Hillary Clinton cannot catch up to Barack Obama.
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008 @ 1:19 am | Election crap
Disagree? You do the math.
-jb
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing. – Oscar Wilde
Disagree? You do the math.
-jb
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 am
It doesn’t matter because she can
A) Sue for Michigan and Florida
B) Sue for Texas
C) Bribe superdelegates
Or she can do none of those, pull a Huckabee, and delay party unity for as long as possible.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
And, he will not be able to win enough delegates to win cleanly. But, I guess he can do what he has been doing and buy them.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Senator Obama’s lead in elected delegates is real, but still narrow. Even so, for Senator Clinton to catch up, she’d have to start winning, and winning big. Assuming that Mrs Clinton wins every remaining contest 55% to 45%, she’d still be behind Mr Obama, 1,633 ti 1,576.
In fact, the super-delegates will decide this; that’s now inevitable, unless one of the two candidates quits the race early.
I’ve started to wonder if Senator Clinton hasn’t decided — subconsciously perhaps — that if she can’t win the presidency, then no emocrat is going to win.
March 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Carolyn: Not if Hillary can buy or cajole them first, of course, right?
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Upset you have less donor’s, Carolyn?
It’s always a “hey, look at how much money WE raised!” thing until you get outspent, then suddenly money is an evil thing.
Whatever. Sour grapes.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
JB’s investment in the “I’M BACKING TEH WINNAR!!1!” aspect of this whole thing remains mystifying & disappointing to me
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
*sigh*
Don’t be so sure the cloud of mystery is emanating from me.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 am
CMBC: We know that you support Senator Clinton’s candidacy, but if she cannot win the nomination “cleanly,” would you rather see her take it via the “smoke-filled room” method, or see Mr Obama win the nomination?
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 am
Well, either Clinton or Obama would make a fine President. So whichever one of them wins the nomination – and it does begin to look like it’s going to be Obama – I would hope everyone who doesn’t want another Republican scumbag in the White House, protecting the criminals of the Bush administration, would get behind the winner. What matters is restoring decency and integrity to the US, and that requires that the Republicans no longer have any means of protecting their own against criminal investigation and prosecution.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Dana: Obviously I’d prefer a clean win, although I wonder: where the hell have people who oppose the superdelegate system been for the past four years? Non-election years would have been a great time for all of you who’ve so clearly been passionate about the issue for so long to actually do something about it, n’est-pas? But as I’ve said, I only marginally prefer Clinton to Obama and then only on some personal ideological grounds – I think either one will be a terrible president, only really better than McCain in terms of the supreme court & in terms of not being really pathetic in re: whether the U.S. has the right to torture prisoners.
Jeromy you’ve been doin’ the “my team is winning! oooh, give it up, other side! you’re about to get pwn3d!” thing for weeks now – a huge part of the primary season’s appeal for you seems to be the opportunity to bring a college football vibe into electoral politics, I’m just callin’ it like it looks – how you think that’s good for anything except maybe a personal adrenaline charge: mystifying
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Again, that may be how it looks to you. But this post was about a cool delegate calculator that I found, and the objective impossiblity of Hillary beating Barack’s delegate totals. My recent posts have mostly been about the corrupt ineptitude of Hillary’s campaign. But I suppose I have betrayed that I’m pleased by the direction of the election results, so hyperbolize away.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
J wrote:
Really? We know that you hate Republicans, so I suppose that any president who wasn’t a Republican would be good news to you, but what makes you think that either one would be a “fine” president5 on any basis other than not being a Republican?
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Dana, you being a guy who voted for Bush twice kinda strips you of any right to ask people to vote for candidates based on their accomplishments, you dig?
March 5th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Okay, it took a while, but I admit: I can see what you see in Obama.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Mr Tallis: Could I vote for George Bush again, I would. Like Harry Truman, he’s being vilified now, but twenty years from now he’ll be rated as one of our best.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:42 am
J, when it comes to the two remaining Democratic contenders, there really isn’t much difference between them as far as their political and social positions are concerned. They’ve been trying for over a month to make some political headway over what are really pretty minor differences in their programs, but those differences really don’t matter; if one of them is elected — heaven forfend! — whatever programs they propose are going to be changed in the legislative process anyway.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Dana, you’re a gibbering idiot.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Dana, you’ve said that before; you’re mistaken. I know you and a lot of other dudes online are gonna attempt to put lots of spin on the Bush admin over the next few years, but it won’t amount to anything. He steered a booming economy into the toilet and made enemies out of many once-friendly nations; that’s his legacy, and will be forever. That his supporters just misdirect whenever the actual substance of his tenure gets raised is a somewhat interesting footnote.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
His legacy goes well beyond that. Turning the Justice Department into a loyal wing of the Republican re-election machine. Hiring unqualified cronies for important positions, notably Michael Brown and Alberto Gonzales. A religious agenda using false information for abstinence education and to deny FDA approval of the Plan B pill (that one courtesy of wife-rapist nutjob Dr. Hager). Pressuring scientists and doctoring reports to suppress global warming information. Being off-guard against Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Being frozen in the headlights on 9/11. Invading the wrong country afterwards, and doing it stupidly. Fighting the 9/11 commission. Not implementing its results. Not protecting the ports. Letting corporations have whatever they want while working class Americans sucked the pipe. Incredible government secrecy. Defying Congressional subpoenas. Monitoring of all electronic communications. Detaining an American citizen indefinitely and torturing him until forced by the courts to stop. Torture!
Am I missing something? I’m missing a lot! One cannot keep track of all this administrations grave malfeasances. And one cannot brush them over with Jeane Dixon-esque psychic claims that Bush will be regarded as “great” in 20, 30, or 100 years. He will never be regarded as great. Never. Even if something he did accidentally works down the road, it won’t be enough to erase the damage he did and the historical breaches of our nation’s traditional values.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I hear you Jeromy but when we get a Dem admin I’m gonna hold your feet to the fucking fire because half the shit you’re calling Bush out on he couldn’t have done without the outright complicity of the sainted Democratic party
March 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Most of the shit Jeromy’s calling Bush out on, he couldn’t have done without the asslicking support of the Republican party and the mindless pro-right partisanship of the media.
Which asslickery and partisanship is not going to go away if there’s a Democratic administration: it’s just going to gel into a clog and bind to try and stop the Democratic admin getting stuff done.
Look at how the Republicans in Congress have successfully torpedoed so much Democratic work: and got a free pass on it from the media.
Try to wake up a bit, TT.
Oh, and Jeromy? Just pointing out Dana is a gibbering idiot is shorter.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Jesurgislac I know you have this vision of the Democratic party as knights in shining armor whose valiant efforts to fight for good have been foiled by the evil bad man, but some of us ain’t buyin’ it. Yep, the Republicans torpedo the occasional good Democratic gesture. Not often though. For the most part, the centrist Democratic party just signs off on Bush admin garbage, and the faithful are quite happy with this, because they’re content to wave hometeam flags, confusing political change with rooting for their favorite side and eager to make excuses for the ineffective, cowardly, nutless politicians they’ve settled for.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Thomas: Purifying the Democrat party to the point where you AND I will be satisfied with it is a project recently begun with the advent of the internet. You can thank Bill Clinton for the triangulation and corporate surrender that put it in the condition it is today. 2006 was the first step forward, but yes, there are still plenty of bad Democrats. Keep repeating primary races like Donna Edwards over Al Wynn, and make sure that guys like Ned Lamont beat guys like Joe Lieberman next time.
The rightwingers took decades to do this for their party. We have to keep pushing for the more authentic Democrat, the cleaner more ethical progressive who doesn’t try to win by emulating the worst of Republicans.
Of course, when it comes to this election, that’s Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:55 am
TT: I know you have this vision of the Democratic party as knights in shining armor whose valiant efforts to fight for good have been foiled by the evil bad man
You don’t know, TT. I’m not a Democrat.
Your persistent attempts to blame the Democrats rather than the Republicans for the garbage accomplished by Bush suggest that you’re a nutter.
March 6th, 2008 at 4:01 am
as long as we can absolve the elected Democrats of any responsibility whatsoever for the state of the nation, everybody’s happy, right? cool
March 6th, 2008 at 8:13 am
TT, again with the trying to avoid Republican responsibility for the state of the nation. Why do you want to do that?
March 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Jesurgislac wrote:
Well, it’s good to know that I’m not the only person J feels must be insane if one happens to disagree with her.
March 6th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Now Dana’s trying to talk himself up by associating himself with Thomas Tallis? Dana, you’re a gibbering idiot: Thomas Tallis is merely someone I disagree with.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
TT, again with the trying to avoid Republican responsibility for the state of the nation. Why do you want to do that?
it’s called “taking responsibility” or more graphically “taking ownership of the problem,” if Democrats would look into it they’d enjoy broader support. instead, one of the truest things the right says about Democrats is that they wallow in their own victimization. No matter what happens, we weren’t the cause! it was the big bad guy who made us vote to send troops into Iraq! and to reauthorize, again and again! after all, we wouldn’t want to risk the next election, would we? etc etc.
Democrats and their supporters are freaking IMMUNE to the remotest possibility of taking responsibility.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:34 am
it’s called “taking responsibility†or more graphically “taking ownership of the problem”
Yes, exactly.
So again: why is it that you feel Democrats should have to “take responsibility” for what the Republicans have been doing? Shouldn’t Republicans take responsibility for what they’ve been doing?
Why should the Democrats “take ownership” of the vile and criminal actions of the Republican party – let alone be made “responsible” for them?
Why are you complaining about Democrats who repeatedly point out what the Republicans do? Your argument makes sense if and only if you regard Republicans and their supporters as completely immune to the remotest possibility of taking responsibility for their own acts and the acts of people they support in power.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:20 am
No man that’s where you’re dead wrong! Of course I decry the Repulicans – the neoconservatives who’ve made up the party for the last thirty years especially are happy to run the country into the ground as long as they can make some money on it. But they’re not my party; it’d be unreasonable to expect anything good from them. From the Democrats, however, it’d be nice to see something other than bending over in the House and Senate and then whining about how they got screwed in the press. The present generation of Democrats seem to really revel in “well, I sorta tried” as a rallying cry; it’s sick-making.