Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Calling Clinton Supporters: Clinton's Possible Paths to the White House
OK, I really want to know from those of you who still firmly support Clinton's nomination over Obama's:
What feasible scenarios do you see for her not only winning the nomination, but also winning enough support in the general election to defeat McCain?
To me it seems like any strategy for her to win the nomination would subvert any chance she would have in the general election by alienating large segments of the Democratic electorate. Just consider these facts:
1) Obama has won 30 of the 46 contests (65%).
2) He leads Clinton by 13% in pledged delegates, 9% including superdelegates.
3) A prime Democratic voting block, African-Americans, have voted for Obama in unprecedented numbers.
4) An overwhelming number of young voters have been motivated to become politically active for the first time in support of Obama.
If there were some feasible scenario for getting her to the White House (though I doubt there is one), I could understand why she and her supporters want her to remain in the race. If, on the other hand, her insistence to stay in the race and the negative campaign tactics she uses not only destroy her own chances, but, as a consequence, also diminish Obama's chances in the general, how can her presence in the nominating process continue to be justified?
So come on, get posting, Clinton supporters -- I'm all eyes...
Comments (14)
Oooh. Me! Me!
Here's how she can still win:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg
April 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone (such as me) wondering where that 13% comes from: per CNN, he has 1,418 pledged delegates to her 1,250. (1418-1250)/1250 = 13.44%
It should be pointed out that different denominators yield different results. To wit: (1418-1250)/1418 = 11.85%, and (1418-1250)/(1418+1250) = 6.30%. Just throwing these out there for anyone who thought Ami's numbers seemed "too high". (There's nothing inherently wrong with using any of those denominators. It's just a question of what you're taking a percent of—and/or whether you're wanting to maximize/minimize that number's impact.)
April 21, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Ben, for pointing this out.
You're right, I calculated this in reference to Clinton's delegate count (using figures from Wikipedia):
1415.5 / 1253.5 = 1.129 or 13% more pledged delegates than Clinton.
I chose this figure to highlight just how much more support Obama has had than Clinton nationally. But percentage share of total delegates is an equally valid indication of the difference, which with my numbers would be:
1415.5 / (1415.5 + 1253.5) = 53% for Obama
100 - 53 = 47% for Clinton
Still a very significant difference in my book.
April 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It occurs to me that neither one of us included Edwards' delegates (and he still technically has some) in the denominator. :)
April 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any discussion on winning the general election without counting FL and MI in the primary is wishful thinking. DNC rules may be good for Obama supporters, but have the opposite effect DNC and the nominee want to achieve in the general election.
The question is: if Obama wants to win in the general election and not just in the primary, why has he blocked every attempt to count results in FL and MI? It's one more reason, among many, why Hillary has a better chance in the general election even if she lost in number of delegates in the primary.
April 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually its pretty simple for me.
1. Nomination - This goes to the Convention because neither Candidate has the delegates to win it outright. First vote reconfirms that no one has enough to win. Second vote on.....She able to get enough votes on the floor to secure the nomination. On the second vote Florida and Michigan specifically come into play and she will have more than an average chance of pulling all those delegates.
2. GE - Actually this is easier. She will win all the Kerry states http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=
As well as pick up Ohio, Kentucky, WVA and possibly Arkansas. This will clearly give her the Presidency.
I might add that that electoral arithmatic gets pretty tricky if Obama is the Nominee since he didn't pull any of those aforementioned states.
April 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, I think either one will win the GE (I wasn't so sure of this at the beginning of the year). However, I'm still confident in my bet that there will be no need for a second vote. :)
Before I said I think she'll concede by June 3rd, but I don't think that'll happen. By that time, all of the big (primary) money will have been spent, so there's no real (personal) advantage for her to concede. On the bright side, there's no advantage in intraparty negative campaigning, either. Her only reason for conceding would be to increase the amount of time she can spend helping Obama beat McCain.
April 21, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So does that mean I get to see my girl as your Avatar is Ben Hocking already conceding?
April 21, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, no. Go back and read the bet. (I'll post a link to it once I get to the computer where I bookmarked it.) I said it'll be decided on or before the first vote. I'm now saying that on is more likely than before.
You win the bet if it's decided after the first vote—regardless of who wins at that point.
April 21, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville....
Convenient to leave out Colorado, Texas, ND, SD, Arizona, WI, VA, and NH....
States Clinton couldn't dream of competing in.
You can squeeze your eyes as tight as you want and stomp your foot. Obama is the next Democratic nominee for President.
Get ready.
April 21, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry dave, he won't either. Go look at the polls for those states. It just won't happen.
April 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, according to the analysis I've read, he's quite competitive in Virginia.
April 21, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though the data it's based upon is now several weeks old, I still think this SurveyUSA analysis could portend some important swings in an Obama/McCain matchup:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
It not only shows several red states from 2004 fairly strongly voting Obama (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia), but even North Carolina, Nebraska, and Texas as being within the margin of error.
April 21, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe she can win. I know too many people who will not vote for her. I won't vote for her, but I won't stay home, I'll vote for congress.
No one I know will "get over it" by November, maybe if she hadn't shown total disregard for the voting public (her suggestion that superdelegates nominate her regardless of whether Obama has more delegates seems a massive dissenfranchisement to me. How she argues for Fl and MI in the face of this is a mystery.) and I believe the young people will either vote republican or stay home. Just my opinion of course.
April 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment