home

Obama's Potential Path To The Nomination

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Noam Scheiber's much cited piece contains a discussion of how Obama can finish Hillary off:

To make it happen, Obama would have to overtake Hillary among superdelegates--a key psychological barrier. He'd have to limit his margin of defeat in Pennsylvania to ten points, then hold serve two weeks later in North Carolina and Indiana, a pair of states he's slightly favored to win. At that point, Hillary would face nearly impossible odds of overtaking him in the delegate race. . . . MORE

. . . Unfortunately for anyone who wants the race to end soon, there are several problems with this scenario. For one thing, even if all this comes to pass, Hillary would still have to bow out voluntarily--an unlikely twist in any event, but highly implausible if the limbo states of Florida and Michigan still offer her hope. Meanwhile, any one of the aforementioned steps could easily fall through. Polls currently show Obama trailing by double digits in Pennsylvania; the good Reverend Wright could make that tough to change. And, though Obama now leads in North Carolina and Indiana, his advantage is either small or, in the latter case, based on a single, flimsy poll. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) What Scheiber is saying and not dealing with is the fact that he does not think THE VOTERS will end the race. And boy is that terrible or what? How dare they vote for their favored candidate? Yet again, we get this attitude from some parts that Clinton voters would do well to listen to their betters. Keep that up and watch Obama lose Pennsylvania by 20.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Memo to SuperDelegates: There is No Frontrunner, the Race is Open | Self Interest >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I get a sense from some Obama followers that (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    I get a sense from some Obama followers that HRC does not have the right to beat their chosen man.


    BTD hits on something important (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    They have very little left to throw at Hillary (now they're obsessed with photo ops), so they have to start attacking her voters (past and potential).

    [ Parent ]
    HRC getting negative coverage on (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    Huff Post for not saying yes to debate in NC.

    [ Parent ]
    Because that worked so well (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    for Hillary last time?

    Side note: The Obama people really don't do the inevitability thing as well as Hillary did last year; they're just really unpleasant about it. People who are actually frontrunners shouldn't have to behave that way.

    [ Parent ]

    "Actually Frontruners" (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    I think you've hit it on the head, Obama isn't the frontrunner, he just plays him on television.  The actual contest is essentially tied.  Which is why Obama is engaging in negative personal attacks and other things that he would never do if he really did have the nomination all sowed up, e.g. if Hillary really couldn't win.  

    When it comes to politicians, I'm a believer in actions and not words.  Obama and his supporters say there's no way for Hillary to win, but their actions - including the need to scream that she must get out NOW - tell a very different story,

    [ Parent ]

    You wanna talk about unpleasant? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:49:58 PM EST
    Read this:

    (CNN) -- Senior Clinton advisers blasted Sen. Barack Obama's campaign Monday after a major Obama supporter in Iowa compared Bill Clinton unfavorably to Joe McCarthy and referenced the blue dress at the heart of the impeachment scandal.

    "When Joe McCarthy questioned others' patriotism, McCarthy (1) actually believed, at least aparently, the questions were genuine, and (2) he did so in order to build up, not tear down, his own party, the GOP," wrote Gordon Fischer, a former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, wrote on his blog. "Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

    So it was okay to compare Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy because Joe McCarthy was sincere about his McCarthyism, and Bill Clinton got a blow job.

    [ Parent ]

    lol, I thought everyone was sick of over (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    twenty debates (imagine Olbermann's voice).

    (Did she really turn that one down?)

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    well they attacked Carville today (none / 0) (#173)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    someone who is not part of her campaign, right?

    Before they start on us voters they'll still have many possible remarks by hundreds of bystanders to spin into a frenzy till August...

    [ Parent ]

    Do you? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    Well, I think you are projecting your hostilities there.

    [ Parent ]
    No I (1.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Skex on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
    Think he has a point.

    You're supposedly the Pro-Obama guy at this blog and if your pro-Obama don't ever be pro-Skex cause I don't need friends like that.

    The more I read about Hillary the more she scares me now I'm reading in Mother Jones about her membership in the Fellowship which is a group that disturbed me long before I knew she had any association with it.

    Let's face it if the Wright flap hadn't blown up we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The only thing that put Hillary back in the race is that Racism is alive and well in the good ole USA and white people are amazed that black America might not be all peace, love and yogurt taco's after being subject to systemic abuse for 500+ years.

    I mean really accusations of reverse racism? WFT is that. One it's impossible since real racism requires power. Two its inaccurate Wright only complained about Rich White people.
    Finally this idea that his sermons were in some way hate speech is simply ludicrous. When was the last time a member of Trinity United chained up a white guy and drug him around behind a pickup truck?  It was only 10 years ago that James Byrd Jr. That was hate Wright was expressing righteous anger.

    The Aryan supremacist encouraging white people to go out and kill black people that's hate speech.

    Telling your congregation that Jesus taught you to love your enemies is not hate speech.

    Saying that a terrorist event or hurricane is God's punishment for homosexuality is hate speech.

    Saying that people in other countries react to our aggression is not.

    See the difference? Describing reality and inciting violence are not the same thing.

    [ Parent ]

    if the Wright flap hadn't blown up (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:57:56 PM EST
    and if pigs flew you would have to shoot down your bacon.
    also, you are reading the Wright thing far to narrowly.  its about racism, yes.  but its about a lot more than that.
    its about judgement and honesty and, possibly most importantly, its about religion.

    [ Parent ]
    I really take exception (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:19:38 PM EST
    to people calling Hillary supporters racist when they take exception to anybody saying publicly g-d America. That type of anti-patriotic smear of a whole nation, including those who have actively opposed many actions of our government is inexcusable. It also overlooks the many good things this nation has done, and those who have promoted it.
      Secondly, I'm tiring of black "exceptionalism" by continuously playing the victim card. Part of my family is Chinese-American. Another part is Jewish-American. Another part is Native-American. All have suffered in their American experience. Don't lecture me about racism. Don't lecture me about suffering. Don't lecture me about supporting AntiAmerican religious smears.

    [ Parent ]
    Well if your going to (1.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Skex on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:18:57 PM EST
    continue to pretend that what Wright said was anti-American I'm going to continue to lecture simple as that.

    It's called Hyperbole he wasn't actually damning America he was trying to make a point.

    What I've said and I stand by my assertion is this.

    Anyone who has changed their mind about Obama based on Rev Wright is showing racism.

    The entire reason the mass media is playing this over and over and over again is because the people in power know that it will stir up the fear of black people that most whites have.

    Hell people are all concerned with what Obama's preacher is saying but I don't see anyone talking about the Fellowship Prayer Breakfasts that Clinton attends.

    Or the crazy crap white preachers spew.

    If you don't like Obama for other reasons and you like Clinton for what ever reason that's fine. I don't say that all Clinton supporters are racist in fact I don't think think many are nor do I think that the Clinton's are.

    But I do think she is enough of a political opportunist to take advantage of it and I do think that many of the people who back her and run her campaign are or are at least willing to use the Southern Strategy.

    I do think people tend to be awfully ethnocentric while looking at this situation.

     

    [ Parent ]

    but he is right about one thing (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    I am salivating

    [ Parent ]
    Where is that (none / 0) (#147)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    UNITY theme? We sure need it after that!

    [ Parent ]
    Did you listen to Obama's speech? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    He rejected a lot/most of this framing.  Or do you think he agrees with you and he is just another politician saying things he doesn't really believe.

    [ Parent ]
    Who does Hillary pray with? (none / 0) (#188)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    The Hillary people here, presumably "liberal," don't seem to be able to address H. Clinton's prayer partners.

    She spent eight years in Washington praying in a sex-segregated circle of wives of the rich and powerful, like the wife of a guy who's a union-buster in Christian kind of way. Does that mean that Clinton's time on the board of Walmart or the use of anti-union folks in her campaign may actually be reflective of some of those prayers? "God, don't let them organize!"

    Or maybe she really believes that there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment about flag-burning. I'm sure that's something that Jeralyn can get behind.

    Or maybe Clinton's sponsorship of that dreadful religious freedom in the workplace act is true and honest to her beliefs. She really wants to give a pharmacist the right to refuse to give women birth control if it offends his beliefs.

    I wonder what it is about Clinton that attracts people who claim to be liberal. Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's not a black man?

    [ Parent ]

    please give me a link on your claim (none / 0) (#192)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    about pharmacists.
    Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you mean this bill which (none / 0) (#202)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    John Kerry co-sponsored and Teddy Kennedy supports?
    link

    [ Parent ]
    "rely on dumbed down voters" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    please -PLEASE- keep this up.
    pretty please?

    [ Parent ]
    Then explain (none / 0) (#193)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    sex-segregated prayer groups to me. I'm not smart enough to understand it. Why did Hillary pray in a circle of reactionary women? I can't figure this out.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't you bring this up (none / 0) (#209)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:00 PM EST
    the other day?  I believe this was addressed.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
    What "complexity?"  This could not be more simple.  Obama kept a huge electoral liability hidden from primary voters for more than a year, with the slavish cooperation of the press.

    How many voters would have wanted to evaluate Obama as a nominee knowing about the Wright issue?  Many I would dare guess.  But they didn't get that chance.

    The late-breaking Wright issue will now spell doom for the general; the press kept it hidden until Obama had won enough primaries with under-informed voters.

    [ Parent ]

    I am a supporter of Hillary and (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    I found Wright very reassuring.

    My worry has been that Obama is too bipartisan and nice to Republicans: even floating the idea of a Republican VP, for instance, and too loose about who decides what his administration will enact (per his debates).

