Hillary did not even win 60% in NY, yet she must do this in TX, OH, and PA just to have a chance.

[JackORoses]

She has only held Obama to less than 40% in 2 states (AR and OK).

Most of her victories have been close.

Most of his victories have been blowouts.

Now her supporters expect her to accomplish this feat in 3 states with differing demographics.

They are damned determined, I give them that.
But will they know when to fold 'em?

Would they sacrifice the Democratic Party and the coming election for love of Hillary?

I hope not.

[jlake]

1. Hillary can win. Don't count her out.

[JackORoses]

3. how?

do you really expect her to win 60% in TX, PA, and OH?

or are you one of those who feel that superdelegate double-dealing is fair game?

[jlake]

4. Superdelegates are fair - but i doubt that Hillary can win that way if she

lags in pledged delegates.
I think she is going to do well - and Obama is not going to be able to get the 2025 delegates required to win.

[JackORoses]

5. so I ask again, will you approve if Hillary steals it with SDs?

of course she has a lot of favors to call in.

but is it really in the best interests of the country if she does so?

[jlake]

6. Like I said, that would not be "stealing it" but it is unlikely to happen that way.

But you all are acting like Obama has run away with this thing - it is still very much a 50/50 race - if Hillary can come back in the next round - and you can not blame her for hurting the party/country anymore than you can Obama.

[RiverStone]

7. All it takes is a win in OH or TX - and it's over

No, Obama has not run away with it --- and he sure as hell will not be letting his guard down.

If he wins in OH (uphill) or TX (damn good chance) it's over. He will have the nomination sewn up.

But, I know Hillary & co. will now be putting all guns to bear on winning. Her last stand.

And the Obama camp better not underestimate her.

But if he pulls off a win on 3/4 - then it is time to focus on McLame and the rethug machine.

[jackson_dem]

10. He is losing in both states

Texas is not a good state for him. He has struggled with Latinos nationally and they account for 35% of Texas' population. Hillary is more likely to win sweep the four March 4 states than Obama is to win Texas.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. The last poll had Obama down 10 in late January.

That was before he really began rising. I like his chances.

The problem Clinton is going to run into with Texas is the fact the delegates will be allocated based on congressional districts, using 2004's total voter turnout. The Hispanic community had a really low turnout in 2004, so she may not get many delegates out of those districts. Another issue, which people seem to forget is that in 2004, 20% of the voting population in Texas was black. That was roughly the same number as the Hispanic population. Obama's support within the black community will not only negate Hillary's support within the Latino community, it could very well put him over the top in that regard. Clinton is not getting close to the same support from Hispanics as Obama is from blacks. Obama will probably win the black vote there 80-20, if not better and I don't see Clinton getting close to 70% of the Hispanic vote. So that means it comes down to the white vote. Obama is making inroads into the white vote, especially white men.

[Hawkeye-X]

21. Again, I will have to debunk you for the 6th time in 48 hours..

Latinos are trending Obama's way - check out the Potomac Primary exit polls. They favor Obama.

Hawkeye-X

[jackson_dem]

30. That is a very naive view

He won Latinos in South Carolina. What happened on Super Tuesday?

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. add to that the fact that some very highly placed Latinos are pissed

at the Clinton campaign because of the reshuffling that happened after ST. Whether wrong or right, they felt that her Latino campaign manager was thrown under the bus. This news is making its way through the Latino community, just as Bill's offhanded comments worked its way through the black community. She very well may win it, but it won't be by the margins they're expecting.

[jackson_dem]

52. When campaigns perform below expectations the campaign manager usually goes

Folks know that. It won't change a thing.

What Obamites are doing is using one state as a proxy for how Latinos in the rest of the country will vote. That is stupid. Obama won the Latino vote in South Carolina and Georgia too. What happened in California, New Mexico, New Jersey, Arizona, Florida, and New York? The places where he has won the Latino vote in exit polling have tiny Latino populations. Everywhere there is a big Latino population he has been trounced by Hillary.

[ORDem]

66. Obama's been doing the trouncing. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. i guess we'll have to wait and see....

as the pundits keep telling us, whenever & wherever Obama shows up in person, the race changes. you can't deny that with each new win, Obama is cutting into her core of support..no matter which demographic you choose.

I'll be honest with you, i wouldn't tout New Mexico as a Clinton win because she only got 2 more delegates than Obama. Besides, I have a lot of questions about Clinton's eventual narrow win there after NINE days of counting. And as for "trouncing", I think you need to take a fresh look at the last eight wins in a row, and then we can discuss what a real trouncing looks like.

[ORDem]

71. Likely to be close, not a big Hillary win in any case

Obama hasn't set foot in OH yet and her numbers are slipping there almost daily with two weeks to go. At least one of the recent polls touted around here only counted Democratic voters, and OH (as well as TX and PA) are open primaries and we already know that Obama can pull in Independents and Obamicans. The latter will consist of some GOP mischief makers, but it's hard to say which Dem they think is the easier to beat in their twisted little minds.

I would wait until about 4 days after WI to start reading anything into the TX/OH polling. But, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the margins will tighten dramatically before 3-4.

:dem:

[Johnny__Motown]

20. It isn't 50/50 anymore 65/35 maybe, over half the states have voted and Obama is ahead

She has less and less time to catch up now.



I am not saying that she can't win. I am saying that it finally looks like she might lose. Obama supporters have been behind in all the national polls for so long it is a bit of a rush to be ahead in some of them, and in the delegate count.

Plus we smell blood. The $5 million she needed to loan herself, all the problems and turn over inside her campaign plus the chance of a "knock out punch" in any one of three states.

[jlake]

24. Nope. The Popular vote is within 1% & Pledged Delegate count is within 6%.

And counting super delegates - back down to 2% difference.

....and if it was "winner take all" as is the GE - Hillary would have already sewn it up.

Thanks to jackson_dem for help with the numbers!

[jackson_dem]

32. It is closer than that with pledged delegates

Delegates: Obama 50.3%, Clinton 48.6%, Edwards 1%
Pledged delegates: Obama 52.2%, Clinton 46.5%, Edwards 1.2%

[jlake]

33. Great! Thanks for the facts... I was just rounding numbers in my head.

I think Hillary definitely needs to turn this around - but she is far from out of it.
Fortunately, the Obama team thinking it's sewn up may make it easier for Hillary.

[Hawkeye-X]

34. Sorry to disappoint you - Obama is not that stupid

Already has staff working WI, TX, OH and other states.

We're spread out!

Exactly how many staff has Clinton sent to TX, OH and WI?

Hawkeye-X

[jlake]

35. Obama's not - but if enough of his supporters become complacent then .... you know.

[jackson_dem]

53. Yup

Obama has all but been crowned by the msm. A loss in Wisconsin, or losing on March 4, would be similar to the shock waves Hillary's upset win in New Hampshire caused.

[Iktomiwicasa]

36. "and if it was "winner take all" as is the GE

- Hillary would have already sewn it up."

And if Hillary had balls, she'd be Bill.

But, neither is the case, is it?

[jlake]

37. Just sayin' that all the big states choose Hillary --- something for Obamanation to think about.

And we could have just as easily had winner take all primaries.

[ORDem]

69. Those big states would be blue in the GE, so it's really not the

best long-term strategy. Unless, of course, you really enjoy 50.1% / 49.9% nail-biters.

[jlake]

70. No, Florida is certainly not guaranteed to be blue.

And for that matter - CA may be in play too.
I don't think Obama is as strong of a candidate as many do.

[ORDem]

73. Your last line goes without saying of course. LOL. n/t

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

38. Hillary needs to win 68%-32% in Texas AND Ohio to lead Obama in pledged delegates

after March 4th. I can show you the math if you want.

[jlake]

39. She doesn't need to be in the lead... she needs to tighten the race and win some

more states - get her momentum back..... and then win here in PA and other later states.

[jackson_dem]

54. Who cares? She doesn't need to lead by March 5. She needs to lead on June 9

[ORDem]

74. Au contraire mon ami!!

If she's not in the lead by 3-5, with the GOP already behind their candidate, the pressure is going to be ENORMOUS on her to drop out gracefully. Money will dry up faster than spit on a hot sidewalk. It should be apparent that this is politics, not some engineering experiment where things go along in some logical fashion.

[ORDem]

67. I disagree with your popular vote count.

Since Obama has won so many caucus states, it's really not fair to count those numbers as single votes for either him or Hillary. I don't have a credible way to give the correct weighting, but if you think about it for a moment, if those caucus votes were magnified in proportion to an average regular primary turnout, Obama's pop. vote margin would be much larger in absolute numbers.

That's meaningless you say? Yes, well, maybe, but think of this from an SD's point of view. They are clearly looking at Obama's appeal (translate: coattail effect) in all states, even ones with caucuses and roughly doing the same math as above. They are mostly career politicians and know which side their bread is buttered on and will ultimately look after their own hides. So, they are going to be very much aware of the numbers and dynamics in terms of the GE in November.

:dem:

[jlake]

72. Those are based on the best estimates of actual voters in the caucus states.

And I don't know about Obama having long coattails.... they may turn out to be toxic coattails.

[ORDem]

75. Yes, I know they are "actual" voters. You missed the point,

but it's too late to go into it again. G'nite all!

:boring:

[jlake]

76. I got the point. You are trying to stretch things to make Obama appear to do

better than he has.

[JackORoses]

62. its not 50/50 if Hillary has to win all 3 big states with 60%

Those are much better odds for Obama, agreed?

[jlake]

77. I don't think she has to win all 3 @60% .... And I would put the chance

that Hillary can deadlock the race at 90%+ if she wants to.

[JackORoses]

81. you must not have done any calculations, are you relying wholly on the SDs?

[jlake]

82. No. She's not as far behind as some seem to think.

[JackORoses]

83. do you have any evidence or is this just your gut feeling?

Obama leads by more than 100 pledged delegates.

He even leads when you include Superdelegates.

Just because you really, really want Hillary to win does not change the Delegate count.

[griffi94]

8. she doesn't need that much

all she has to do is keep it close....the super delegates will do the rest

[FogerRox]

2. Its over, Hillary may block Obama from getting 2025, but its over.

[jackson_dem]

9. People are forgetting Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas are not the only states left

On March 4 Rhode Island and Vermont also vote. Hillary has a good chance of winning both because there aren't that many rethugs there and relatively few conservative Democrats. Other states still on the schedule are North Carolina, Indiana, and Kentucky. She would be the favorite in Kentucky and have a good chance in Indiana and North Carolina.

[loveangelc]

11. she wont win nc

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. agreed...

it's amazing but she is disliked as much by Dems as she is Repubs in NC.

[totodeinhere]

13. She won't win Mississippi, Vermont, or Oregon either.

[jackson_dem]

15. She has a great chance in Vermont, could win Oregon

Mississippi will vote on racial lines and Obama, who brought race into the campaign in the first place, wins each state that does that so expect him to win Mississippi.

[Kittycat]

16. Obama DID NOT bring race into the campaign.

Unless you're saying that it's because he's 1/2 AA to begin with.

[jackson_dem]

26. The Obamas did well before the BS about Clinton's fairytale remark began

"Black America will wake up"--Michelle Obama on why Barack was getting "only" 40 some percent of the black vote in an eight candidate field.

[totodeinhere]

17. Vermont and Oregon both have demographics similar to other smaller states...

that Obama has won going away.

[jackson_dem]

25. Vermont is progressive and Hillary's best states are progressive ones

Like Massachusetts and California. Oregon may go with Obama since it is similar to Washington in many ways,

[XemaSab]

43. This is a bunch of crap

I've said it before. She didn't get Boston or San Francisco, the most progressive areas of her supposed wins.

[jackson_dem]

48. Who won Massachussetts, California, and New Jersey?

And who won the most conservative states? Kansas, Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota?

[XemaSab]

50. I don't know much about Jersey politics

but you can thank the Massholes and Californians for Romney and Aaaah-nold.

You can also thank the Californians for Reagan and Nixon.

We're liberal enough to be a juicy prize in the GE, but there's a bright red cherry filling in this state too. :(

[jackson_dem]

56. California in the 60's was far different

Romney 02' and Arnold are to the rethug what Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman are to Democrats. Compare that to the rethugs in the states Obama has won. Arnold and Romney 02' may be more liberal than some Democratic officials in very red states Obama has won!

[XemaSab]

57. I live here in California and trust me

The hinterlands are full of Nazis, bigots, klansmen, fundies, anti-semites, millennialists, militia men, and all kinds of whack jobs. :scared:

It's not that liberal.

[XemaSab]

63. Oh, and how do you explain Hillary's triumph in Oklahoma?

:shrug:

[totodeinhere]

29. She won California largely due to the Latino vote.

But there are very few Latinos in Vermont. There are a lot of well educated upper middle class Dems in Vermont and that group has gone strongly for Obama.

But only time will tell which one of us is right.

