Obama’s up by one run, 18-17, it’s the bottom of the 18th inning. Two outs, nobody on.
<
p>But that dang Hillary keeps fouling off pitches rather than letting past a called third strike so everyone can go home.
<
p>Plus we have some wannabe Bud Seligs who want to call the game off early.
stomvsays
Obama is up by about 9 runs, and Clinton keeps fouling off pitches with two outs and nobody on.
<
p>It’s not as if one HRC breakthrough wins this thing for her. She’s way back in the standings, and it will take a series of amazing at bats for her to have a chance. The game isn’t over, but the odds of winning are tiny. It ain’t a one run game.
<
p>
<
p>Sure the numbers (by percent) are close, but that’s like observing that one golfer is only back by 4 strokes on another on the 18th green, when the golfers has a 4 day score of 280 and 284. It’s only 4 strokes! Sure, and it’s only back 1.5%. But, you think the pro golfer is the lead is going to 6 putt? Not bloody likely.
If it were baseball, it would be a League Championship Series, not the World Series. The contest for the ultimate prize has not yet begun.
<
p>But it really doesn’t match up well with any of the major sports very well at all. This is a contest for the majority of a fixed number of delegates (points, if you will). The contest length (or number of “battles” in the “war”) is fixed, but so is the total number of points to be won.
<
p>Maaaaaaaaaybe you could match it up with boxing. There’s a ten point must system. Hillary is behind on the cards and the rounds available to win are dwindling. She needs a KO (Obama scandal) to win.
expletive-deletedsays
HRC is “only” down 13. With 1:29 to go. And she’s out of timeouts. And Obama has the ball and a first down. Inside Clinton’s 20 yard line. A real nail-biter, right?
So it’s 1,302 to 1,293? Bradley-Gore is a nine run match. This is a one-run deal.
<
p>Fine…it’s, um…16 to 12. Not a likely comeback, one strike out, but not impossible. Ask the ’86 Red Sox. Of course, the Obama campaign isn’t the ’86 Red Sox — David Axelrod is no Bill Buckner — so why worry?
stomvsays
Under what scenario can Clinton win the nomination? What has to go right for her to get enough delegates?
<
p>List the items, and if you’re feeling really spry, assign each a probability.
<
p>You’ll find that her path to the nomination requires virtually every unpledged delegate to choose her. Now that BHO has a majority of pledged delegates, it’s that much harder for a super delegate to swing against the popular results to support HRC, and her nonsense that she’s gotten more votes has no legs because she ignores caucus results.
<
p>Short of BHO being caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy, what scenario allows for HRC to win?
tom-msays
She only needs 87% of the superdelegates. Not all of them.
An exceedingly unlikely one. Not an impossible one, an exceedingly unlikely one. We have somebody liked by a significant minority of the party — 40% minimum. So if something does happen to sully Obama, there is someone ready to come off the bench.
<
p>I don’t even want it to happen, because we’d lose so much of the party that would refuse to accept anyone but Obama, regardless of the reason.
<
p>But not impossible…BHO doesn’t need a dead woman/live boy…ask Vito Fossella, or Robert Torricelli.
christophersays
99% reporting
<
p>Clinton 454,220 (65%)
Obama 207,484 (30%)
<
p>CNN estimates that Obama has barely achieved majority of delegates elected through primaries and caucuses, but this does not include Michigan and Florida.
That’s right. Barely. In every primary I’ve ever voted in, – I’ve never seen a nomination so close before.
<
p>John Kerry clinched the nomination in March, 2004, with 2162 delegates. The next closest candidate was John Ewards at 532.
<
p>In 2000, Al Gore had 3432 vs. Bradley at 414.
<
p>When Bill Clinton clinched the nomination in 1992, he had 3372 delegate votes. His closest rival was Jerry Brown at 596.
<
p>1988? Dukakis 2687 Jesse Jackson 1218.
<
p>In 1984, it was Mondale 2191 and Gary Hart 1200.
<
p>In 1980 – Carter 2129 and Kennedy 1150.
<
p>So yeah. Barely.
christophersays
…CNN was reporting 1627 out of 3253 pledged delegates for Obama. Half of 3253 is 1626.5 so 1627 is about as “barely” as you can get. You are comparing delegates having so far been allocated which Obama has been leading for awhile. The news tonight is that he hit majority of elected delegates available including those not yet allocated such as SD, MT, and PR.
