Hillary on the ropes

Superhands

posted this on my blog

byzantine330.blogspot.com

I've had a look at the maths and tried to explain them, hillary really needs a miracle to catch obama in the pledged delegate count


March 4th, the date of the Texas and Ohio primaries, promises to be another night of high drama in the epic duel for the Democratic nomination. After 11 straight defeats, no one in the Clinton camp is under any illusions as to how important these two contests have now become, with former president Bill Clinton even stating publcly last week that his wife's chances of securing the nomination will end if she does not win both states.

Amid all the media talk of Texas and Ohio representing Mrs Clinton's "firewall", it should not be forgotten that another of the New York senator's fall-back positions, her possible reliance on superdelegates in the event of narrowly losing the pledged delegate count, also appears to be under threat. According to the Associated Press, since February 9th Obama has increaesed his number of superdelegates by 25 (to 181) whilst during the same period Mrs Clinton has actually seen her number reduced by two (to 241), a trend that will have alarmed the Clinton campaign

Even if she can maintain a lead in this category, the very principle of using superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters is now under attack by many within the Democratic party. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the most senior Democrats in the country, has said that “it would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided" whilst Doug Wilder, a former governor of Virgnia, has gone further, warning of riots worse than those seen at the 1968 Democratic convention "if superdelegates intervene and get in the way of it".

Given that both Pelosi and Wilder are Obama supporters, it is perhaps more significant to note the words of California superdelegate John Perez and of Congressman Charlie Rangel, a superdelegate and one of Senator Clinton's most prominent African-Amercian supporters. At a conference dinner in New York state last Sunday, Rangel said "it's the people [who are] going to govern who selects our next candidate and not superdelegates". Perez meanwhile has withdrawn his support for Clinton and said in a recent interview :

"Given where the race is at right now, I think it's very important for us to play a role around bringing the party together around the candidate that people have chosen, as opposed to advocating for our own choice"



With so much talk coming from both Clinton and Obama supporters about the possible damage it could do to the party, it is now far from certain that Clinton will be able to rely on the support of superdelegates to push her over the finish line if Obama wins the final pledged delegate count.

All of which further underlines the importance of her winning Texas and Ohio and closing the gap in the pledged delegate race. The current maths make for unpleasant reading for Mrs Clinton. According to RealClearPolitics, Obama currently has 1,193 pledged delgates to Clinton's 1,034, representing a lead of 159. With 981 deleagtes at stake in the remaining 16 contests, this means Clinton needs to win 58% of the remaining delegates if she is to catch Obama in the pledged delegate count.

Despite the Democrats' complex proportional representation system (which is based mostly on congressional districts rather than on the statewide vote), delegates are in fact awarded largely in line with the percentage of votes received statewide. An analysis of voting figures so far confirms this - if delegates had been awarded based solely on statewide voting percentages in the 40 primaries and caucuses held so far, Obama would lead by 173 delegates rather than the current 159, a difference of just 14 or 0.63% of the total number. We can therefore reasonably postulate that in order to win 58% of the remaining delegates Mrs Clinton will need to win approximately 58% of the popular vote in the remaining 16 primaries and caucuses.

To make matters worse for the New York senator, Obama is almost guaranteed victory in two of the remaining states - Mississippi and North Carolina, both of which have large African-American populations (37% and 22% respectively). Even if Obama won both states by just one delegate (and based on voting patterns up to now he is likely to win by a far wider margin), this would incresae the percentage of the popular vote Clinton would need in the other 14 contests to 60%.

Looking at the results in the 40 contests so far, Senator Clinton has only managed to break the 60% threshold once (in Arkansas, where her husband was governor for 12 years). She has only scored 55% or higher in five other states or territories - Michigan (where Obama's name was not on the ballot), New York (where she is a serving senator), American Samoa, Oklahoma and Massachusetts.

As such it is importamt to realsie that not only does Mrs Clinton need to win both Texas and Ohio on March 4th, she needs to do so by huge landslide margins of 20% or more. If she wins both by say 55% to 45%, whilst this would provide a propganda coup and a temporary morale boost, because it is less than the 20% required it would actually increase the percentage of the vote she would need in the remaining states to 63%.

The situation is not without hope for Mrs Clinton however. Firstly there is the question of John Edwards and who he will instruct his 26 pledged delegates to support. Then there is the question of the two rogue primaries held in Michigan and Florida, both of which were won by wide margins by Senator Clinton. Currently all 213 pledged delegates from those states are barred from voting at the convention due to violation of Democratic National Committe rules, however Mrs Clinton has repeatedly called for this decison to be reversed (an action that would substantially boost her delegate tally) and Florida democrats have even threatened legal action to have their delegates' voting rights restored. Attempts at a compromise ("do-over" caucuses) have so far been rejected by both states.

The support of John Edwards, and the fate of the rogue Michigan and Florida primaries, these are the three wildcards that remain in the pack for Mrs Clinton. With the maths currently working against her, Senator Clinton's hopes of beating Obama may now rest on all three wildcards being dealt in her favour - if they are, the dynamics of the contest will change dramatically. In what is fast developing into one of the classic battles in US political history, it could be that the most dramatic twist is yet to come.

GuanYin

Clinton's strategy is losing her the race.

I'm not sure whether her team is full of idiots or whether they are afraid to tell it to her straight, but whichever way it is, her tactics have backfired at every step.

Her biggest flaw is that she does seem to preach about the people while really relying on the now ailing superdelegate support. She talks down to people and she just seems icy.

Her campaign have tried several underhanded tactics that have backfired at every stage. Sure they fired the campaigners who claimed Obama was Muslin but the new leaked turban photo has dredged that all back up again. It merely reminds people of the fearmongering that kept Bush in power. Not a smart move.

Speaking of Buch similarities, her approach with Florida and Michigan reeks of that too. One of the biggest flaws of her from my point of view is that she seems inconsistant. She says one thing but does another. The rogue states is an example of that, then there is the plagerism claim. While crying foul, her team got exposed by a question asking if Clinton writes all her own speaches or uses uncredited speechwriters. And then she "plagerised" someone else in her own speech.

A while back the democrats where looking at the Republican candidates and praying for a McCain win. "He's beatable" being the consensus opinion.

I can only think the Republican are looking at Clinton now in exactly the same way.

Overheal

For the last year the only thing she has done that is consistent is be a complete hypocrite; denouncing a methodology and within 2 weeks using it to leverage herself. I'm still disgusted with the way she put on an accent for the voters in Alabama back in August. And again in the Debates, how she proudly claimed she would not use her gender as a defense - 2 weeks later you could hear the sexism bleeding out of her ears.

As for drawing similarities between Bush - he was also related to a former president. Hmmm....

I have no doubt that in a campaign between Clinton and McCain, McCain would win it, and I would vote for him. Between Obama and McCain - I don't know. I like them both at this stage and want to see more of their campaigning in the next 9 months.

Currently I don't know many people who still follow Clinton at this stage. She's officially down and out.

is_that_so

Overheal wrote: »

And again in the Debates, how she proudly claimed she would not use her gender as a defense - 2 weeks later you could hear the sexism bleeding out of her ears.

Racism is something that one can hide or even change. You can be persuaded to vote for a guy, even a black guy who looks and sounds good. Sexism is a state of mind that is certainly not going to be changed as quickly, and is not going to be as obvious in a vote. She's damned either way. Too weak if she is nice, shrill if she shouts. It's the one handicap she is least likely to overcome. Not sure if she is completely down and out but allied with her name and gender it is starting to look as if she is on her way out. At the start of this campaign I thought that the US was more likely to vote for a woman before a black man. At this point I am not sure if they ever will be.

Overheal

They would have but as her campaign progressed she too often changed her hand of cards and proved to be an unpredictably shady person to deal with. America doesnt want that. They want someone that they can trust is doing the right thing even if they cant tell us what. Hillary too often sounds like she is pursuing alternate agendas that dont fit in with the agenda of the country.

Manic Moran

At this point I am not sure if they ever will be.

With respect, I strongly doubt her ability to carry sufficient votes is because of sexism. Unless the female voters which Obama has managed to 'poach' in recent months are somehow succumbing to sexism against their own sex.

NTM

is_that_so

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, I strongly doubt her ability to carry sufficient votes is because of sexism. Unless the female voters which Obama has managed to 'poach' in recent months are somehow succumbing to sexism against their own sex.

NTM

Yes most of her difficulties have been caused by her own campaign and her name. I wonder though, even if she were not a Clinton and running the Obama campaign would she stand a chance of being elected anyway? I am not sure that she would. It's all well and good having judges, Secretary of State and even Madam speaker, but I don't know if the whole country would go for a woman as CIC.

Mutant_Fruit

Currently all 213 pledged delegates from those states are barred from voting at the convention due to violation of Democratic National Committe rules, however Mrs Clinton has repeatedly called for this decison to be reversed

But the only reason she won by as much as she did is because she didn't remove her name from the ballot as instructed, like other candidates did.

The decision of the DNC diminished the significance of the Michigan primary.[5] On October 9, 2007, following Michigan's breach of DNC rules, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards withdrew from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot.[6] Dennis Kucinich unsuccessfully sought to remove his name from the ballot.[7] Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd decided to remain on the ballot.

Those results simply cannot be held valid. Imagine the uproar if those delegates were allowed be assigned to Clinton considering four candidates removed their name from the ballot in deference to the DNC. If they are reinstated, it will only be after another vote, and even still other candidates may not be pleased if that were to happen. I have no doubts that some voters would only vote for candidates who didn't 'abandon' them.

GuanYin

I know. It reeks of underhandedness and is really something that reminds me of Bush and his administrations.

Overheal

is_that_so wrote: »

Yes most of her difficulties have been caused by her own campaign and her name. I wonder though, even if she were not a Clinton and running the Obama campaign would she stand a chance of being elected anyway? I am not sure that she would. It's all well and good having judges, Secretary of State and even Madam speaker, but I don't know if the whole country would go for a woman as CIC.

She might have had a chance further along in political history maybe. However in reality she has overplayed the I Have Experience card and she has played it all wrong - nobody hears Secretary of State and Madam Speaker; all they hear is I slept with the president, elect me! She relies on it too much to the point where if you havent sucked Bills knob well then, you just arent pressie material in her eyes. Her overconfidence was her biggest weakness. She gloated, for example, that she wouldnt give into pressure and would not tell her fellow candidates to 'go easy on her because shes a woman' (with the dirt flinging politics and all that) but as soon as she received continued criticism she commented it was due to her sex that she was being picked on so much. her words [paraphrased], not mine.

Even the New York Times is predicting her failure ffs

Jesus Wept

Superhands

Mutant_Fruit wrote: »

But the only reason she won by as much as she did is because she didn't remove her name from the ballot as instructed, like other candidates did.

Those results simply cannot be held valid. Imagine the uproar if those delegates were allowed be assigned to Clinton considering four candidates removed their name from the ballot in deference to the DNC. If they are reinstated, it will only be after another vote, and even still other candidates may not be pleased if that were to happen. I have no doubts that some voters would only vote for candidates who didn't 'abandon' them.

agreed, I think there is a far better chance of getting the Florida results reinstated (where all names were on the ballot)

it seems ludicrous to suggest the Michigan result should stand

byzantine330.blogspot.com

Superhands

some interesting polls and articles printed over the last couple of days reagrding TX

new reuters / houston / zogby poll has obama ahead by 6 points in TX

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5580776.html

some interesting statistics

in TX about half of the voters are white, a quarter hispanic and a quarter black

Hillary and Obama are more or less tied among whites

Hillary leads among hispanics

Obama leads among blacks

but crucially Obama's margin among blacks (a lead of 77%) is far larger than hillary's lead among hispanics (where she leads by only 22%), this is what is making the difference


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5573351.html


"Although blacks accounted for 19 percent of the state's registered voters in the 2006 general election, compared with 25 percent for Hispanics, Stein said, Hispanics haven't been able to capitalize on that advantage in the Democratic primary. Stein predicts blacks will represent 30 percent of the vote Tuesday, while Hispanics may account for 25 percent."

if the professor is right, it means that zogby underestimated the black vote in their poll (the exact figure they used was 21% should have been 30%)


byzantine330.blogspot.com

Manic Moran

She apparently broke financing records last month.

To think, all that money which could be spent on education, munitions, or something else useful.

NTM

Lirange

Manic Moran wrote: »

She apparently broke financing records last month.

Which record is that? Money raised? Or money spent?

Obama has outpaced her by far in terms of raising money.

Lirange

Superhands wrote: »

agreed, I think there is a far better chance of getting the Florida results reinstated (where all names were on the ballot)

Problem is ... neither candidate campaigned in the state since in essence it didn't count. More problematic is the fact that turnout was dismal as a consequence. It would be hardly representative or honest to consider the results representative of the will of the people of Florida. The only way that Florida might be counted would be to have a re-do in the form of a caucus. But really they were warned and they broke the rules anyway. The only way it will be brought up is if Clinton decides risk a rupture in the party.

is_that_so

Lirange wrote: »

Which record is that? Money raised? Or money spent?

Obama has outpaced her by far in terms of raising money.

Manic Moran wrote: »

She apparently broke financing records last month.

To think, all that money which could be spent on education, munitions, or something else useful.

NTM

There has been an obscene amount of money spent on all of this on all sides and we still haven't got to the GE. McCain appears to be the only one so far supporting restrictions on it.

AARRRGH

Could someone explain, in simple English, what are the underhand/sneaky tactics she's used? I don't totally understand. Thanks.

Manic Moran

Well, you can have a look at that photo the Hillary camp sent to Drudge of Obama in traditional African (Somali?) attire, complete with muslim-style turban a week or two ago. Designed to prey on patriotism fears, in a manner you ordinarily find from the likes of Rush or Coulter.

NTM

bartholomewbinn

If Obama gets the democratic nomination McCain will win easily, that picture of him (Obama) in Arab costume will spook an awful lot of Americans.

Jack Sheehan

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

If Obama gets the democratic nomination McCain will win easily, that picture of him (Obama) in Arab costume will spook an awful lot of Americans.

/Sweeping statement/

bartholomewbinn

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

/Sweeping statement/

No, its not a sweeping statement, its just a statement, and IMO a valid one.

Lirange

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

If Obama gets the democratic nomination McCain will win easily, that picture of him (Obama) in Arab costume will spook an awful lot of Americans.

And yet Obama still polls better than Clinton in a matchup vs. McCain.

It looks like they're more spooked by Hillary.

Overheal

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

If Obama gets the democratic nomination McCain will win easily, that picture of him (Obama) in Arab costume will spook an awful lot of Americans.

In the political timeline, this is already Ancient History. What makes you think it will still hold water in 6 months?

Even after this picture Obama still shows better numbers when voters were asked who was more likely to succeed against McCain.

And lets be clear and put the picture to rest: it wasnt Arab or Muslim at all; it was traditional african dress.

I'm an american and im not the least bit terrified. I'm more concerned with the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush always being seen in their sharp business suits having tea with the Saudi Royal Family.

what puts me off hillary is her willingness to discard her own principles to accomplish short term objectives.

bartholomewbinn

Overheal wrote: »

In the political timeline, this is already Ancient History. What makes you think it will still hold water in 6 months?

Even after this picture Obama still shows better numbers when voters were asked who was more likely to succeed against McCain.

And lets be clear and put the picture to rest: it wasnt Arab or Muslim at all; it was traditional african dress.

I'm an american and im not the least bit terrified. I'm more concerned with the likes of Dick Cheney and George Bush always being seen in their sharp business suits having tea with the Saudi Royal Family.

what puts me off hillary is her willingness to discard her own principles to accomplish short term objectives.

In your opinion that picture may be ancient history, and of course it’s traditional African dress. But when the race really hots up for the white house McCain’s people will bring your ancient history back to the present day very quickly. Apart from the “Arab” like clothes, a lot, an awful lot, of your fellow country men are going to be very uncomfortable with the thoughts of an African president.

Overheal

And you've polled.........who?

Believe me, in 6 months if past history is anything to go by I believe it will be something completely different. This dress thing is already defused; notice how nobody is talking about it anymore. Everyone is talking about Hillary learning when to Quit.

I would not be surprised if there were a fair amount of people still scared by a Black President; but I'd be even less surprised if most of them were associated with the Klu Klux Klan. I could make the same statement except replace 'Black President' with 'Another White Ageing Republican President with a military background' and replace 'Klu Klux Klan' with 'Sane People'.

Of all the republican runners I'm glad it was McCain but I think the confidence in the Republican Party is fleeting ever more.

notice how I dont say anything definitive here? Don't use terms like "are going to be" unless you happen to be a Seer or something.

ghostdancer

dublindude wrote: »

Could someone explain, in simple English, what are the underhand/sneaky tactics she's used? I don't totally understand. Thanks.

i can't really remember most of the things that her campaign has done as i've forgotten lots along the way, but a few that stand out are:

- Claiming that Florida and Michigan delegates should be awarded, despite the fact that it had been agreed long before the election that they wouldn't be counted. Only after it became clear that Clinton might lose did she start talking about how it was unfair to the voters in those areas, and trying to get them re-instated, despite the fact that some working on her campaign put those rules in place, and the fact that most of the candidates, including Obama, took their names off the ballot in Michigan, and the fact that Clinton herself had absolutely no problem with the situation when she was well ahead in opinion polls, before the first caucus, in Iowa.

- After an influential union which represents alot of casino workers in Las Vegas which was expected to back her, instead backed Obama, launched a lawsuit to get caucus stations at casinos in Las Vegas closed. vid explaining it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uthdea6X2PE

- cheating and foul play by Clinton campaign members and supporters at caucuses in Nevada to exclude Obama supporters from taking part. outlined here in great detail, with several first hand accounts:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/21/142554/917

- Sending out literature about Obama's voting record which is either blatantly untrue, or very misleading, such as claiming that he is pro-life in his stance on abortion because of certain cherry-picked senate votes on legislation, despite one of the main pro-choice groups saying that his record is overwhelmingly pro-choice, and the opposition to the legislation being easily explainable.

- cliaming that certain states that Obama won don't matter, as they don't usually vote Democrat in the General Election. expect this excuse if she loses Texas on Tuesday (despite it being a state that did matter according to her 2 weeks ago).

- planting campaign members in audiences at rallies or town-hall meeting to ask easy questions for her to answer. this has been proven to have happened at least twice, probably more.


there's lots more, but i've forgotten them by now.
here's a less than flattering thing that i've read today:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html
the reasons for this are outlined here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/1/205349/5724/764/467074

this coming after the Texas Democratic Party said that the Clinton campaign threatened to lodge a lawsuit against the caucuses there, which would only allow the results of the primary voting to be counted (Obama does much better in caucuses than Clinton, and the Texas delegates are awarded 75% by primary voting results, and 25% by caucus results).
they also said that the Clinton campaign wanted to delay the results of the caucus, presumably so that if Clinton won the primary vote earlier in the day, that would be what would get reported on, and in for the following day's papers/news, despite the fact that she could still lose overall depending on the results of the caucuses. pretty desperate to be honest...

another example of the type of person she is, is how she said on TV that her daughter, Chelsea, was out jogging near the Twin Towers on 9/11, but stopped in a coffeeshop just before she got close, and was saved from harm. unfortunately, Chelsea said in a magazine interview later that she was actually at home asleep when the first plane hit and saw the second hit on tv......

Dick Morris, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, wrote a book called "Rewriting History", which pretty much paints Hillary as a ruthless scheming compulsive liar, and challenges a lot of things she said in her own autobiography "Living History". some of it is just anecdotal evidence that he observed, but some of it is proven to have happened...

to be fair, a lot of the tactics in this campaign are probably not her doing, but she goes along with them. if I were her I would have fired her campaign strategist Mark Penn, who seems to be the one behind most of these tactics, and who I would largely apportion the blame for her campaign failing so much. every time I see any interview with him, or hear him say anything, he seems like a complete scumbag who will do anything to win. that's his job, and the goal of the campaign, but it's hardly morally commendable.

zuchum

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

In your opinion that picture may be ancient history, and of course it’s traditional African dress. But when the race really hots up for the white house McCain’s people will bring your ancient history back to the present day very quickly. Apart from the “Arab” like clothes, a lot, an awful lot, of your fellow country men are going to be very uncomfortable with the thoughts of an African president.

The only people who would be put off by that sort of thing would be voting for John McCain anyway; also as many people have said,it won't be brought up again, at least by the McCain campaign because it has already become entirely defused as many people said, bringing it up woud just feed into the Repubicans image of being cheap, negative campaigners...and if people claim it creates fear,it will be seen as racist. It's a complete no-go.

Also,Obama has a better chance of beating McCain in the national race, as his 49-42 against John McCain..but polls aside,Repubclicans and people who lean towards voting Republican absolutely detest Hillary Clinton, so as where they might be lethargic if Obama was the nominee,if it was Clinton you can be sure McCain would get their vote.



Also,as for Hilldog's negative campaigning,I thought this was pretty amusing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70emIFxETs&feature=related

Overheal

To add to the Hillary record:

- In Alabama when speaking with voters, Hillary put on a thick local accent to appeal to voters, and used local drawls and terms; slangs and sayings. http://youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&feature=related

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote:

I don't feel no ways tired. I come too far, from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don't believe he'd [Jesus] brought me this far to leave me."

Zuchum wrote:

Also,as for Hilldog's negative campaigning,I thought this was pretty amusing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M70em...eature=related

You havent seen O-dog's response then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMmMZNSUWw

And of course Hillary has since been downplaying the response by arguing that 'its one thing to give a speech at an anti-war rally; its quite another to be asked to decide it in the Senate' [paraphrase]

Actually this sums it up nicely:

Quotation from New York Daily News

If there's a phone ringing at 3 a.m. in the White House it's either a pizza joint verifying Bill Clinton's telephone number or an escort company telling Bill that his favorite escort is not available.

"Obama insisted her ad asks the wrong question, and used it to play up his trump card against Clinton - that she voted for the Iraq war when he opposed it.

'The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone?' He said. 'In fact, we've had a red-phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer.'"

Quotation from the New York Times

Sen. Obama is absolutely correct: Judgement always trumps experience. Hillary was dead wrong in giving Bush the green light to invade Iraq, and she didn't learn from her mistake. She voted to label an elite Iranian fighting force a "terrorist group", thereby giving Bush an excuse to go to war against Iran.

A red phone is ringing in the White House, I pray it won't be Hillary and Bill struggling to see who will pick it up. We don't need a co-presidency who engage in the politics of scare tactics; we need a president who inspires America with his optimistic vision.

Even her home team knows the game is over.

Maskhadov

when is the next election date and where ? 12 in a row is a knock out

cathald

Never write off a Clinton!