[jackson_dem]

49. She also won the white vote in California

She's won the white vote in almost every state. Her problem is blacks are going 85-15 for Obama and that gives Obama, on average, a 17-3 lead in the typical Democratic primary. In Vermont he won't have a built-in 17-3 advantage (this is happening in each state).

[NJSecularist]

18. That is bullshit

Hillary's surrogates tried to play the racial identity game. They would define him as a black candidate and he would get 90% of the black vote, while Hillary would get 80-90% of the white vote.

Stop blaming Obama for Hillary's miscues.

[jefferson_dem]

23. Obama did not bring race into this campaign and you know it.

Just because you adopt a Hillary avatar doesn't mean you have to adopt the ClintonCo's lying ways.

[ORDem]

68. Very doubtful she'll win in Oregon. I know the political landscape

here and it's not Hillary country. Portland will swing it for Obama (after all, we are so latte-centric, lol!). :dem:

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

40. ... or Hawaii, or Wisconsin n/t

[jackson_dem]

14. We can't predict how a state will vote three months from now

If Edwards endorses her and stumps for her she would have a great chance at winning North Carolina.

[loveangelc]

22. Doubt it.

[knowledgeispwr]

44. No way she's going to win NC

Hillary is disliked by reps AND dems here.

Edwards wouldn't be able to fix that. Edwards turned some people off here by running for president when he did and stumping for Hillary would just lower him even more in many people's eyes.

[LordJFT]

27. There is no way Hillary will win Vermont

Although she probably thinks Vermont isn't one of those states that counts anyway

[XemaSab]

41. So she's going to win Rhode Island and Vermont because there are few conservative dems

but she's also projected to win Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, and Texas?

:wtf:

[Danger Mouse]

42. down is up, up is down, in is out....

:crazy:

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I bet she did in the primaries

the primaries are not the same as the GE.

[ButterflyBlood]

46. No she didn't get 60% in the New York primary

She got 57%.

[MonkeyFunk]

55. She got 57% in the general

She won the 2000 primary with 82% and the 2006 primary with 83%.

Why do people just spout facts that are so easily disproved?

[ButterflyBlood]

60. Huh? I'm talking about the 2008 primary, you know the most relevant recent one

And she got 57% in it.

[MonkeyFunk]

61. ah

I was talking about her previous primary races.

[ButterflyBlood]

65. The OP refers EXACTLY to the 2008 primary

It's pointing out she needs more in TX, OH and PA then she got in the New York primary. I don't see how previous general elections or primaries are relevant to that AT ALL. That it was the 2008 primary being discussed is fairly obvious.

[MonkeyFunk]

78. I understand now

but the OP doesn't mention 2008. I read it quickly and came to the wrong understanding. Sorry about that.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

45. I say........

[femrap]

47. I could ask you the same question...

are you willing to sacrifice not only the Dem party but our nation for the adoration of BO?

How does he answer the question that my Evangelical aunt asked me...'Why did he change his name from Barry to Barack?' My aunt is a sheep...she keeps me informed on what the Boss Evangelicals are spewing. He's Muslim and the Bible says we will be infiltrated and taken over by them.

I don't get involved in organized religion but I do know that these crazy people have taken over the repugnant party...all McCain has to do is put Huckabee on the ticket.

[ButterflyBlood]

51. OK, let's nominate Hillary and she'll win the whacked out fundie vote

I'm so sure.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ButterflyBlood]

64. LMAO! You want an intelligent answer...

and then comes the ageism and the baseless personal attacks. Yeah accusing people who disagree of being ugly and unable to get laid is a really intelligent and mature response. More like something out of 7th grade.

2008 will be my FOURTH election actually.

As for "the question", since Obama's first name was never Barry it's a moot stupid question. It's about as valid as asking John McCain why he went on a serial murder rampage in 1986.

Now your point in that was basically: Extreme fundies won't vote for Obama. To which I say: Duh. This point is moot unless you believe Hillary is somehow going to win the fundies saying this nonsense, which doesn't look likely.

[JackORoses]

59. Obama is winning. Hillary is the one scraping for Superdelegates , MI and FL delegates, etc.

don't look to Hillary for the Future of the Democratic Party

[Thepricebreaker]

80. BINGO! you it right on the head...

... and super "D"s are starting to jump ship.. so...

[bigtree]

84. will you Obama people wait for these folks to vote before calling the election?

worse than the media