I sure hope you aren't being serious.

Otherwise, I'd ask if you had been talking with a one Mark Penn lately?

Also, I don't buy the double standard held against Obama. If Clinton can't hold onto a 20+ natural lead among primary voters with universal name recognition, what does that say of her electoral chances? Obama has shown he can move into a state and become instantly competitive, battling to a virtual draw where he 20+ points behind 12 days before. Clinton has yet to demonstrate that she can move into a state and build (as opposed to bleed) support. I want to win in November like anybody else. This "can't close the deal" is a cute little talking point, but it can't be pushed with a straight face outside of talking head platforms. This is a real world, pal, we know the facts.

I clicked on the profile of the original poster, to see if this was a joke post, but it is not. The author often calls Obama supporters names and has come to the defense of Hillary's preemptive legal strike in TX. Seems to be another "Clinton deserves the Whitehouse, by hook or by crook" supporters. In fairness, I'm a "rooting for Obama with hope and with votes," supporter who wouldn't vote for Hillary to be my next garbage woman.

Except for Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland or Missouri, that is.

Missouri was a one point win... not a significant margin.

WI, VA, and MD were states where the Clinton campaign failed to organize and compete -- at least until the last minute, when it was too late.

No serious person can possibly think that public opinion in swing states went from +4.2% on Super Tuesday for Clinton to +22.4 for Obama in one week.

Obama failed to show he could get the job done in November on Super Tuesday, and still hasn't shown he can get the job done in November.

Anybody who thinks Obama can win Virginia, Texas, Florida, or Ohio in the general is nuts. It will never happen.

I'm asking a serious question here. Is this post a satire?

I mean, if you are EITHER a Clinton Supporter or an Obama supporter, you can't really take this reasoning seriously. The advantages were all Senator Clinton's in money and endoresments up until New Hampshire.

If the buck stops with Hillary, she mismanaged her campaign finances and her campaign strategy, while Barack's execution of same has been supremely effective. The overstatment is that somehow Senator Clinton's bumbled campaign made her powerless and faceless after Iowa. No, she has always been formidable. Barack's achievement has been leveling the playing field and getting to hold the ball on offense for a few weeks.

By this blogger's logic, if Senator Clinton is president and has a terrible first four years, we should re-elect her anyway.

Mark Penn makes goofy claims like this post every day, but he gets paid for it.

I think you make a good "nuts and bolts" argument here. But I don't think those should be the only factors.

You're dismissing Obama's popularity and inspirational qualities, and his proven ability to get people out to the polls. Further, and maybe most important, it's his "the media loves him" quality that makes him a better opponent against John "the media also loves him" McCain. I think Clinton's going to have a real hard time in the press in the GE. And her husband certainly has been no help to her along those lines.

In terms of the nuts and bolts, though, in the red states Obama won in, he certainly turned out way more than the Republicans -- sure, in the reddest of the red states, the Republican wins. But I wouldn't so easily dismiss some of the more purple states, where Obama really could win.

You're basically advancing the Clinton "Most States Don't Matter" argument, but I don't buy that so much.

OK, so your argument is that her losses in these large and key states shoudl not count because she ran an incompetent, disorganised campaign there?

OK, yeah, that makes sense. Because failing to effectively compete in critical races is an EXCELLENT reason why a person should be my nominee for President.

Hey dumbass, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Arizona are NOT swing states, and every poll shows Hillary losing swing states and even safe blue states to McCain in the general while Obama carries them no problem. You are a goddamn idiot, and I'm embarrassed that I'm in the same party as you. You are ignorant enough, go join the Republicans. You make me sick.

You're basically advancing the Clinton "Most States Don't Matter" argument, but I don't buy that so much.

actually, what I'm trying to do is present a "Clinton" version of the kind of ridiculous arguments being advanced by Obama supporters saying that Clinton should drop out after Tuesday.

I don't really think that Obama should drop out after Tuesday -- the only reason either candidate should consider dropping out is if they are blown out in Texas in the popular vote -- and that's because the democrats need a candidate that can run a credible campaign in Texas for the GE.

The Dems will lose Texas (barring a landslide) just like the GOP will lose California. But just as the GOP can't afford to "write off" california, and allow the Dems to concentrate their efforts elsewhere, neither can the Dems afford to write off Texas. And a popular vote blow-out in Texas would mean that, were the losing candidate in Texas get the nomination, Texas would have to be written off.

But I do think that Obama's current delegate lead is a "Potemkin" lead only. But that's no reason for him to quit -- he's run credible campaigns in all the states where he's competed head-to-head on an even playing field with Clinton, even if he's lost most of them. But he has yet to demonstrate the kind of strength in competitive contests that justifies making him the nominee by acclaimation.

p_lukasiak,

Explain to me how the math adds up for a Clinton delegate victory that would move Obama to drop out?

Cause I don't see any way that Hillary gets the most delegates unless she wins by huge margins on Tuesday, then wins by huge margins in additional states.

Do you really see that happening?

Just show me the math.

How do you turn Obama wining more delegates, more votes, and twice as many states into Clinton being the better candidate? This is a joke, right?

Yeah, I completely agree with this post. The candidate with the most pledged delegates should drop out, while the candidate who threatens lawsuits, comlains about the media coverage, runs a crappy campaign and unifies the Republicans like no other candidate absolutely should stay in.

This suggestion makes as much sense as Broder's ridiculous "Bush is poised for a comeback" commentary last year.

p_luckasiak,

Specious argument- it has the ring of truth, but it holds no water. No dice.

"Think of it this way... " Nice try- simply asserting achievement does not make is so.

And the criteria you propose for the selection of a President is so general and broad that it could apply to any candidate out there. What about those criteria (prioritization, major & minor) is something that HRC can satisfy uniquely? I'd be interested to hear more specifics, if you've got them.

Specious argument- it has the ring of truth, but it holds no water. No dice.

ask a specious question, get a specious answer.

Candidates don't really run primary campaigns in the same way a President runs the executive branch. When they aren't at a campaign event, they are making phone calls to supporters, or getting ready for the next campaign event (i.e. what bits of local color can they include? Who will be there that s/he has to act like they are BFFs? etc.)

So, when asked a dumb-ass question like "Do we want that kind of decision-maker in the whitehouse?" I'm going to treat it with the level of seriousness that it deserves, i.e. I'll be the Clintbot answering the Obot.

You know who else should drop out? David. I mean, it took him forty days of watching before he took down Goliath, and he had that fancy sling and Saul behind him and everything!

If this is parody, it's genius, if not, it's idiocy.

I've read p_lukasiak's statistical analysis on other sites, it's a complete farce which gives creedence to the "lies, damn lies, and statistics". Basically, caucuses don't count, so ignore how poorly Clinton performs in states Obama will likely win (Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia). Distort the "swing states" to include states where Clinton did well and exclude Obama's strongest states, (California, New York, and New Jersey are swing states, what no Massachusetts?). Include votes from states where the candidates did not campaign (FL) or weren't even both on the ballot (giving all "Uncommitted" votes in Michigan to Obama sounds generous until you realize that people may be somewhat less likely to go out and vote for nobody..).

In order to have any relevance to the truth, a true statistical analysis cannot be designed, redesigned, and then completely distorted in order to "prove a specific point.

One other quibble, in response to "Where is Clinton's 20 point lead in Ohio?", Lukasiak says "that lead was never solid -- nor has it been 20% in any poll taken since Iowa.", but of course, that is not true:

Quinnipiac 2/6-12/08 564 LV 55 34 9

Look at any trendlines at http://www.pollster.com/ and see what happens when Obama campaigns. Generally his numbers go through the roof, usually hers shrink. Not what you'd see from a "strong candidate" running a strong campaign.

Obama is not going to do anything for your black ass he never has and never will. All he had to say to black people and this was a recent statement and that was "to stop feeding your children cold fried chicken for breakfast" I dont know what he'd know about that I guess his white mother or grandparents told him that is what black people ate because he sure didnt grow up in a black family.

Why would you count maine and maryland only a couple thousand people voted. maryland kept their polls open passed hours trying to get in more people. Those states do not represent america at all.

Dummy obama will never win utah or alaska he will not win florida either. You must be a republican trying to let mccain float on to victory. thats okay i trust mccain.

Damn. I KNEW p_lukasiak was actually Mark Penn.

p_lukasiak wrote:
"the only math that matters is the math that adds up to 2025 pledged delegates from primary and caucus states."

But that doesn't support the idea that Obama should drop out after Tuesday if he doesn't win big? Why is the pressure on him to win 2025 and not equally on Hillary? What can he do except have more delegates and more votes for him at the end of the day?

I just don't understand - are you saying that Hillary should just hope that the candidate who has won the most delegates and is in the lead drops out?

