Obama Win Now Inevitable?

[mortimer]

That is how the process works. You are familiar with politics, are you not? The system was set-up for this express purpose. I am sorry to say, but your question is ridiculous.

No, it's not. Just because the system is set up so the superdelegates CAN choose the candidate (if the race is close enough in pledged delegates) doesn't mean they WILL choose the candidate. To prove the latter, you must prove that the superdelegates are in some sort of collusion. You've provided no evidence to this end other than your proclamation that it is so.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are going to laugh if someone is wrong?

Well, yes.

You've come out with this CT crap about how Whoever It Is Who Is Actually In Charge is going to fix the election for Hillary.

In fact, Obama is so going to win the nomination.

When he does, I will bump this thread and laugh at you. Such is life.

 

[Bododio]

According to Yahoo News this morning, Obama has 1364 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1218, a difference of 146 infavor of Obama. Assuming there are 566 pledged delgates (PD) remaining in the contests yet to be run, to catch Obama, Clinton would have to get 356 of them, or about 63 percent.

Let's assume that FL (186) PDs are split between Clinton and Obama according to the primary vote, which Clinton won 50 to 33 (remember Edwards was still in the game then, and he got 14 percent). This would give Clinton 93 PDs and Obama 61 PDs, net gain of 32 for Clinton. The new PD total would be 1425 for Obama and 1311 for Clinton, a difference of 114. Assuming the same 566 PDs remaining in contests not yet run, Clinton would need 340 of them, or 60 percent.

Now let's assume that MI (128) PDs are split between Clinton and Obama according to the primary vote, which Clinton won 55 percent. Neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot, so I have to conjecture a little. I'll assume that Obama would have gotten 32 percent of the vote. These assumptions give 70 PDs to Clinton and 41 to Obama, net gain of 29 for Clinton. Adding this to the FL results shows Obama still in the lead, 1466 for him and 1381 for Clinton, a difference of 85. Assuming the same 566 remaining PDs remaining in contests not yet run, Clinton would need about 325 of them, or about 58 percent.

Without the sky otherwise falling in on Obama, a scenario such as this must be what Clinton is hoping for. I'm being generous to Clinton in my assumptions, just to see what a best case might be for her campaign. If FL and MI PDs are seated according to the above scenario, she might have an outside chance of drawing close in PD count before the convention.

Current polls in PA give Clinton the lead 52 percent, to Obama's 36. Not enough to close the gap significantly. And I just read that MI, unlike FL, is close to deciding to run another primary. A current poll has Obama and Clinton pretty much neck and neck at 41 percent each, with 18 percent undecided. Assuming the PDs in MI get split fairly evenly, the scenario for Clinton is not as good as she needs.

The numbers, even generously allocated, do not add up for Clinton. She either has to be hoping for some bombshell dirt to surface on Obama, or that somehow she can argue her way to nomination at a brokered convention.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, yes.

You've come out with this CT crap about how Whoever It Is Who Is Actually In Charge is going to fix the election for Hillary.

In fact, Obama is so going to win the nomination.

When he does, I will bump this thread and laugh at you. Such is life.

I see your misunderstanding about the process.

It is not an election, it is a party nomination.

Political parties choosing their nominee is not a CT.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I won't comment on the correctness of this (because I don't know), but shouldn't it be this way? At a Canadian party's convention, they wrangle and vote multiple times, but only registered party members may vote, and the ability to win elections is one consideration...

Exactly, it is the purpose of the party to CHOOSE its nominee. The rules for this process were changed in the Democratic party to prevent the people from choosing a bad candidate like McGovern.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, it's not. Just because the system is set up so the superdelegates CAN choose the candidate (if the race is close enough in pledged delegates) doesn't mean they WILL choose the candidate. To prove the latter, you must prove that the superdelegates are in some sort of collusion. You've provided no evidence to this end other than your proclamation that it is so.

If you do not understand that politics is necessarily collusion than I know you are extremely misinformed. Shall I evidence for you that cartoons are just drawings as well?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now let's assume that MI (128) PDs are split between Clinton and Obama according to the primary vote, which Clinton won 55 percent. Neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot, so I have to conjecture a little. I'll assume that Obama would have gotten 32 percent of the vote. These assumptions give 70 PDs to Clinton and 41 to Obama, net gain of 29 for Clinton. Adding this to the FL results shows Obama still in the lead, 1466 for him and 1381 for Clinton, a difference of 85. Assuming the same 566 remaining PDs remaining in contests not yet run, Clinton would need about 325 of them, or about 58 percent.

Obama received zero votes in MI.

 

[mortimer]

If you do not understand that politics is necessarily collusion than I know you are extremely misinformed.

So you have no evidence but your own proclamation that superdelegates are colluding to choose the Democrat's candidate. Gotcha.

 

[GStan]

Obama received zero votes in MI.

Holy mackerel! Zero votes. I gotta get hold of his stump speech transcripts from Michigan. Was he sacrificing little puppies or something? Zero votes is...er...well....that's not alot.

It clearly doesn't matter though. As the party leadership can give all the Michigan delegates to Obama to help prevent an undesirable Hillary candidacy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I see your misunderstanding about the process.

Wrong.

It is not an election, it is a party nomination.

Which involves elections. These are what we call "pri-ma-ries".

Political parties choosing their nominee is not a CT.

However, your whacky CT is a CT.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Holy mackerel! Zero votes. I gotta get hold of his stump speech transcripts from Michigan. Was he sacrificing little puppies or something? Zero votes is...er...well....that's not alot.

It clearly doesn't matter though. As the party leadership can give all the Michigan delegates to Obama to help prevent an undesirable Hillary candidacy.

He was not on the ballot. He received zero votes.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Because Michigan and Florida are nonraces.

 

[GStan]

He was not on the ballot. He received zero votes.

Thank you, I understood, I was just being a smart@ss. His zero votes are on equal footing with Hillary's 328,000 as far as delegates are concerned because the contest proceeded on the pretense that the delegates would not be seated. Those votes are irrelevant. I feel for the voters in those states who have effectively lost their voice, but the time to raise a stink about it was when the primary was moved, despite a totally unambiguous warning that the result of moving the primary would be that the voters would effectively lose their voice.

 

[Bododio]

Obama received zero votes in MI.

I agree that in the primary already held, Obama received no votes. And neither candidate received any delegates. The purpose of my scenario was to show how difficult it would be for Clinton to catch Obama even if somehow the Michigan PDs were split in Clinton's favor. I used some percentages as examples. For Clinton, I factored her winning percentage in the already-held primary. For Obama I conjectured a percentage that might have occurred had he been on the ballot.

Such a scenario could potentially happen if Michigan holds another primary.

 

[Brainster]

In fact, Obama is so going to win the nomination.

And the New England Patriots were going to win the Super Bowl. Obama is more likely to win the nomination than Hillary; that's certainly true. But there's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. InTrade has Obama at around 75%, with Hillary at about 25%. That strikes me as about right. Chris Bowers is a major liberal blogger who supports Obama, but says:

Without a single more superdelegate making an endorsement, it is still possible for Clinton to move pretty close in the delegate count. I presented this case yesterday in a table projecting future delegate counts based on current polling in remaining states, which shows Clinton down by 79 delegates when all the voting is completed. However, it should be pointed out that it is also possible for Clinton to surpass current delegate projections and polling. She could, for example, net 18 more delegates in Michigan, 16 more delegates in PA, 12 more in Indiana, 10 more in Florida, 6 more in North Carolina, 4 more in both Puerto Rico and Oregon, and 2 more in West Virginia, Montana, and Kentucky. All told, that would put her within three delegates of Obama. If that winning streak also results in her winning the national popular vote, then she would have an overwhelming argument to bring to superdelegates based on both momentum and the popular will.

Again, I see Obama as more likely to be the nominee, but this notion that he's got it in the bag is a trifle unrealistic. Of course it's more realistic than Jerome's fantasy, but I'm sure you'll agree that's setting the bar low.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Again, I see Obama as more likely to be the nominee, but this notion that he's got it in the bag is a trifle unrealistic. Of course it's more realistic than Jerome's fantasy, but I'm sure you'll agree that's setting the bar low.

I agree that in principle Clinton can still win. But JEROME is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will hand it to Clinton because it's all been arranged beforehand by the Illuminati. This is rubbish.

And in practice, Obama is going to win. He'd have to be caught in bed with an entire teenage male voice choir to lose. If I'm wrong, you can bump this thread. But I'm not.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thank you, I understood, I was just being a smart@ss. His zero votes are on equal footing with Hillary's 328,000 as far as delegates are concerned because the contest proceeded on the pretense that the delegates would not be seated. Those votes are irrelevant. I feel for the voters in those states who have effectively lost their voice, but the time to raise a stink about it was when the primary was moved, despite a totally unambiguous warning that the result of moving the primary would be that the voters would effectively lose their voice.

Is the Democratic party ready to disenfranchise voters?

Those voters votes don't count?

Sounds like 2000.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because Michigan and Florida are nonraces.

Disenfranchising voters?

 

[T.A.M.]

As sad as it is for me to say this...Obama is finished. The Preacher thing combined with the talk show ass****s will ensure Obama goes down with Rev. Wright.

Well done...well done.

Good luck with McCain in 2008.

TAM

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I agree that in principle Clinton can still win. But JEROME is arguing that however the poor simple sheeple vote, the party establishment will hand it to Clinton because it's all been arranged beforehand by the Illuminati. This is rubbish.

I never said such a thing.

Why are you creating silly straw-men to blow? See below for the answer.

You are a liar because the reality hitting you in the face about YOUR candidate does not sit well.



Your presentation is not adequate, this is understandable because your emotions are confounded by facts. I forgive you.