You are your silly 'math' and 'reality'. You seem to be missing the most important thing about Hillary's road to the White House - she's our girl!

Lucky bastard.

Neither one is going to win enough delegates without the super delegates. When it goes to the convention anything can happen and they can get nervous about Obama's general election chances.

It will depend on who does a better job at being racist or misogynistic.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: It will depend on who does a better job at being racist or misogynistic.

Nah it will depend on who has the best ability to raise cash, bring in new voters and organize a campaign. Politicians tend to be very practical when it come to their own best interests.

Sigh.

At the Denver convention, Hillary will demand the Florida and Michigan delegates be seated as hers. Obama will object.

There will be a massive Rules Committee fight on the floor that will spill into the evening's planned activities. Protests demanding Obama getting the nomination will occur outside the convention.

Hillary will get a court to push an injunction on the DNC to seat the candidates. Bill will demand to address the DNC but will be turned down.

Either of the following two things will happen:

* * Obama will get enough superdelegates on his side and get the preliminary nomination. The Clinton backers will walk out, or boo Obama and fights will break out in the Convention center.


* * Hillary will get enough superdelegates on her side and get the preliminary nomination. The Obama backers will walk out, or boo Hillary and fights will break out in the Convention center.

If Obama gets the nomination, Hillary will sue in federal court for election malfeasance or some kind of cobbled-together basis to try and overturn the nomination.

In either case, the DNC will lose most of its financial support from the rank-and-file.

Conclusion: President McCain.

There is no way the Democratic Party is going to rally behind one candidate. The big states are Hillary's. The many states are Obama's. Whoever doesn't get picked is not going to be able to pick up the other candidate's supporters - - simply because they will feel betrayed by their party.

Again: President McCain.

Upside? Hillary will never be able to run again. The Clintons will be the lepers of the DNC. Chelsea might as well get the pr0n career underway because nobody will forgive her for even being related to those clowns.

quickdraw: Nah it will depend on who has the best ability to raise cash, bring in new voters and organize a campaign. Politicians tend to be very practical when it come to their own best interests.

So you don't think it will be Mrs. MileLongListOfUnpaidCampaignBills? ;)

Snowflake Tubbybottom: When it goes to the convention anything can happen and they can get nervous about Obama's general election chances.

Unless something incredible happens with the Clinton campaign (like she wins every remaining state by a huge margin), Obama has this one in the bag. The media is playing down Obama and playing up Clinton because this Democratic race is great for their business and the longer this goes, the more money they'll make.

DarthBrooks: There is no way the Democratic Party is going to rally behind one candidate. The big states are Hillary's. The many states are Obama's. Whoever doesn't get picked is not going to be able to pick up the other candidate's supporters - - simply because they will feel betrayed by their party.

Again: President McCain.

I completely disagree. While a small percentage might sit it out and a few might go over to McCain (of Hillary's most ardent supporters), McCain still wouldn't have enough to win against Obama... Don't buy into the 'Obama won't win the big states' nonsense. You think California will go with McCain? Haha... no.

In fact... aside from running 'Unopposed', I don't see a scenario where McCain wins.

JohnnyC: I completely disagree. While a small percentage might sit it out and a few might go over to McCain (of Hillary's most ardent supporters), McCain still wouldn't have enough to win against Obama... Don't buy into the 'Obama won't win the big states' nonsense. You think California will go with McCain? Haha... no.

Obama's weak spot is the Latino vote. Do you think California has much of a Latino demographic?

What the end-game, general election is going to focus on is the economy. Obama is going to keep proposing tax hikes, super-sized federal projects, and rampant spending. All McCain has to do at that point is ask the Senator how he expects to pay for all the stuff he's proposing.

Second thing going against Obama is young-vs-old. Young people simply *don't* vote. They *think* they're "voting" by wearing Obama pins and stuff but they don't go punch the chads on the right day. It's been a BS strategy of the Democratic Party for the past several cycles to count on the Rock The Vote people to put them in office. Problem is: the lazy-ass youth vote can't climb over their empty bags of Doritos to make it out of their dorms to go vote on a Tuesday in November. Old people will vote for McCain and put him in office.

It's numerically impossible for Hillary to get to 2,025 through the remaining primaries and caucuses.

Let's say that again:

It's numerically impossible for Hillary to get to 2,025 through the remaining primaries and caucuses.

One more time, for those few remaining hillary fans who can't count:

It's numerically impossible for Hillary to get to 2,025 through the remaining primaries and caucuses.

It's over. she lost.

DarthBrooks: Sigh.

Hon, the mental contortions required for you to keep trolling with this silly meme are almost entertaining to watch - but not really. There are just so many holes in your argument it's not worth taking seriously enough to give a real response. Its all shear talking out of your ass conjecture and wishful thinking. Much like the silliness Hillary Clinton has been spouting of late.

My advice is that you sit things out till the dems finish the primary so you still have a modicum of credibility when you're really going to need it - during the GE.

quickdraw: Hon, the mental contortions required for you to keep trolling with this silly meme are almost entertaining to watch - but not really. There are just so many holes in your argument it's not worth taking seriously enough to give a real response. Its all shear talking out of your ass conjecture and wishful thinking. Much like the silliness Hillary Clinton has been spouting of late.

You have not refuted any of the points I've suggested. It's strict ad hominen. Brush up on your debate skills, hon.

Weaver95: It's over. she lost.

But, but, she's winning the popular vote!

If you count Fl, where they all agreed not to campaign, and Michigan where she was the only one on the ballot, and ignore the caucus states where Obama won!!!

She's winning!!!!

It reminds me of those "images" of saints or Jesus that people see in toast and trees and then try to sell on ebay. If you squint your eyes and turn your head the right way and are told ahead of time what to look for then that image of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich as clear as day! Hallelujah!

quickdraw: It reminds me of those "images" of saints or Jesus that people see in toast and trees and then try to sell on ebay. If you squint your eyes and turn your head the right way and are told ahead of time what to look for then that image of Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich as clear as day! Hallelujah!



She will win.

DarthBrooks: At the Denver convention, Hillary will demand the Florida and Michigan delegates be seated as hers. Obama will object.

according to howard dean, the delegates from florida and michigan will already be sitting. she won't have a thing to demand.

/that is, i think, the most brilliant play dean might ever do... preemptively rob her of her only argument

The only real question left is this:

Will Hillary commit most (if not all) of her own money to her campaign? Obama is still beating her in fundraising and that trend is likely to continue. Attrition is his best strategy right now. all he has to do is remain within 5-8% of Hillary and he maintains his lead. Hillary has to outspend him just to break even - and she just isn't getting the donations that Obama gets on a monthly basis.

burndtdan: according to howard dean, the delegates from florida and michigan will already be sitting. she won't have a thing to demand.

/that is, i think, the most brilliant play dean might ever do... preemptively rob her of her only argument

Howard Dean first has to regain control of the Party he's supposedly chairing, which he doesn't seem to have yet. Do you see Hillary backing down off this matter?

DarthBrooks: At the Denver convention, Hillary will demand the Florida and Michigan delegates be seated as hers. Obama will object.

This is the problem with your scenario. Your very first step won't happen. After the primaries are over, the superdelegates will commit. Obama will get over 2025. He will then be able to let FL and MI be seated without any harm.

DarthBrooks: You have not refuted any of the points I've suggested. It's strict ad hominen. Brush up on your debate skills, hon.

Nah - its not ad hominem its just helpful advice. I would love to debate you some time. You seem like a worthy opponent. You're just going to have bring more to the table then generalizations about past trends and wishful thinking that the dems are going to indulge in a bloody convention.

I'm only interested in debates that involve verifiable facts. What you have offered so far is sheer conjecture. It makes for a dull and predictable argument and would make a dull debate.

DarthBrooks: burndtdan: according to howard dean, the delegates from florida and michigan will already be sitting. she won't have a thing to demand.

