see the writing on the wall and drop out.  

She's not quitting.... (4.00 / 2)
...until you pry that nomination form her cold dead hands.  She'll be in all the way to Puerto Rico and beyond, if necessary...  

This is her life long goal... that she was born to be president... I honestly think she honestly believes her life would be worthless without the presidency in her cap...

She's not quitting until there is absolutely zero chance... and maybe she'll hold on even after that!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
at the same moment you are deciding it will not end, I am predicting that it will, and soon.

How will it end (0.00 / 0)
in your predictions?

[ Parent ]
She'll (4.00 / 2)
lose Texas in delegates and probably outright.  All the other metrics favor Obama as the better candidate both against McCain and for downticket races, which is increasingly clear to the superdelegates.  It ends March 5th.

[ Parent ]
I second this analysis (0.00 / 0)
Pretty much exactly the same thinking I have.

[ Parent ]
here's the question (0.00 / 0)
Will she put all her CoH into winning those two, and if she doesn't sweep decisively, will there be any money left to raise?

[ Parent ]
We don't diagree that much (0.00 / 0)
I think that Obama will win Wisconsin and Hawaii, not to mention Democrats Abroad. He will also probably win Vermont, and take the most delegates from Texas. However, I think that Clinton will win Ohio, and then give it a go in Pennsylvania. Otherwise, I htink we basically agree.  

[ Parent ]
If we assume (0.00 / 0)
Wisc and Texas are a draw, and Clinton nets 20 out of Ohio, she is still down over 100.  In that circumstance I can see this ending in NC and Indiana.

[ Parent ]
Why would you think that the credentials committee (0.00 / 0)
would vote to seat Michigan and Florida if Obama has the majority of the pledged delegates going into the convention? To my knowledge, the makeup of the credentials committee will be constituted as follows:

(1) 100+ members will reflect the pledged delegate breakdown;

(2) 25 members will be appointed by Howard Dean.

I think it's safe to assume that neither Obama nor Howard Dean will be directing their delegates to ignore the previous ruling of the DNC and throw the nomination to Hillary.

Credentials Committee mistake (0.00 / 0)
The Committee On Credentials has nothing to do with it.  Only the delegates themselves have a meaningful vote on which delegates to seat.

If Clinton has a majority or if Clinton drops out of the race, the delegates will seat FL and MI whichever way the state parties propose.

If Obama has a majority he will seat FL and MI delegations evenly divided by the candidates or not seat them at all as he pleases.

In neither case will the FL and MI delegates impact the nomination, no matter what the Committee On Credentials reports.

[ Parent ]
but if I wasn't providing something they lacked, there would be no reason to read me at all. (0.00 / 0)
agreed, see ya.

Dream Scenario: (4.00 / 1)
Obama narrowly wins in Texas or Ohio, and Clinton decides to drop out for the good of the Party and transfer all of her remaining campaign cash to the DNC, providing Obama accepts that health insurance mandates be written into the Democratic platform at the convention, which he agrees to do.

Clinton transfers her remaining cash... (4.00 / 1)
...all $5 of it by that point.

[ Parent ]
mod up funny (0.00 / 0)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
haha... health care mandates (0.00 / 0)
That's why she's in it fighting tooth and nail... yeah, right. I wish!

[ Parent ]
Obama gained a delegate in CA-53 today, (0.00 / 0)
SoS 100% vote in, its a 5 delegate district, and it tipped to Obama by 477 votes today.  


so that means (0.00 / 0)
Obama's magic number is now a net gain of 59, not 61 (Obama took one of Clinton's delegate, for a net swing of two delegates).

[ Parent ]
The question, in my view... (0.00 / 0)
is whether, in the event that she loses Texas and Wisconsin, Clinton can continue to convince her superdelegates, supporters and donors to stay on board with her campaign.  If Obama has a good showing on March 4th, I can see a whole bunch of party leaders coming down hard on Clinton and her supporters to bow out.  Even if it were true that Clinton could conceivably win PA by a wide enough margin to put the nomination back within reach, I'm not sure if she would be able to sustain the campaign through March and April.  That is a long time....  