Obama barely achieved the majority in pledged delegates…not the plurality that he’s held for some time now. Obama’s got a narrow but stable lead in pledged delegates, but given the number still to go, and the sliver for Edwards (and possibly the Clinton pledged delegates who have spat on the voters and gone back on their word), only got to 50% + 1 tonight.
jasiusays
the Clinton pledged delegates who have spat on the voters
<
p>I cringed when Senator Clinton said this because I knew it would probably come back to bite her:
<
p>
There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they’re all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.
<
p>(Emphasis mine)
<
p>Is it only OK if they happen to switch in one particular direction?
stomvsays
but the variance of the system was even smaller.
<
p>I agree, by percent of delegates, it’s a close election. But, there haven’t been many delegates still on the table since late February, and the proportional system of elected delegates makes it very hard to “make up ground” with elected delegates.
<
p>That left Clinton to chase superdelegates, which she did with limited success. As it became more and more clear that HRC wouldn’t be able to pass BHO on elected delegates [because it is so hard to make gains], many superdelegates became loathe to support HRC, and either endorsed BHO or have been sitting out.
<
p>The lead has been small for months, but it’s also been nearly insurmountable for months, so long as BHO played it smart and didn’t explode*.
<
p>
<
p> * Yeah, it might have happened with Wright, but it didn’t.
laurelsays
Obama had a net gain of 7 pledged delegates today, while Clinton netted 23. The Obama campaign was quite skillful in spinning his poor incremental showing today.
stomvsays
is still a great showing for him today.
<
p>Nothing obscene happened. HRC won KY by as much as expected, BHO won OR by as much as expected. That’s two fewer chances for HRC to rewrite BHO’s fairy tale. HRC has less chance today than she did two days ago, because she needed to outperform those expectations to gain both pledged delegates and excitement by the remaining supers. By flat lining in Kentucky for the past week, she won the battle but continues to lose the war.
theopensocietysays
And that is really what the nomination contest should be all about.
<
p>BTW, your “fairy tale” comment reminds me of why I am thinking about still voting for HRC in the General. (NB–I said thinking about.) I assume you are referring to the comment by Bill Clinton that the Obama campaign misrepresented in order to remake President Clinton into a racist right before the South Carolina primary. The statement President Clinton made was about Obama’s claim that Obama was against the Iraq War even though he had voted to fund it everytime. President Clinton called Obama’s claim to be against the war a fairy tale. The Obama campaign knew this and still misquoted President Clinton in order to begin winning over 90% of the African-American vote in the coming primaries. If the Obama campaign had not engaged in this despicable strategy, then Hillary Clinton probably would be the nominee by now. What a great way to pick a nominee.
jasiusays
She has shown again that she is better able to beat McCain. And that is really what the nomination contest should be all about.
<
p>I respectfully disagree. Strongly. And you’ve framed my argument perfectly.
<
p>(And we’ve been over this road before, but sometimes a dead horse requires another beating)
<
p>We’ve done this before, trying to figure out which candidate can beat someone rather than trying to figure out which candidate we think will be the best elected official and for whom we can make the best case. And I contend that picking the most “electable” candidate is a losing proposition while campaigning hard for your favorite is more likely to score a win (see the 2004 Presidential and 2006 Gubernatorial elections as my examples).
<
p>In the Patrick campaign, I felt that I was very effective in my one-on-one interactions because I would tell people why I believed he was the best candidate. I wasn’t telling anyone why they needed to vote for him. I wasn’t telling anyone why they shouldn’t vote for the opposition. It was all about why I thought this particular candidate would do the best job.
<
p>And that’s a much more compelling strategy than “(s)he is better able to beat McCain”, no matter who you support for the nomination.
<
p>Furthermore, accepting the electability argument requires the acceptance of a static view of the electorate, as if running a general election campaign will not have an effect. All before the general election campaign has even started!
<
p>Finally, as I’ve said before, I just cannot choose based on how I think other people are going to vote. I’m more comfortable thinking that if a particular candidate jazzes me up, it’s possible that she or he will do so for others. And it’s my job to make that happen.
<
p>A lot can happen between now and November, and a lot of what happens depends on the campaign we run. Those whose candidate gets the nomination will likely be more effective in persuading voters than those candidate doesn’t get the nomination – and yes, some will have no stronger argument than “(s)he isn’t McCain”. But that will be the case no matter who the nominee is.
<
p>I have already cast my vote and I don’t have any sway over any of the voters or superdelegates who still have to cast their votes (at least I don’t think I do). But my advice to them would be to vote for the person for whom they think they can make the best argument for their candidacy in the general election – and that should also be the person they think would make the best President.
stomvsays
States where they’re both polling ahead of McCain by 5%, ie states that either candidate would almost certainly win
CA, OR, MN, IL, DC, MD, DE, PA, NY, RI, MA, VT, ME
<
p>States where they’re both polling behind McCain by 5%
AK, NV, ID, AZ, UT, MT, WY, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY
<
p>I would propose we write of all of these states from the “elect ability” discussion, with the exception of:
NV, PA, MS
which I would add in because I think Nevada could go for either HRC or BHO by November, PA could still get close [and I acknowledge that HRC seems to have slightly better support than BHO, up 10% v. up 8%], and I think that BHO has a shot at making MS close due to the fact that their congressional delegation is 3-1 Democrat and Mississippi has the highest percentage of blacks in the country, 37.25%.
<
p>So, with the 3 caveats above, the list of states that are interesting are:
HI, WA, NV, NM, CO, IA, MO, AR, WI, MI, OH, FL, SC, NC, VA, WV, CT, NH
Those 18 are the states where elect ability means anything. The rest of the states are all but foregone conclusions.
<
p>Of those states, in which ones is HRC ahead of BHO w.r.t. McCain (with EVs)? In other words, if HRC trails McCain 51-49 and BHO trails McCain 52-47, HRC is ahead of BHO 3%
NM (5), ahead 2%
MO (11), ahead 4%
AR (6), ahead 38% fn 1
MI (17), ahead 1%
OH (20), ahead 8%
FL (27), ahead 9%
WV (5), ahead 23% fn 2
PA (21), ahead 3%
NH (4), ahead 5%
Total: 116 EVs
<
p>So, Clinton is +6 with AR, +5 with WV. She’s been ahead of McCain for most polls in OH and FL, two states where Clinton’s got pretty substantial support, but places where McCain hasn’t [yet] spent much time. Clinton must win FL or OH to win the nomination, and depending on how Michigan [trending GOP] goes, she might need both. Not out of the question, but hardly a sure thing.
<
p>fn 1. BHO won’t get AK. HRC very likely will. A legitimate and solid difference between the two.
fn 2. BHO won’t get WV. HRC leads in the polls now, but I doubt that she’ll beat McCain. Maybe she will though!
<
p>Of the states in the list, in which ones is BHO ahead of HRC w.r.t. McCain (with EVs)?
HI (4), ahead 26% fn 1
NV (5), ahead 6%
WA (11), ahead 8%
CO (9), ahead 17% fn 2
IA (7), ahead 5%
IN (11) ahead 5% fn 3
MS (6), down 4% fn 4
SC (8), ahead 3%
VA (13), ahead 3%
CT (7), ahead 14% fn 5
Total: 81 EVs
<
p>fn 1. HRC is only ahead on McCain by 4 percent, but could McCain really win HI? I doubt it.
fn 2. HRC is getting crushed in CO; she can’t win. BHO is up three points. As much as BHO won’t get AK but HRC will, HRC won’t get CO but BHO will. A solid difference.
fn 3. For reasons I don’t understand, BHO is even with McCain and HRC is down 5. Research 2000 is showing McCain with a large lead, a smaller polling firm is showing the opposite in both cases. Realistically, I don’t think either candidate will get IN if the overall election is close.
fn 4. Even though HRC is winning now, the poll is from mid February. Much has changed in MS since then w.r.t. Democratic politics, and I think it benefits BHO.
fn 5. BHO wins CT in a walk, HRC is only up on McCain by 4 points. If a GOP candidate were designed to win CT, it’s McCain. He’s got the moderate label, and his military credentials are great for Groton’s sub shop. I cringe at the thought of CT going GOP, but I do think HRC would have to put some effort there and it’s an expensive media market per EV. It means that Bostonians would go to CT instead of NH 😉
<
p>So — is Clinton more electable? That is, is the probability that she gets 270+ EVs in November higher than the probability that BHO gets 270+? I don’t know. It’s certainly not clear to me. There’s a few states which one will likely win and the other probably won’t. There’s also a number of states which will be close for either candidate. I like that BHO can win the election without winning Ohio nor Florida. If he wins either of those states, he’ll almost certainly be elected POTUS. The same might be true for HRC, but it’s less obvious to me.
the final chapter in the life of the last surviving son of the second generation of our political dynasty.
<
p>Obama has said that he will not run again if he doesn’t win this time. That gives the Democrats a fabulous opportunity to have a very young Kennedy in the senate for many productive years.
<
p>Either way we win.
jconwaysays
Its over. Plain and simple. So I am no longer going to argue with Clinton supporters, the ones who are smart will realize we have a nominee and work with him to win-and I pledge to honor their past support of Clinton but work with them for Obama. A friend of mine was a diehard Edwards supporter but when he withdrew she immediately switched to Obama, told me Edwards was a better candidate but Obama was the best one left standing and shes been on of our best volunteers out here in Chicago. I am entirely confident the Clintonites will come back to the fold.
<
p>Oh and I have nothing against Hillary staying in and people rooting for her thats exactly what I want. She has started to run the anti-McCain campaign I’ve wanted her to run, so as long as she does not damage the nominee keep her in and root for her thats fine. Just remember at the end of this there will be a winner, and there is a 99% chance its not your candidate so be prepared to back Obama-eventually. But until June 3rd have all the fun you can-its her swan song.
p>I agree the baseball analogy was inapt. The boxing metaphor suggested above is indeed better.
shawnhsays
I predict that Obama will gain just enough superdelegates to be pushed over the top in total delegates by the final two primaries in Montana and South Dakota. This way, all the states will have been able to vote. CNN will announce that night (6/3) that Obama is the “presumptive nominee” with just over 2026 delegates, Clinton will bow out gracefully, and Obama will give his victory speech in time for the evening news.
Obama’s up by one run, 18-17, it’s the bottom of the 18th inning. Two outs, nobody on.
<
p>But that dang Hillary keeps fouling off pitches rather than letting past a called third strike so everyone can go home.
<
p>Plus we have some wannabe Bud Seligs who want to call the game off early.
Obama is up by about 9 runs, and Clinton keeps fouling off pitches with two outs and nobody on.
<
p>It’s not as if one HRC breakthrough wins this thing for her. She’s way back in the standings, and it will take a series of amazing at bats for her to have a chance. The game isn’t over, but the odds of winning are tiny. It ain’t a one run game.
<
p>
<
p>Sure the numbers (by percent) are close, but that’s like observing that one golfer is only back by 4 strokes on another on the 18th green, when the golfers has a 4 day score of 280 and 284. It’s only 4 strokes! Sure, and it’s only back 1.5%. But, you think the pro golfer is the lead is going to 6 putt? Not bloody likely.
If it were baseball, it would be a League Championship Series, not the World Series. The contest for the ultimate prize has not yet begun.
<
p>But it really doesn’t match up well with any of the major sports very well at all. This is a contest for the majority of a fixed number of delegates (points, if you will). The contest length (or number of “battles” in the “war”) is fixed, but so is the total number of points to be won.
<
p>Maaaaaaaaaybe you could match it up with boxing. There’s a ten point must system. Hillary is behind on the cards and the rounds available to win are dwindling. She needs a KO (Obama scandal) to win.
HRC is “only” down 13. With 1:29 to go. And she’s out of timeouts. And Obama has the ball and a first down. Inside Clinton’s 20 yard line. A real nail-biter, right?
So it’s 1,302 to 1,293? Bradley-Gore is a nine run match. This is a one-run deal.
<
p>Fine…it’s, um…16 to 12. Not a likely comeback, one strike out, but not impossible. Ask the ’86 Red Sox. Of course, the Obama campaign isn’t the ’86 Red Sox — David Axelrod is no Bill Buckner — so why worry?
Under what scenario can Clinton win the nomination? What has to go right for her to get enough delegates?
<
p>List the items, and if you’re feeling really spry, assign each a probability.
<
p>You’ll find that her path to the nomination requires virtually every unpledged delegate to choose her. Now that BHO has a majority of pledged delegates, it’s that much harder for a super delegate to swing against the popular results to support HRC, and her nonsense that she’s gotten more votes has no legs because she ignores caucus results.
<
p>Short of BHO being caught in bed with a dead woman or a live boy, what scenario allows for HRC to win?
She only needs 87% of the superdelegates. Not all of them.
An exceedingly unlikely one. Not an impossible one, an exceedingly unlikely one. We have somebody liked by a significant minority of the party — 40% minimum. So if something does happen to sully Obama, there is someone ready to come off the bench.
<
p>I don’t even want it to happen, because we’d lose so much of the party that would refuse to accept anyone but Obama, regardless of the reason.
<
p>But not impossible…BHO doesn’t need a dead woman/live boy…ask Vito Fossella, or Robert Torricelli.
99% reporting
<
p>Clinton 454,220 (65%)
Obama 207,484 (30%)
<
p>CNN estimates that Obama has barely achieved majority of delegates elected through primaries and caucuses, but this does not include Michigan and Florida.
According to CNN at 10:06 p.m. (after KY and before OR) here are the delegate totals:
<
p>Obama: 1932
Pledged: 1627
Super: 305
<
p>Clinton: 1753
Pledged: 1476
Super: 277
<
p>Obama has a (1627-1476) 151 delegate advantage counting delegates elected through primaries and caucuses. That’s not “barely” in my book.
That’s right. Barely. In every primary I’ve ever voted in, – I’ve never seen a nomination so close before.
<
p>John Kerry clinched the nomination in March, 2004, with 2162 delegates. The next closest candidate was John Ewards at 532.
<
p>In 2000, Al Gore had 3432 vs. Bradley at 414.
<
p>When Bill Clinton clinched the nomination in 1992, he had 3372 delegate votes. His closest rival was Jerry Brown at 596.
<
p>1988? Dukakis 2687 Jesse Jackson 1218.
<
p>In 1984, it was Mondale 2191 and Gary Hart 1200.
<
p>In 1980 – Carter 2129 and Kennedy 1150.
<
p>So yeah. Barely.
…CNN was reporting 1627 out of 3253 pledged delegates for Obama. Half of 3253 is 1626.5 so 1627 is about as “barely” as you can get. You are comparing delegates having so far been allocated which Obama has been leading for awhile. The news tonight is that he hit majority of elected delegates available including those not yet allocated such as SD, MT, and PR.
Obama barely achieved the majority in pledged delegates…not the plurality that he’s held for some time now. Obama’s got a narrow but stable lead in pledged delegates, but given the number still to go, and the sliver for Edwards (and possibly the Clinton pledged delegates who have spat on the voters and gone back on their word), only got to 50% + 1 tonight.
<
p>I cringed when Senator Clinton said this because I knew it would probably come back to bite her:
<
p>
<
p>(Emphasis mine)
<
p>Is it only OK if they happen to switch in one particular direction?
but the variance of the system was even smaller.
<
p>I agree, by percent of delegates, it’s a close election. But, there haven’t been many delegates still on the table since late February, and the proportional system of elected delegates makes it very hard to “make up ground” with elected delegates.
<
p>That left Clinton to chase superdelegates, which she did with limited success. As it became more and more clear that HRC wouldn’t be able to pass BHO on elected delegates [because it is so hard to make gains], many superdelegates became loathe to support HRC, and either endorsed BHO or have been sitting out.
<
p>The lead has been small for months, but it’s also been nearly insurmountable for months, so long as BHO played it smart and didn’t explode*.
<
p>
<
p> * Yeah, it might have happened with Wright, but it didn’t.
Obama had a net gain of 7 pledged delegates today, while Clinton netted 23. The Obama campaign was quite skillful in spinning his poor incremental showing today.
is still a great showing for him today.
<
p>Nothing obscene happened. HRC won KY by as much as expected, BHO won OR by as much as expected. That’s two fewer chances for HRC to rewrite BHO’s fairy tale. HRC has less chance today than she did two days ago, because she needed to outperform those expectations to gain both pledged delegates and excitement by the remaining supers. By flat lining in Kentucky for the past week, she won the battle but continues to lose the war.
And that is really what the nomination contest should be all about.
<
p>BTW, your “fairy tale” comment reminds me of why I am thinking about still voting for HRC in the General. (NB–I said thinking about.) I assume you are referring to the comment by Bill Clinton that the Obama campaign misrepresented in order to remake President Clinton into a racist right before the South Carolina primary. The statement President Clinton made was about Obama’s claim that Obama was against the Iraq War even though he had voted to fund it everytime. President Clinton called Obama’s claim to be against the war a fairy tale. The Obama campaign knew this and still misquoted President Clinton in order to begin winning over 90% of the African-American vote in the coming primaries. If the Obama campaign had not engaged in this despicable strategy, then Hillary Clinton probably would be the nominee by now. What a great way to pick a nominee.
<
p>I respectfully disagree. Strongly. And you’ve framed my argument perfectly.
<
p>(And we’ve been over this road before, but sometimes a dead horse requires another beating)
<
p>We’ve done this before, trying to figure out which candidate can beat someone rather than trying to figure out which candidate we think will be the best elected official and for whom we can make the best case. And I contend that picking the most “electable” candidate is a losing proposition while campaigning hard for your favorite is more likely to score a win (see the 2004 Presidential and 2006 Gubernatorial elections as my examples).
<
p>In the Patrick campaign, I felt that I was very effective in my one-on-one interactions because I would tell people why I believed he was the best candidate. I wasn’t telling anyone why they needed to vote for him. I wasn’t telling anyone why they shouldn’t vote for the opposition. It was all about why I thought this particular candidate would do the best job.
<
p>And that’s a much more compelling strategy than “(s)he is better able to beat McCain”, no matter who you support for the nomination.
<
p>Furthermore, accepting the electability argument requires the acceptance of a static view of the electorate, as if running a general election campaign will not have an effect. All before the general election campaign has even started!
<
p>Finally, as I’ve said before, I just cannot choose based on how I think other people are going to vote. I’m more comfortable thinking that if a particular candidate jazzes me up, it’s possible that she or he will do so for others. And it’s my job to make that happen.
<
p>A lot can happen between now and November, and a lot of what happens depends on the campaign we run. Those whose candidate gets the nomination will likely be more effective in persuading voters than those candidate doesn’t get the nomination – and yes, some will have no stronger argument than “(s)he isn’t McCain”. But that will be the case no matter who the nominee is.
<
p>I have already cast my vote and I don’t have any sway over any of the voters or superdelegates who still have to cast their votes (at least I don’t think I do). But my advice to them would be to vote for the person for whom they think they can make the best argument for their candidacy in the general election – and that should also be the person they think would make the best President.
States where they’re both polling ahead of McCain by 5%, ie states that either candidate would almost certainly win
CA, OR, MN, IL, DC, MD, DE, PA, NY, RI, MA, VT, ME
<
p>States where they’re both polling behind McCain by 5%
AK, NV, ID, AZ, UT, MT, WY, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY
<
p>I would propose we write of all of these states from the “elect ability” discussion, with the exception of:
NV, PA, MS
which I would add in because I think Nevada could go for either HRC or BHO by November, PA could still get close [and I acknowledge that HRC seems to have slightly better support than BHO, up 10% v. up 8%], and I think that BHO has a shot at making MS close due to the fact that their congressional delegation is 3-1 Democrat and Mississippi has the highest percentage of blacks in the country, 37.25%.
<
p>So, with the 3 caveats above, the list of states that are interesting are:
HI, WA, NV, NM, CO, IA, MO, AR, WI, MI, OH, FL, SC, NC, VA, WV, CT, NH
Those 18 are the states where elect ability means anything. The rest of the states are all but foregone conclusions.
<
p>Of those states, in which ones is HRC ahead of BHO w.r.t. McCain (with EVs)? In other words, if HRC trails McCain 51-49 and BHO trails McCain 52-47, HRC is ahead of BHO 3%
NM (5), ahead 2%
MO (11), ahead 4%
AR (6), ahead 38% fn 1
MI (17), ahead 1%
OH (20), ahead 8%
FL (27), ahead 9%
WV (5), ahead 23% fn 2
PA (21), ahead 3%
NH (4), ahead 5%
Total: 116 EVs
<
p>So, Clinton is +6 with AR, +5 with WV. She’s been ahead of McCain for most polls in OH and FL, two states where Clinton’s got pretty substantial support, but places where McCain hasn’t [yet] spent much time. Clinton must win FL or OH to win the nomination, and depending on how Michigan [trending GOP] goes, she might need both. Not out of the question, but hardly a sure thing.