Because even if she wins Ohio AND Texas AND Rhode Island, I don't see how she'll get the delegate lead back - the delegate split tomorrow will still be very close. It used to be superdelegates were going to save her, but they've been flocking to Obama recently. So how does SHE win the delegate race?

That's the math I want to hear from you. I mean this seriously - I don't see how she can win if Obama stays in the race.

Huhhhh?

The HilCamp goalpost has been moved so much it's now out of the endzone and in the parking lot.

This tortured, head-up-the-arse logic, strategy and math is exactly what the HilCamp employed to get them exactly in this back-up-against-the-wall jam.

Please reveal yourself to be a satirist or I'm coming to tear up your Dem voter reg.

The reality is that the Clinton campaign had to completely reorganize the week after ST, and started from scratch in TX and OH

This p_lukasiak clown has been fudging numbers for weeks at place like Corrente where the only thing they have in common is their juvenile distaste for Obama. And I don't use the term clown lightly.

It seems to me that quite often during primary & general election campaigns, many charges & countercharges are made between the candidates. Some truthful and some not. Whether these come directly from the candidates themselves or by surrogates, they are usually distasteful, and unfortunately many times are effective.

But what is interesting to note, specifically about the Hillary campaign, is the descent into demonizing the supporters of Obama. Calling them Obamamaniacs, Obamots, etc., as if the supporters have no free will & have fallen under the "spell" of Obama. There was also one post that made fun of an Obama supporter for using the fancy, high falutin' word "specious".

This type of behaviour & attitude is generally associated with Republicans and their supporters. I soon expect Hillary supporters to begin shouting "SHUT UP" and holding their hands over their ears in response to any information that differs with their world view.

the front loaded primary of Feb 5th was designed so Hillary the inevitable would have it all wrapped up by then ---

but that didn't happen

and if the primary schedule rolled out normally and Obama had a chance to campaign and visit each state, he would have had many more primary victory's

there is no mathematical way for Hillary Clinton to win the pledged delegates

So if the Clinton campaigned care a whiff for the democratic party and a victory in November they would bow out graciously

The problem with Hillary (and Bill) Clinton is that they really believe they are the only ones capable of running the country

God help us'
They think they are the ones we have been waiting for

Paul (p_lukasiak) has posted at Taylor Marsh's blog. That should explain much. He also seem unable to understand that he is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own set of facts. California a swing state? Stop me before I laugh myself to death.

Yes, Hillary has so much more experience than Obama. Obama sort of reminds me of the that rube from Arkansas that became President back in '92, talkin' about the man from Hope and all that rubbish.

Hillary turns off 50% of the electorate right off the bat. Many right wing voters have stated that they will actively be driven to vote against her and for McCain - even thought they apparently don't like McCain much either. My father has been a staunch Republican for over 40 years and I don't pretend to know how he will actually vote in November, but he has said that he is seriously considering voting for Obama!

Obama may have some weaknesses as a candidate and obviously, Bill Clinton had a lot of weaknesses as a candidate, but still managed to muddle through. When has supportive crowds cheering for their candidate been labelled as fanaticism prior to this? Big, admiring crowds for Reagan even though he fell asleep in the afternoons. Upon his death he was almost made into St. Ronnie by Republicans & Democrats alike. And who on Earth can explain the admiration for "W" Bush after all the horrible things his Presidency has brought to this country?

It is well past time for a change in Washington and some of us have decided that Obama is the best person for the job. Only time will tell who is right, but could it be worse than the Bush administration? The self described grown-ups with experience!?

Hillary has been quoted as saying that she has been an active agent of change for the last 35 years! So why are we, as a country, at the exact same place we were 35 years ago with a new Vietnam & the same social divisions tearing at the country?

And then there's her papers from the CLinton library, Bill's business deals and donations to the library and the foundation. Like the republicans are going to let that go -- the old Clinton scandals, all over again. God help us.

Oh well. After what I've seen today, Hillary is in serious trouble. Let's just see what happens tomorrow. But I have to say, I have not seen one sign for Hillary in any person's yard yet. There were folks carrying signs for her today outside the board of elections office here in Columbus. But no yard signs. There have been some Clinton signs blooming along the highway. But none in yards.

But, I am seeing plenty of Obama signs in neighborhoods. We'll have to see how the weather affects things.

I.....DON'T.....THINK.....SO!!!!!

This post reminds me of the black knight of Monty Python's the holy grail. "Tis but a flesh wound."

Hillary is mortally wounded, Barack is cleaning her clock. Even Bill says, she has to win big tomorrow. Oh wait, winning tomorrow, without gaining any delegates, is all that matters.

All she has to do is win. She doesn't have to do anything about her 155 pledged delegated deficit. Nope, time for Barack to pack it in. lol.

Notice how this hilbot has failed to mention another key dynamic. Hillary's vaunted lead in super delegates is evaporating, like a splash of water on a hot Texas sidewalk in mid-June.

Her lead, once at over 100, it is down to the low 40s. And here is the prediction of the week. If Hillary doesn't close the pledged delegate deficit, and chooses to stay in anyway, by next Tuesday, after Obama wins in Wyoming and Mississippi, Hillary's super delegate lead will be down to single digits.

Why should the party elders put up with this divisive crap. She had her change on Super Tuesday, the contests up till now and tomorrow. If she can't win more pledged delegates than Barack, time for her to drop out. If she chooses to fight it out, then she'll get the message. Super delegates will move to Barack en masse. Just watch.

PatrickBradish

If Hillary becomes the nominee without a lead in elected delegates, McCain will be the next President. That is why she needs to drop out tomorrow unless she win by huge margins OH and TX. You can't push the goal post out of the damn stadium!

I agree. Everyone has been clamoring for Clinton to drop out when she has won all of the big states so far...and will probably win Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania. That would be stupid. After PA,Obama needs to get outta the way and let the best person for the job roll up her sleeves and get to work!

I agree that a loss tomorrow for Obama is devastating and is probably the harbinger of doom for him. It will probably kill any momentum he has and swing superdelegates to Hillary as well as allow people to finally let the Florida (and possibly Michigan) votes count before the party completely alienates those states. All that would probably make the road ahead for Obama almost impossible.

But I don't think he should drop out solely based on the loss tomorrow. There are still alot of voters left who should get a say, and (despite what you read in posts here) this has been a healthy and reasonable primary. We are getting lots of good information about the candidates and what they stand for, and letting both teams get more seasoned before they hit the big leagues. Unless it looks incredibly bleak for Obama, he should stay in and continue to let the voters decide.

Wow, I think you hit a nerve! Do you notice how upset all the Obamabots got? LOL! It got nasty around here! All the name calling and foaming at the mouth. It was quite enjoyable reading for me because I happen to think you're right. Reading the Obamabots just FLIP OUT was just icing! ;-)

Back to the main issue in this post. I think it would be wrong for either candidate to drop out at this point. For Obama to do so if he looses in Texas and Ohio would be silly, given his lead in delegates. As for Clinton, unless she looses by a large margin, dropping out would essentially be letting down all of her supporters who feel as strongly about her as Obama supporters feel about him.

That said, I do think it's relevant to ask whether the more conservative Democrats and disenchanted Republicans in the swing states will choose McCain over Obama. If we are honest, we will admit there is very little difference in the policy stands of Clinton and Obama. But, perception is often what rules. Regardless of what seems to be the perception of McCain by most of us who frequent this site, there are probably many voters in the swing states who might feel fairly comfortable with Clinton, but not with Obama. This election will not be about who won in red, blue or swing states in a primary or caucus. Nor, as we should all remember from the 2000 election, will it be about national polls, the popular vote or winning in the blue states in the general election. It will be about winning the swing states in November.

By your logic, Hillary should have dropped out after Super Tuesday. Her whole campaign was based on knocking out everyone by Super Tuesday. She had the name recognition, more money than anyone else (at that time), and the general presumption that she was going to be the nominee. She was even going around saying "When I am President...".

Yet she couldn't put Obama away on Super Tuesday, so she should have done the gracious thing and dropped out. Based on that, Obama would have garnered even more delegates than he did since then and would probably have a majority of the delegates after today's pro forma primaries.

is there no end to the Clinton hubris?

The candidate running second in delegates, second popular votes and second in states won is offering the candidate who is in first place in those three categories the possibility to be second on "her" ticket

Hillary Clinton needs Barack Obama on her ticet to win the election and she knows that - and in lieu of that she needs him to look like a sore loser if he doesn't accept the position if offered to him

LUCKILY: NONE of this will occur because Hillary Clinton will not win the nomination of the Dem party fairly and if she steals it through super delegates there will be no more viable democratic party anyway

The question is: how does the woman who aspires to be the head of her party say that the republican candidate is the better choice for president than her democratic opponent if she is not the candidate

So lets be clear; Sen Obama is not good enough to be President but he is good enough to be a heartbeat away from the President as long as Sen Clinton gets what she wants

and damned be the rest of us
The woman is shameless