Chris, I'm not sure (4.00 / 2)
how Clinton stays in if she loses Texas, which seems like a real chance... Even Carville said it would be "over," and Clinton has refused to comment on the topic.  A poll having Obama down by 8 in Texas showed he would likely still win 6 delegates there - before the caucus - if it is close he could jump up 30-40 delegates... how does she stay in after that?

Indeed (4.00 / 2)
That is a far more specific than you will find from major news outlets

Hah! That's an understatement.

But if I wasn't providing something they lacked, there would be no reason to read me at all.

When my clueless friends and family ask what to make of this confusing delegate stuff, I just send them the link to your stuff.

Good post but (4.00 / 1)
Obama is beating her down in slow motion, which you kind of sort of acknowledge but you don't take it to its logical conclusion.

First of all, there is no chance, for all practical purposes none whatsoever, of HRC every being up again in this race, let alone wrapping it up.

Forget NH, forget the polls. The default starting assumption from here out until proven otherwise is Obama beatdown. He's going to beat her solidly in WI and Hawaii tomorrow, which will significantly increase his delegate lead and increase bad publicity for HRC. He's going to beat her in TX outright in the popular vote and significantly in delegates. I doubt he even loses OH before it's all said and done.

It's not enough to play it safe -- you gotta get it right and right now there is no reason to think that this beatdown is going to slow down appreciably for any reason. The above is more of a most likely than a far-fetched scenario and it would lead to an effective end to HRC's campaign, which brings me to my second point.

In terms of the race continuing, there is continuing and then there is 'continuing.' We very well could see PA actually contested in some sense of the term but in a foregone fashion.

Pressure. (0.00 / 0)
I think ultimately it will come down to pressure.  They've pretty much drawn the line in the sand as Texas and Ohio.  Not one, but both.  If he beats her in one of those I think there will be pressure from the top of the Party for her to bow out gracefully, unite the Party, and get on with the business of concentrating on McCain.  If she doesn't, then I think we will see Gore & Pelosi and others who have stayed neutral come out in support of Obama.  The threat of that and what it will do to the Clinton legacy and her power in the Senate is what will play a greater role than the exact delegate count.  

She also needs to remain viable for 2012. (0.00 / 0)
If Obama gets beat by McCain, which her campaign at least pretends to believe is likely, she needs to be "the one we should have chosen" in 2012.  She can't actually afford to burn all her bridges here.

[ Parent ]
Already Burned (0.00 / 0)
If she's still thinking of 2012 she's delusional.

Gov. Schweitzer, Gov. Sebelius, Gov. Kaine, Gov. Patrick, Gov. Napolitano, Sen. Kerry, Gov. Richardson, and Gov. Spitzer would make the Democratic field in 2012 the strongest in generations.  Feeble McCain would draw in the challengers.

Meanwhile Hillary will have to contend with her broken promises to IA and NH voters in 2008 where she stabbed them in the back over FL and MI as soon as their primaries were over.  IA and NH are very jealous of their status and won't be quick to forgive.

No, this is Hillary's one chance.

Recent history indicates her strategists can't think this far ahead, though.

[ Parent ]
I think she could stomp all of them. (0.00 / 0)
She's still neck-and-neck with the most charismatic figure the party has produced in generations.  All her arguments are that we shouldn't go for him, and should go for her.  If we go for him, and he fumbles, she'll be proved right in a massive way.  It'd be like when Gore was proved right over the last eight years, except Hillary would still be in office and was always better at politics than he was.

Spitzer is neutralized by being from New York also.  He'd still be in his second term, and he wouldn't run against her.

The rest are mostly lightweights against her.  Napolitano will never run, Schweitzer and Sebelius are from small states and their only route to the Oval Office is as VP.  If Obama is stomped then the country won't be in the mood to go for Deval Patrick, and Hillary has already beaten Richardson and could beat Kerry easily.

Mark Warner, Ted Strickland, Jon Corzine are all more formidable.  Maybe Martin O'Malley.  I have a vague impression that Ed Rendell is too crooked to run for president, but I could be wrong about that.  I'd like to think Schweitzer could run, but I can't imagine where he'd raise his money, or even who his natural constituencies would be.

Now, Sherrod Brown would be a force.  And maybe Russ Feingold would be married again.

But Hillary Clinton would be a formidable contender, IF she is proven right this November.  Imagine the optics; every time every Democrat looked at her on TV, they'd be thinking "she should have been president.  she should be president right now.  it's our fault she's not president."  The sympathy factor, without the loser tag that failing in the general gets you, would be a very big deal in changing peoples' impressions of her.

[ Parent ]
How Will Moon Township Vote??? (0.00 / 0)
     We may be headed to Pennsylvania, but the race could be over by then if Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii and Texas.  I say this because in looking at Rhode Island with its recent large registration of young voters and Lincoln Chafee's endorsement of Obama, it's not at all clear that Clinton has a lock there.  If she loses Vermont, Rhode Island and either Texas or Ohio on March 4th, I don't see how she makes a case for the nomination.  Taking 13 out of 14 states would give Obama so much momentum that he'd be almost impossible to stop.  

    And...look at a map of the primaries and caucuses that have been completed so far.  Look at the number of states that Obama has won in the middle of the country.  How does Clinton make a case that she is a stronger candidate for Democrats?  That's why it's so important for her to win Wisconsin.   She needs to be able to make some kind of a case that she has a chance to win in the general in places like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia and Colorado, not to mention Oregon and Washington.  A lamppost could win on the Democratic ticket in the general in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, so I really think she needs to win Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio to have a realistic shot at convincing anyone that she's more viable than Obama.  BTW, at present Obama is running comfortably ahead of McCain in Pennsylvania, while Clinton trails.  Of course, polls can change quickly.  Anyway, Chris, I know you and Atrios and BooMan want a meaningful Pennsylvania primary so you can throw your weight around,  but it may be all over but the shouting by then.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners -- Albert Camus

mostly agreed (0.00 / 0)
but I don't get what TX has to do with this argument. If she were to win OH comfortably (which she won't), Wisconsin by any margin (which she won't) and RI by any margin (possible) then she could make a good case to continue.

[ Parent ]
She needs two of OH, TX, RI (0.00 / 0)
She can't win just Ohio.  If he wins VT, RI, and Texas, in addition to Wisconsin, and all she gets is Ohio, the pressure is gonna be intense on her to get out.  Or rather, the pressure will be to at least, not go negative on him anymore.  If she wants to stay in until PA and see if he self-destructs, fine, but if she gets only one state on March 4th, and not by much, then she can't run a full-bore campaign against the likely nominee any longer.  

On the other hand, obviously if she wins OH and TX, but also if she wins OH and RI, she can call March 4th a tie and keep going.  So in the end, even RI is important this year.

[ Parent ]
We've seen how she makes this argument... (0.00 / 0)
And that is spuriously, by arguing that those states don't matter, and that for some reason it is important to pick the nominee that won, you know, Massachusetts. Now you and I know that this is absurd; that what is important is Obama's ability to contest states like Alabama and Virginia.

Surely no one honestly believes that Obama would lose California or New York to McCain, but Mark Penn is dealt his hand, and he's got to play it the best way he can figure out.  

[ Parent ]
Decent possibility of an end in sight (0.00 / 0)
My best guess is that as long as Clinton wins either Ohio or Texas, her campaign will continue on to Pennsylvania no matter what.

Maybe.  Everyone talks about Clinton's determination.  But remember: campaigns are always "in it for the long haul"--until they aren't.

If Obama wins Wisconsin and either Texas or Ohio, Cinton will clearly be in a position where she needs to either seat both Michigan and Florida as they stand, or win a large superdelegate lead despite a significant pledged delegate deficit.  In other words, she'll only be able to win in a floor fight.

I don't think things would play out quietly in that event.  The press would have plenty of time during the 6-week intermission to figure this out.  Superdelegates would probably get it even earlier, and party elders earlier still.

I think superdelegates would most likely start endorsing Obama, if nothing else just to avoid the possibility of a brokered convention.  I think party elders would start coming out in his favor for the same reason.  These two processes would of course be mutually reinforcing, and I think that the pressure on Clinton to drop out would be high enough that it would end up killing her chances of winning PA.  At that point, I suspect that she'd cut her losses.

I'm not saying that this is the mostly likely scenario.  It hinges on Obama winning Wisconsin AND either Texas or Ohio.  But if he does, I think the race will most likely end before April 22nd.

Rangel and Schumer weigh in, seem to side with Obama campaign on super issue (0.00 / 0)

MILWAUKEE - Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., one of Hillary Clinton's most stalwart black defenders, is apparently questioning her reliance on unelected super delegates to stay competitive with Barack Obama, saying they may not reflect the "will" of Democratic voters.

"It's the people (who are) going to govern who selects our next candidate and not super delegates," Rangel said Sunday night at a dinner for the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators conference in Albany, N.Y.

"The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is," he added.

....But Schumer urged both sides to hammer out a pre-convention deal - and said the approximately 400 unpledged super delegates should withhold endorsements until a clear winner has emerged.

[ Parent ]
oddly enough (4.00 / 1)
if those 400 undecided superdelegates were to throw their support behind Obama right now.. a clear winner will have emerged.  Yet people would blame the party elders for throwing the election ...

[ Parent ]
Solid analysis (4.00 / 1)
I agree with just about everything but for Clinton to keep the her superdelegate advantage she can't lose either Texas or Ohio. If HRC loses either Texas or Ohio you'll start to see a huge wave of superdelegate declarations to the point that Pennsylvania's delegate don't mean anything.

On March 3rd and March 5th the math equation might be the same but if Obama wins Texas or Ohio then he's going to have had a month of victories and a tie in the "big states du jour" that the press loves so much and the CW is going to tilt dramatically towards Obama. A lot of superdelegates are CW slaves and that is going to monkey with your math.

Obama needs a draw on delegates on 3/4 or a split decision on states on Texas and Ohio and he'll be the presumptive nominee. If he can't do that then Clinton is back in the game and I think the winner of PA is the winner of the nominee -- not because of delegate math but because CW is a powerful force among Democratic insiders.

John McCain

On to Pennsylvania (4.00 / 2)
   I think Hillary will go on to Pennsylvania even if she loses Texas in terms of delegates and/or popular vote.  I think Obama will win Texas outright.  I have a hard time believing that Hillary is going to close up shop because she's down by 150 pledged delegates from states that don't count.  She'll be lambasted for continuing on to Pennsylvania, having set Texas as her firewall, but she won't give a crap at that point.  
  As a Pennsylvania voter, I'll be thrilled to laugh at all the Feb. 5 states like the tortoise laughed at the hare.  Six weeks of attention!  PA voters are going to need to stock up on the balm for all the ass-kissing they are about receive.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

stock up on the balm (0.00 / 0)
LOL, oh man, that sh*t is funny...

[ Parent ]
happy for you (0.00 / 0)
it was a delight to have my vote count in a presidential primary for the first time ever!  

Won't it be great (0.00 / 0)
if our candidate ends up being chosen by Puerto Rico.

I want to see them campaign in Guam (0.00 / 0)
It's the only primary between April 22nd and May 6th. They'll have to fly out there, right?

[ Parent ]
Can you imagine the candidates competing in Guam? (0.00 / 0)
What would the issues be?  

What would be of significance?

One thing about this type of campaign, the candidates really do go EVERYWHERE...

[ Parent ]
I hope Democrats get to pick the nominee (0.00 / 0)
I am confused as to why the democratic party doesn't realize that their nomination process is being hijacked by the GOP. Bush has made such a mess of things and so many Americans want to get out of Iraq that there was only one way Democrats could or would lose the White House...divide themselves.

The GOP has cross-registered, caucused and filled the blogosphere with Hillary-hate. To hear democrats talk you'd think the Bill and Hillary were the worst people to ever happen to the democratic party instead of two of the best. Obama's campaign has not been one of hope and post-partisanship unity, it has been a vicious, ugly, cynical attack on the democratic party.

I can only hope that the Democratic statesman, and all the states yet to vote wake up to the reality of what is happening here and cast their ballot for Hillary. There's no way a freshman senator without any armed services or foreign policy experience wins the presidency while America is fighting two wars. If democrats nominate Obama, McCain and the GOP will laugh their way into the White House and further damage our image and economy.

Reality is (0.00 / 0)
that neither dems or repubs pick who is going to the whitehouse, independents do.  If you can't win them, what does it matter if you can win the nominee.  If the Clintons are the best thing to happen dems, why couldn't Gore get elected.  I'll give you, he wasn't the most inspiring guy, but Bill had something to do with that as well.  

[ Parent ]
I agree that the Hillary-hate is pathological, but (0.00 / 0)
You and I have been watching different movies.

Obama's campaign has not been one of hope and post-partisanship unity, it has been a vicious, ugly, cynical attack on the democratic party.


[ Parent ]
Geez, aren't you a party pooper?! (0.00 / 0)
I think if she loses either Texas or Ohio, she will (have to) drop out. I think the money will stop flowing and her supporters, including some of the superdelegates, will start running as well. Some will even smack her and say "enough is enough". Even her most ardent supporters (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8581.html) and the likes of Carville say she absolutely has to win the 3 big remaining states or it's all over.

I understand that you're talking mathematics and you're right, but I think the Clintons will pack the little bit of dignity they have left and go home rather than stick in there because "there IS a chance" a la "Dumb and Dumber" (1994).

New Survey USA Poll (0.00 / 0)
puts Obama 5% behind Clinton, and he hasn't started campaigning yet.


Texas, that is. (0.00 / 0)
Sorry forgot to mention where the poll was taken.

[ Parent ]
Hillary (0.00 / 0)
My bet is that if Obama takes WI and TX, Hillary's staff will start to bail out, and that will be the end of it.  I hate to say it, but I don't think Bill and Hillary have the class and the good sense to bring this to a graceful conclusion.  They are going to make sure the last act is big-time ugly.

Obama & Patrick (0.00 / 0)
Since Obama was accused by the Clinton campaign of plagiarizing Deval Patrick's speeches and seems to be duplicating his entire campaign of 2006 in MA, I think that all of the Obama supporters should take a look at Patrick's current poll numbers here:  http://www.statehousenews.com/...

I think that the reason Hillary won the MA primaries so handily, in spite of the big Kennedy "machine," is that the people of MA bought Patrick's "change" campaign two years ago and now have a big case of buyer's remorse.  Complaints abound about how he can't get things done in the legislature, and has not made good on any of the major promises he made during his campaign.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!  Do we want another repeat of this disaster on the national level?????

What says (0.00 / 0)
that HRC would do any better.  The GOP loves to hate her, thus dividing congress some more.  Badly managed a campaign that threw money away and had no backup plan for post super tuesday.  Has made every excuse imagineable to justify getting crushed in caucus states.  So that's, poor people judgement, poor money management, no plan b, and she'll blame everyone else for her losses.  You're right she is the obvious choice.  

[ Parent ]
I am a Strong Hillary Supporter, but . . . (0.00 / 0)
. . . I really regret that this issue "plagiarism" has been raised.  It is a bad issue and does neither candidate any credit.  

[ Parent ]
I Noticed in the WI Gov's Endorsement . . . (0.00 / 0)
. . . that the Obama campaign rhetoric has changed from "who wins the popular vote" or "the popular will" to "who wins the most pledged delegates."  This is, of course, a 'subtle' tactical change to maintain leverage and thwart the "popular will" (if the total/overall popular vote favors Clinton) and still pressure superdelegates.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox