Hillary Campaign Deathwatch

Short of MASSIVE collapse of the Obama campaign in the remaining contests, she would have to win over a HUGE MAJORITY of the remaining Supers to get a victory.

TAM:)
 
Kaylee said:
I'm not a Hilary Clinton fan, but it turns out that this story was true after all:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/o...em&ex=1208059200&en=0b46a3c7707eeb78&ei=5087
Click to expand...

Jaggy Bunnet said:
Not the way Hillary told it, according to the man who told Hillary the story or the aunt of the woman involved.

http://www.mydailysentinel.com/articles/2008/04/09/news/news00.txt

“What I said is not what she said, and I told the truth.”

"Clinton has said Bachtel was twice denied service at a local clinic because she was unable to pay a $100 fee required before she could see a doctor. According to Bachtel's aunt, Susie Casto, Bachtel did not seek pre-natal care or emergency care at that clinic because she owed a bill there, and knew she would be required to pay up-front, even though she was insured.

Instead, Casto said, Bachtel received regular pre-natal care from another physicians' practice in the area."
Click to expand...

I didn't feel like paying so I couldn't get access to your linked article, but since my post, the NYTs editor has corrected his editorial. I agree with your earlier post that her campaign's poor vetting of facts does raise questions about her ability to manage.

Here's the correction in Klugman's (NYTs editor) blog:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/

It has been clear from early in this controversy, including from Times reporting, that Bachtel was insured at the time of her death. Some people read my column to say otherwise. That was not my intended implication, although I obviously didn’t write clearly enough.

Her family asserted, however, that she had been unable to receive care from a local clinic, even though insured at the time of her pregnancy, because of unpaid bills from an earlier period in her life when she had been uninsured. It was in that sense that lack of insurance allegedly contributed to her death, the assertion I made at the end of the column.

I went with that account, based on this AP report. I should, in retrospect, have worried about some lack of detail in that report. The Columbus Dispatch reports that the debts in question had been written off as uncollectable long before her pregnancy, so that it does not appear that they were a barrier to care.

So Bachtel, unlike Monique White (the other example in the column), is not an example of death from lack of insurance.

Two points that are not affected by this correction:

1. Hillary Clinton repeated in good faith a story she had been told, although she should have vetted it.

2. Many people do in fact die from lack of insurance.
Click to expand...


[off topic] Just want to add that, per the editor's blog, Monique White, the other example given, did die from lack of insurance.

Many lower class and lower middle class people in the USA are effectively priced out of the various health care insurance programs available, and if we had a single payor system, they would be more likely able to afford it.

Its an important problem, regardless of Clinton's vetting abilities -- and deserves to be addressed. If more people believe that its not a problem as a result of how the story ended up focusing on the Clinton's campaign's poor vetting abilities rather than on the reality of this problem -- that is very unfortunate.[/off topic]
 
"Hillary campaign deathwatch."

Hah. See my post from two months ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3454319&postcount=54

I expect another full-tilt push by Clinton to get delegates from Michigan and Florida seated.
Click to expand...
I think that's a good call, since she wants to win and that's one way to the victory count. It holds some risk, and is not a sure thing: could backfire.

gnome said:
According to my computations on CNN's delegate counter, even if she had a 20 point lead in each of the remaining states, she would still need to pull almost two thirds of the unpledged superdelegates to win.
Click to expand...
Why do you think she won't?
TAM said:
My Profile Short of MASSIVE collapse of the Obama campaign in the remaining contests, she would have to win over a HUGE MAJORITY of the remaining Supers to get a victory.
Click to expand...
Why do you think she won't?

She is in this to win.

DR
 
Seating the Michigan and Florida delegate still won't get her there unless Obama self-destructs.

Barring such self-destruction, she won't win the remaining contests by huge margins and she won't get anything close to the number of superdelegates she needs.

She is going to lose.
 
Kaylee said:
I didn't feel like paying so I couldn't get access to your linked article, but since my post, the NYTs editor has corrected his editorial. I agree with your earlier post that her campaign's poor vetting of facts does raise questions about her ability to manage.

Here's the correction in Klugman's (NYTs editor) blog:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/
Click to expand...

Odd that, I found it through google and wasn't asked for payment, but when I do the same now, I am.

Anyhow, here is another one:

http://www.webloggin.com/the-ap-tries-to-spin-truth-out-of-clinton-fabrication/

Hopefully that will remain free!

[off topic] Just want to add that, per the editor's blog, Monique White, the other example given, did die from lack of insurance.

Many lower class and lower middle class people in the USA are effectively priced out of the various health care insurance programs available, and if we had a single payor system, they would be more likely able to afford it.

Its an important problem, regardless of Clinton's vetting abilities -- and deserves to be addressed. If more people believe that its not a problem as a result of how the story ended up focusing on the Clinton's campaign's poor vetting abilities rather than on the reality of this problem -- that is very unfortunate.[/off topic]
Click to expand...

Agree - and that is why she SHOULD have had the story fact checked. If you go around using this as an example of the problems in the system to justify changes, then you are harming your argument when it is found to be untrue. If, as you suggest might happen, people believe there is not a problem because of this story, that is at least in part is Clinton's fault.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Why do you think she won't?

She is in this to win.

DR
Click to expand...

Because, as I have said, unless Obama completely implodes, it is unlikely. The trend so far is for Obama, if you look at what way they have been going since he became a factor.

TAM:)
 
According to my calculations, based on the delegate data provided by CNN, Sen. Obama needs 42% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination and Sen. Clinton needs 60%. Does it seem likely that she will be able to achieve such a percentage in the remaining states and with the superdelegates?
 
I guess now is the time to look at polling in Indiana, since that's now the "make or break" state with North Carolina sure to deliver big for Obama (polling has had him up by 15 for months).

The last three polls there have Obama up by 5, 3 and 1 point.

I think that's one state where winning actually does matter (as opposed to just margin, with Pennsylvania) because a two-state sweep that day with NC and IN SHOULD give everyone inside and outside Hillary's camp all the reason they need to end the race.

Particularly since NC could wipe out Hillary's gains from Pennsylvania. We'll have to see if anything happens to upset that Obama advantage in IN.
 
CptColumbo said:
According to my calculations, based on the delegate data provided by CNN, Sen. Obama needs 42% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination and Sen. Clinton needs 60%.
Click to expand...

And because of the way delegates are apportioned, a 60 - 40 win in the popular vote doesn't get you 60% of a state's delegates.
 
And here's Survey USA, showing Hillary up by 9 in Indiana:

HERE.

Same as always, they show here with a much bigger advantage than anyone else. Everybody else has Obama up by the margin of error.
 
There are some folks in Denver who are just dying for the convention to happen. That gives them their day in the sun.

http://www.recreate68.org/

Question: is this a neocon or libertarian "false flag" operation, or some sort of smokescreen? :boggled: I am not talking CT here, I am curious. The rhetoric is almost a caricature.

From their sixth Press Comminuque:

The real news next August will not be in the Pepsi Center, but in the streets of Denver. Due to a massive national grassroots effort, tens of thousands of people will be coming to the Mile High City to demand that the Democrats live up to their own rhetoric, that they end the occupation of Iraq NOW, restore progressive economic policies and stop the erosion of civil
liberties and the destruction of democratic government.

Tens of thousands of people will participate in a Festival of Democracy and The Days of Resistance that will bring back the spirit of the sixties, of mass political participation, of “power to the people” and real social change from the bottom up. Tens of thousands of people will show the world what democracy really looks like.

The Recreate 68 Alliance invites the media to cover the real news. Go to
www.recreate68.org. Get on our list. Follow grassroots events over the next ten months as the American people prepare to take back their country.
Click to expand...
Do they plan to set fire to Denver, as was done in Chicago? :eye-poppi (I hope not.)

As for showing the world what "democracy really looks like" I wonder if the hippy packaging might not elicit yawns from a lot of the world. Maybe they just want to bring back pot smoking in public and wild, hedonistic free love activities.

We shall see.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
As for showing the world what "democracy really looks like" I wonder if the hippy packaging might not elicit yawns from a lot of the world. Maybe they just want to bring back pot smoking in public and wild, hedonistic free love activities.
Click to expand...
No, that was last week.
 
They're definitely not a "false flag" operation. Democracy Now! is all over it.

I personally like the idea of nonviolently trying to influence your political party if it seems to be getting out of touch.

Whether this event will be something I approve of depends on what they do.
 
Hillary's superdelegate lead is down to 20:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080430/D90CCSP80.html

So overall we're at 1731 to 1597, a 134-delegate lead for Obama.

There are 295 supers left on the table. Tuesday doesn't look like it will change the margin much, Obama should pick up 15-17 in NC, Hillary may pick up 2 or 3 with a narrow win in Indiana.

So that should push Obama's total lead to around 150 if everything plays out close to the way it's polling. That puts Hillary in a situation where she has to win over the remaining supers by a fairly ridiculous margin (225-70).

There are a few states left that she'll win huge (a couple where she's polling up by 40 points) but they're states where a 40-point win only gets you like six delegates. There's just no more substantial delegate prizes after Tuesday.
 
Predictions:

Indiana
Clinton by 5%

North Carolina
Obama by 10%

West Virginia
Clinton by 18%

Oregon
Obama by 8%

Kentucky
Clinton by 20%

Puerto Rico
Clinton by 15%

South Dakota
Obama by 12%

Montana
Obama by 5%

Guam - who knows
 
Now I haven't seen polling from Puerto Rico, but the one article I read that spoke of it seemed to think Hillary was going to win by a monstrous margin.

It won't matter, that's just what I heard.
 
T.A.M. said:
Pollster.com, I believe, had her up by 23% (50 to 37) from late march, early april.

http://www.pollster.com/08-PR-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

TAM:)
Click to expand...

That would net her 13 delegates. She'll pick up 10 or so in West Virginia and 7 or 8 in Kentucky.

Obama will pick up 3 or 4 in Oregon, and again should come out of Tuesday with an advantage of 10 or so.

That would send him to the convention up by 160 total delegates, even if no more supers come out for him between now and then.

So she'd have to win the supers 230-65, almost exactly the opposite score she's been getting since Super Tuesday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom