Hillary on the ropes

snow scorpion

Maskhadov wrote: »

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

Tomorrow - March 4: Texas, Ohio, Vermont & Rhode Island.

The first two are important, the last two not so much.

GuanYin

snow scorpion wrote: »

Tomorrow - March 4: Texas, Ohio, Vermont & Rhode Island.

The first two are important, the last two not so much.

Actually, Vermont and Rhode Island could play a part if Obama gets overwhelming wins there and Ohio and Texas are close.

ghostdancer

RI will almost certainly go to Clinton, VT will probably be Obama. Ohio and Texas will be tight, i'd imagine Clinton will take OH by a few percent, and Obama will barely win Texas: she'll get the higher popular vote, but he will come out with a fair few more delegates than her based on winning delegate heavy areas.

either way, there's no chance of Clinton clawing back into it tomorrow. her best shot is closing the delegate count by a small amount, but the Wyoming caucus on Saturday, and Mississippi primary next week will go to Obama, effectively knocking out any gains she can hope for tomorrow.

i'm expecting the Obama campaign to announce their february fundraising totals on Wed, which will knock the shine off any small victory the Clintons will try spin.


after Mississippi next week there isn't another primary until Pennsylvania in over a month (April 22). there's no way anything short of a huge Clinton win tomorrow, or some major Obama scandal, is going to get her back in the game, and those within the Dem party will want it wrapped up by then either way.
even if she won in PA, which i doubt, then the next primaries are another few weeks after that in North Carolina and Indiana, where Obama will do well in both, probably winning. that drags it into the middle of May, and after NC and IN, Obama will presumably have at least 200+ delegates. after that, the chances of her winning in pledged delegates becomes almost mathematically impossible. i'd assume the superdelegates will have heard the calls from the senior party members to end it by then anyway, so i doubt it will even come to that.

Bill Richardson was on tv yesterday saying that whoever comes out of Tuesday with the overall lead in pledged delegates, should be the nominee, and the other candidate should step aside. so bar Clinton getting something like 75% in all states tomorrow, that person is going to be Obama. I can see Dean putting pressure on Clinton to step aside come next week, he allowed her her final stand, and it's almost certainly not going to work.

sugark

ghostdancer wrote: »

Bill Richardson was on tv yesterday saying that whoever comes out of Tuesday with the overall lead in pledged delegates, should be the nominee, and the other candidate should step aside. so bar Clinton getting something like 75% in all states tomorrow, that person is going to be Obama. I can see Dean putting pressure on Clinton to step aside come next week, he allowed her her final stand, and it's almost certainly not going to work.

Somehow I don't see Clinton stepping down just because the Gov. of New Mexico says she should, but I agree with the rest of your post about how things are looking to pan out. I think unless she wins both Texas and Ohio it's all over bar the shouting. But I do think there will be lots of shouting, and well into the next month...

Edited to say that Richardson's been mentioned as a possible VP on the Obama ticket so he's not exactly neutral...

snow scorpion

spank_inferno

regarding the thread title, the last few days have seen a small swing back in favour of Clinton.
She's definetly not finished yet.
IMO she'll win ohio by 5%, texas(barely) RI, but mabey not vermont.

however this will increase confidence in her camp, being able to pull off 3 victories after obama's run of 11 wins may even give her the momentum she needs to win.

Personaly though I hope not, I've been dismayed by her tactics of late.
She should be more positive, focus more on why she is better, instead of running her opponent down.

speedboatchase

As I said in a different thread, its incredible how she has spun her dwindling lead (which was huge a month ago) in Ohio and Texas into a position where she's the "underdog", even though she's still favourite in both.

Mathmatically, she needs big wins to destroy Obama's delegate lead, which she won't get. She doesn't deserve it though, her campaign has been awful, full of negativity, desperation and race-baiting

GuanYin

speedboatchase wrote: »

Mathmatically, she needs big wins to destroy Obama's delegate lead, which she won't get. She doesn't deserve it though, her campaign has been awful, full of negativity, desperation and race-baiting

Actually, I don't think she can regain the lead.

According to an article that uses the slate delegate counter, even if you give her generous wins in ALL of the remaining 17(?) primaries, she's still likely to be down about 50+ delegates from Obama. The superdelegates are unlikely to pledge themselves against the popular vote.

ghostdancer

sugark wrote: »

Somehow I don't see Clinton stepping down just because the Gov. of New Mexico says she should, but I agree with the rest of your post about how things are looking to pan out. I think unless she wins both Texas and Ohio it's all over bar the shouting. But I do think there will be lots of shouting, and well into the next month...

Edited to say that Richardson's been mentioned as a possible VP on the Obama ticket so he's not exactly neutral...

Richardson has a history with the Clintons, he was even supposed to be watching the Superbowl this year with Bill according to reports. I don't see really see him as a VP pick, i think an african-american and a latino on the ticket may be a bit too much change! before Sunday I hadn't even thought about him and Obama together tbh.

I didn't mean that she would do anything because of Richardson though, I meant that the more experienced voices within the party will start making similar noises as Richardson for her to step down. Pelosi already gave a nod to Obama in the superdelegates dispute, and after that, the only high-profile people I can see left to endorse that matter are Edwards, Dean, and Gore.

I can't actually see them saying "I endorse X", but I can definitely see Dean, Kennedy, Edwards, and Kerry doing the media rounds soon and making statements in the vein of "for the good of the party". Gore possibly as a last resort.

ghostdancer

looks like the Clinton campaign's message to supporters to take control over the caucuses wasn't enough for them:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/95525/48051/345/468502

Overheal

I think Jon Stewart put this turn of events best:

"I swear to god, I'm begining to think she's one of those Terminators. She can't be stopped! You throw them into the vat, you think its over: and then all of a sudden the little droplets begin to re-coagulate and she rises up and [shrill voice] 'I've won Ohioooooh!'' !"

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=163453&title=huckabees-long-goodbye