<
p>fn 1. BHO won’t get AK. HRC very likely will. A legitimate and solid difference between the two.
fn 2. BHO won’t get WV. HRC leads in the polls now, but I doubt that she’ll beat McCain. Maybe she will though!
<
p>Of the states in the list, in which ones is BHO ahead of HRC w.r.t. McCain (with EVs)?
HI (4), ahead 26% fn 1
NV (5), ahead 6%
WA (11), ahead 8%
CO (9), ahead 17% fn 2
IA (7), ahead 5%
IN (11) ahead 5% fn 3
MS (6), down 4% fn 4
SC (8), ahead 3%
VA (13), ahead 3%
CT (7), ahead 14% fn 5
Total: 81 EVs
<
p>fn 1. HRC is only ahead on McCain by 4 percent, but could McCain really win HI? I doubt it.
fn 2. HRC is getting crushed in CO; she can’t win. BHO is up three points. As much as BHO won’t get AK but HRC will, HRC won’t get CO but BHO will. A solid difference.
fn 3. For reasons I don’t understand, BHO is even with McCain and HRC is down 5. Research 2000 is showing McCain with a large lead, a smaller polling firm is showing the opposite in both cases. Realistically, I don’t think either candidate will get IN if the overall election is close.
fn 4. Even though HRC is winning now, the poll is from mid February. Much has changed in MS since then w.r.t. Democratic politics, and I think it benefits BHO.
fn 5. BHO wins CT in a walk, HRC is only up on McCain by 4 points. If a GOP candidate were designed to win CT, it’s McCain. He’s got the moderate label, and his military credentials are great for Groton’s sub shop. I cringe at the thought of CT going GOP, but I do think HRC would have to put some effort there and it’s an expensive media market per EV. It means that Bostonians would go to CT instead of NH 😉
<
p>So — is Clinton more electable? That is, is the probability that she gets 270+ EVs in November higher than the probability that BHO gets 270+? I don’t know. It’s certainly not clear to me. There’s a few states which one will likely win and the other probably won’t. There’s also a number of states which will be close for either candidate. I like that BHO can win the election without winning Ohio nor Florida. If he wins either of those states, he’ll almost certainly be elected POTUS. The same might be true for HRC, but it’s less obvious to me.
that it seems the media is totally ignoring Hillary’s chances / win / arguments.
<
p>Ahh, for once a Democrat gets eaten by the media. Always to the hard left, those hippies.
<
p>
the final chapter in the life of the last surviving son of the second generation of our political dynasty.
<
p>Obama has said that he will not run again if he doesn’t win this time. That gives the Democrats a fabulous opportunity to have a very young Kennedy in the senate for many productive years.
<
p>Either way we win.
Its over. Plain and simple. So I am no longer going to argue with Clinton supporters, the ones who are smart will realize we have a nominee and work with him to win-and I pledge to honor their past support of Clinton but work with them for Obama. A friend of mine was a diehard Edwards supporter but when he withdrew she immediately switched to Obama, told me Edwards was a better candidate but Obama was the best one left standing and shes been on of our best volunteers out here in Chicago. I am entirely confident the Clintonites will come back to the fold.
<
p>Oh and I have nothing against Hillary staying in and people rooting for her thats exactly what I want. She has started to run the anti-McCain campaign I’ve wanted her to run, so as long as she does not damage the nominee keep her in and root for her thats fine. Just remember at the end of this there will be a winner, and there is a 99% chance its not your candidate so be prepared to back Obama-eventually. But until June 3rd have all the fun you can-its her swan song.
Right here.
<
p>I agree the baseball analogy was inapt. The boxing metaphor suggested above is indeed better.
I predict that Obama will gain just enough superdelegates to be pushed over the top in total delegates by the final two primaries in Montana and South Dakota. This way, all the states will have been able to vote. CNN will announce that night (6/3) that Obama is the “presumptive nominee” with just over 2026 delegates, Clinton will bow out gracefully, and Obama will give his victory speech in time for the evening news.