/that is, i think, the most brilliant play dean might ever do... preemptively rob her of her only argument

Howard Dean first has to regain control of the Party he's supposedly chairing, which he doesn't seem to have yet. Do you see Hillary backing down off this matter?

the delegates will be sitting. the dnc is already working on figuring it out. it is not something dean has to make happen, it is already happening. they will probably only count for half, or something, but they will already be there. she can't argue disenfranchisement for delegates already voting. i don't think she'll stop talking about it, but i know no one will be listening to her.

DarthBrooks: Obama's weak spot is the Latino vote.

Meet Vice President Richardson. Problem solved.

Weaver95: Will Hillary commit most (if not all) of her own money to her campaign?

I doubt it. If only because doing so would open her up to more scrutiny. She hasn't done it yet and her campaign desperately needs money. Frankly it would have been a great move on her part to pay for her employees health insurance out of pocket when the campaign lost the ability to do so. That would have showed real commitment to health care.

It would also make her look less like a woman of the common people and more like a multi-millionaire.

Re: McCain winning. Has anybody brought up the Keating 5? No? Okay, I'm bringing up the Keating 5.

quickdraw: I'm only interested in debates that involve verifiable facts. What you have offered so far is sheer conjecture. It makes for a dull and predictable argument and would make a dull debate.

The scenario question in the headline means it *has to* be sheer conjecture. The only thing I'm sure of is that *nobody* has a good handle on what's going to happen. Obama supporters are buoyed by a lot of wishful thinking, and the stuff I've been reading lately seems Ron Paul-esque in how he's supposedly going to win in November.

Okay here's a conjecture: Obama won't win California. Why do I say this? Because he couldn't make the sale the last time against *Hillary*, who beat him -- I think it was something in the 240s vs. 160 or so. Obama has not done enough to get the Latino vote, and he's going to be suffering for that in the GE. It's not a done deal, but I think McCain can play the Southwestern issues card in CA and pick up the state. I could be wrong, but I don't see it as implausible.

DarthBrooks: Obama's weak spot is the Latino vote. Do you think California has much of a Latino demographic?

Obama will do better with the Hispanic vote than McCain will, hands down.

What the end-game, general election is going to focus on is the economy. Obama is going to keep proposing tax hikes, super-sized federal projects, and rampant spending. All McCain has to do at that point is ask the Senator how he expects to pay for all the stuff he's proposing.

Actually I think Obama might pick up some of the conservative vote on this one. All Obama has to do is point at McCain's perpetual occupation of Iraq and how much it costs us on a daily basis (in money and life)... Obama wins on that debate.

Second thing going against Obama is young-vs-old. Young people simply *don't* vote. They *think* they're "voting" by wearing Obama pins and stuff but they don't go punch the chads on the right day. It's been a BS strategy of the Democratic Party for the past several cycles to count on the Rock The Vote people to put them in office. Problem is: the lazy-ass youth vote can't climb over their empty bags of Doritos to make it out of their dorms to go vote on a Tuesday in November. Old people will vote for McCain and put him in office.

It isn't just young people that like Obama. Also, Obama has young voters energized like we haven't seen in a long long time. The last Presidential election we saw an 11 percent jump in youth vote (18-25). If you include the 25-30 year olds the number is a little lower at 9.3%. That's an increase of 4.6 million young people. Taking it to 51.6% of 30 and under voting in 2004. I think that number is only going to go up with Obama running (as opposed to Kerry in 2004). Considering that young voters heavily favor Democrats over Republicans these days, the youth vote's tendency, coupled with McCain's age doesn't bode well for McCain in the general.

I recently wrote a research paper on youth voting, so you happened to touch on a subject that is pretty fresh in my mind still. The fact that you're underestimating the youth vote this election is pretty common and reasonable considering some of our recent election history, but the trend is changing and I suspect is going to change even more come November. :)

If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

lolmao666: Or Obama give Hillary the vice-president spot to win the election against McCain. Because unless he do that, it will be war at the DNC convention and the democrats will make sure they have all the party with them to beat ``another GW``.

yes lets add a awful candidate with a tremendous amount of political baggage to a winning ticket

quickdraw: It would also make her look less like a woman of the common people and more like a multi-millionaire.

I don't think anyone in this country believes that Hillary is one of us shiat kicking peasants. well...maybe the idiots over at hillaryis44.org. But they're all insane, so they don't count.

Worst case scenario, Hillary spends her own money to stay in this race. She and Obama head into the convention neck and neck. What happens next is virtually impossible to predict...but Obama polls better than Hillary against McCain. Obama has the majority of support among the Democratic representatives in Congress. And Obama has far more money in the bank than Hillary does right now. Plus, Obama is popular with the rank and file AND independant AND crossover Republicrat voters. Hillary? not so much. So while I can't say what would happen in the convention I do think that Obama has a lot of advantages in a convention floor fight.

NYZooMan: If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

How can you realistically think Hillary is more electable? Obama has won more Democrats than she has. Do you think she's going to attract Republicans? They HATE her, I'd go so far as to say there might not be any person they hate more.

MorrisBird: Re: McCain winning. Has anybody brought up the Keating 5? No? Okay, I'm bringing up the Keating 5.

it amazes me no one is talking of thisDarthBrooks: quickdraw: I'm only interested in debates that involve verifiable facts. What you have offered so far is sheer conjecture. It makes for a dull and predictable argument and would make a dull debate.

The scenario question in the headline means it *has to* be sheer conjecture. The only thing I'm sure of is that *nobody* has a good handle on what's going to happen. Obama supporters are buoyed by a lot of wishful thinking, and the stuff I've been reading lately seems Ron Paul-esque in how he's supposedly going to win in November.

Okay here's a conjecture: Obama won't win California. Why do I say this? Because he couldn't make the sale the last time against *Hillary*, who beat him -- I think it was something in the 240s vs. 160 or so. Obama has not done enough to get the Latino vote, and he's going to be suffering for that in the GE. It's not a done deal, but I think McCain can play the Southwestern issues card in CA and pick up the state. I could be wrong, but I don't see it as implausible.

when has California voted Republican in the general? not since Ive been around

NYZooMan: If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

I think that right now the 'powerz that be' are looking at Obama and thinking 'where the hell did this come come from!?'

JohnnyC: I recently wrote a research paper on youth voting, so you happened to touch on a subject that is pretty fresh in my mind still. The fact that you're underestimating the youth vote this election is pretty common and reasonable considering some of our recent election history, but the trend is changing and I suspect is going to change even more come November. :)

I keep thinking this was the same discussion I heard on CNN back in 2004 about how Kerry and Edwards were the darlings of the disaffected youth vote and how young people were registering in record numbers, etc. If I recall correctly, the *registration* numbers did go up, but the actual *vote* turnout was about the same or maybe even a little less than typical for that age group (18-24).

It would be great if young people finally got up off the couch and voted. I just don't see anything to drive that this time more than last time. Last time, we were in the middle of a goddamn bloody war, and even that didn't seem to get young people to the polls.

Seabon: NYZooMan: If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

How can you realistically think Hillary is more electable? Obama has won more Democrats than she has. Do you think she's going to attract Republicans? They HATE her, I'd go so far as to say there might not be any person they hate more.

It's not about what I think, it's about what they know and what they think.

Who knows what the next few weeks will bring?

DarthBrooks: I could be wrong, but I don't see it as implausible.

On California... no way... The result from the Hillary/Obama race in the California primary does not in any way reflect the McCain/Obama race in November. California is NOT going to break for McCain regardless of the Democratic candidate.

NYZooMan: Who knows what the next few weeks will bring?

If current trends continue - an Obama nomination. And hopefully a Hillary breakdown on live network news. But that's just my personal dream.

Seabon: NYZooMan: If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

How can you realistically think Hillary is more electable? Obama has won more Democrats than she has. Do you think she's going to attract Republicans? They HATE her, I'd go so far as to say there might not be any person they hate more.

THIS

I'd say there is 30-40% of this country that will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances and then a possible 15-25% more wont vote for her if she swindles the nom nom nom from Obama
so we are somewhere from 45-65% of people that wont vote for Hillary... doesnt bode well for the general if she is the nom nom nom

/numbers mostly out of my ass
//based on Republican #'s, the would be disenfranchised black voters and any young people who would still vote in the general

DarthBrooks: JohnnyC: I recently wrote a research paper on youth voting, so you happened to touch on a subject that is pretty fresh in my mind still. The fact that you're underestimating the youth vote this election is pretty common and reasonable considering some of our recent election history, but the trend is changing and I suspect is going to change even more come November. :)

I keep thinking this was the same discussion I heard on CNN back in 2004 about how Kerry and Edwards were the darlings of the disaffected youth vote and how young people were registering in record numbers, etc. If I recall correctly, the *registration* numbers did go up, but the actual *vote* turnout was about the same or maybe even a little less than typical for that age group (18-24).

It would be great if young people finally got up off the couch and voted. I just don't see anything to drive that this time more than last time. Last time, we were in the middle of a goddamn bloody war, and even that didn't seem to get young people to the polls.

wrong

youth voting grew 11% in the 2004 election over 2000, prior to the 2004 election youth turnout had fallen 16% since 1972
http://www.civicyouth.org/quick/youth_voting.htm

/it will be more this time, my generation is unhappy about the raw deal the boomers are giving us

NYZooMan: It's not about what I think, it's about what they know and what they think.

Who knows what the next few weeks will bring?

I should hope 'they' are more informed than you and I, and I simply can't see a realistic argument that the guy who won more Democratic votes than Hillary is less electable. You would have to assume that Hillary has lots of cross-over appeal to make that case, and she certainly doesn't have that. She's one of the most polarizing figures in American politics.

DarthBrooks: I keep thinking this was the same discussion I heard on CNN back in 2004 about how Kerry and Edwards were the darlings of the disaffected youth vote and how young people were registering in record numbers, etc. If I recall correctly, the *registration* numbers did go up, but the actual *vote* turnout was about the same or maybe even a little less than typical for that age group (18-24).

It did... it jumped 11%... that's a really big jump. Kerry and Edwards did help bring out the youth vote, but I think their efforts will pale in comparison to the Obama campaign's ability to mobilize the young voters of our country. Especially since one thing that is EXTREMELY important to young voters is the Iraq war. Yes... we were already in it as of 2004, but here we are 4 years later and we're still in it. Don't make the mistake of thinking it won't matter to them... especially since primarily they're the ones being asked to fight it.

Seabon: NYZooMan: If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

How can you realistically think Hillary is more electable? Obama has won more Democrats than she has. Do you think she's going to attract Republicans? They HATE her, I'd go so far as to say there might not be any person they hate more.

Obvious: we Rep's hate Hillary more than anyone.

That doesn't help Obama become electable anyway.

DarthBrooks: The big states are Hillary's.

This is a myth propagated by Hillary's campaign. Please stop treating it as fact.

I give you the ten largest U.S. states by population.

1.) California
2.) Texas
3.) New York
4.) Florida
5.) Illinois
6.) Pennsylvania
7.) Ohio
8.) Michigan
9.) Georgia
10.) North Carolina

Of the 10 biggest states, Hillary has won 4 (California, New York, Penn., and Ohio), Obama will have won 4 (Texas, Illinois, Georgia, and N. Carolina will be a slam dunk), and two (Florida and Michigan) don't count. The "big states" are a wash.

In fact, I'd argue that Obama has a better big state argument. He's generally won his big states by large margins (except for Texas, which was a close victory), while Hillary has only narrowly won hers. And some of the states in Hillary's big state column (such as NY and California) will almost certainly vote for any Democratic candidate for president.

MonkeyVegetables: /it will be more this time, my generation is unhappy about the raw deal the boomers are giving us

Do you get tired of all the Baby Boomer nostalgia on TV too?

/old hippies are buying retirement advice
//I guess.

Solwyvern: Seabon: NYZooMan: If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

How can you realistically think Hillary is more electable? Obama has won more Democrats than she has. Do you think she's going to attract Republicans? They HATE her, I'd go so far as to say there might not be any person they hate more.

Obvious: we Rep's hate Hillary more than anyone.

That doesn't help Obama become electable anyway.

why?

if 1% of Rep voters would go for Obama over McCain than would go for Hillary over McCain wouldnt that make Obama more electable

Solwyvern: Seabon: NYZooMan: If the powers-that-be believe that Obama is unelectable then all the rest is moot.

How can you realistically think Hillary is more electable? Obama has won more Democrats than she has. Do you think she's going to attract Republicans? They HATE her, I'd go so far as to say there might not be any person they hate more.

Obvious: we Rep's hate Hillary more than anyone.

That doesn't help Obama become electable anyway.

No it doesn't, but it shatters the myth that Hillary is more electable than the guy who won more Democratic votes than she did.

Seabon: I should hope 'they' are more informed than you and I, and I simply can't see a realistic argument that the guy who won more Democratic votes than Hillary is less electable.

I think that has more to do with Bill calling in more than a few markers to get his wife the nomination than it does with reality. It puts the DNC leadership in a difficult position - do they follow the 'unwritten rule' of politics and pay off their debts despite knowing the damage it will do to the party as a whole? Or do they destroy their patronage system and keep the party together?

I don't know what they'll do but it's fun to watch.

Seabon: MonkeyVegetables: /it will be more this time, my generation is unhappy about the raw deal the boomers are giving us

Do you get tired of all the Baby Boomer nostalgia on TV too?

/old hippies are buying retirement advice
//I guess.

eh i guess i get more tired about everything being about the boomers and how great they were all the while everyone else in the country is ignored

/we have to fix the world they broke
//summoning the vase cartoon

Weaver95: Seabon: I should hope 'they' are more informed than you and I, and I simply can't see a realistic argument that the guy who won more Democratic votes than Hillary is less electable.

I think that has more to do with Bill calling in more than a few markers to get his wife the nomination than it does with reality. It puts the DNC leadership in a difficult position - do they follow the 'unwritten rule' of politics and pay off their debts despite knowing the damage it will do to the party as a whole? Or do they destroy their patronage system and keep the party together?

I don't know what they'll do but it's fun to watch.

the real problem it those who expect the debts to be paid, no questions asked.. like Bill and Hillary

it makes me respect Gov. Richardson even more

/and Andrews

JohnnyC: California is NOT going to break for McCain regardless of the Democratic candidate.

Neither is New York for that matter.

Weaver95: I think that has more to do with Bill calling in more than a few markers to get his wife the nomination than it does with reality. It puts the DNC leadership in a difficult position - do they follow the 'unwritten rule' of politics and pay off their debts despite knowing the damage it will do to the party as a whole? Or do they destroy their patronage system and keep the party together?

I have a feeling that the Clintons pretty much called in all of their favors early in the process, which accounts for the huge superdelegate lead Hillary had back in January.

Their strategy was to call in favors for SD endorsements, give Hillary a huge lead from the get-go, make Hillary appear inevitable, and wrap everything up by Super Tuesday. Their strategy failed.

I don't think the Clintons have many favors left to call in, because if they did, they would have used them already.

Doc Daneeka: (except for Texas, which was a close victory)

The margin of victory in the popular vote for Clinton in Texas was less than the amount of Republicans that voted for Clinton to screw with the primary on Rush's marching orders.

Honestly, that sickens me. The willingness of the Republican party members to try and cheat or skew votes is just despicable. It is my opinion that anyone caught trying to cheat our voting system (in a primary or otherwise) should lose their vote.