    But Wright told me that beneath it all Obama really is a progressive, so that makes him much more attractive, and I'd support him in the GE, no problem.

    I still prefer Hillary's votes on eco issues, and prefer her energy plan which is exceedingly clever in simply forcing a huge change in how all businesses report risk - to include carbon risk as a fiduciary responsibilty to shareholders, opening up direct consumer control over CO2 levels for the first time.

    (It will force oil companies to drill for geothermal power instead, and force mountaintop removers to put up turbines instead.)

    I'm still a climate voter, but Wright is on the right side. And I thought Obama's subsequent speech was outstanding, and not just 'about race'.

    [ Parent ]

    Taking into account (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    The complexity of it still doesn't bode well for Obama.

    But that's off topic.


    [ Parent ]

    Well, (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    I can't speak for others, but I'm personally on the record saying that what Obama's Reverend has no bearing on what I think of him. I think the Wright thing WILL pose trouble in the fall, however, because voters are shallow and stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    Wright was on Obama's advisory (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    committee while spewing hatred directly at Hillary from the pulpit.  He was not directly denounced by Obama for having done that.

    That fact has bearing on what I think of Obama.  The rest, yes, simply goes to the electability problem.  Still a huge issue in that realm.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Skex on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    how pointing out that she was not a poor black man was hate.

    Seriously all he pointed out was reality, She came from priveledge she never wanted a day in her life, she never had to worry about whether the police would pull her over and beat/kill her when driving home.

    Further how can you call it hate speech? Was he telling people to go out and harm her? Or that she was worthless or unfit to live? No he was responding to Ferraro's (another person of privilege) comments and his indignity came through.

    That is not hate speech and if you want to use that loose a definition then I can understand a bit more why republican's are resistant to hate speech legislation.


    [ Parent ]

    And Obama Never (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    Feared being raped on a date or had to worry about the boss calling him "hon" and putting his hand on his thigh under a conference room table.

    I actually have little problem with Wright himself, I don't much care what any minister thinks, but nobody wins these "I'm more oppressed than you" contests. But that's essentially what Wright was doing and in so doing, whether intentional or not, he was denigrating the struggles women, including African American women, have gone through.  The truth is that it's not easy being a woman of any color or a black man (or other man of color) in our society.  I'm sure there have been many times when Barack and Hillary have been the smartest person in the room and treated as if they were the dumbest because of his skin and her sex.  Wright, however, set out to make his point in the most divisive way possible.  

    Again, I don't care because I don't care what Wright thinks about anything, but I do understand why others are so offended.

    [ Parent ]

    She earned a National Merit Scholarship (none / 0) (#205)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    And that's why she went to Wellesley. Would her father have sent her there? Who knows? but she earned it. All by herself.

    She went all the way through law school and graduated as a single woman, she did not marry Bill and follow him to Ark., she turned down his proposals for months. He was not so sure she should follow him, since she was already a rising star and could have been senator or governor. After they married she was the one who made more money and supported the family until he became president.

    Not that this has anything to do with anything, but you are sadly bereft of the facts of her life and her marriage.

    There are over 60 books out there about her. Read one.

    [ Parent ]

    What was the legitimate point that (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    Rev. Wright was making when he said that Hillary wasn't a poor black man, or that she'd never been called a n***?  Has she ever said she was, or had been?  

    Rev. Wright also said that, because she was not black,  Hillary had never had to work twice as hard as a white man to show that she was qualified. Rev. Wright has apparently never heard of sexism.  You don't have to debate whether racism is worse than sexism to know that both African-Americans AND women have to work twice as hard as white men in the same profession to get ahead.  The evils of racism can be understood without minimizing the evils of sexism.

    BTW, you don't have to threaten physical violence, or say that someone is worthless or unfit to live, to someone in order to be speaking hate. You can speak hate by minimizing or marginalizing individuals or groups, by making derogatory comments about them, by doing or saying any number of things.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you seen the sermon? (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:10:40 PM EST
    I challenge you to watch it and then tell me that it's not hate speech. Oddly, the thing that bothered me the most was fairly innocuous. He said that Clinton had never experienced the pain of being called a "n***r".  This seems ironic to me, given that Hillary Clinton has been called "bch and "c**t" for over a decade, plus a long list of other insults. Those don't count to Wright. Apparently it's only hurtful to insult somebody if you use racially pejorative words, not gender based insults.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, Please. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    Clinton did not grow up being privileged. Her family did not have money. She worked hard for everything she got.  She put HERSELF through law school.  Stop trying to diminish her accomplishments.

    Wright gave his speech in December.  HOW does that relate to Ferraro and her comments???  Uh, yeah.  It doesn't.

    Women in this culture do NOT have it easy, whether they are poor or privileged.  Any woman can be assaulted in this country and watch as their attackers, if convicted, get lesser sentences thans omeone who robs a company; most women are paid less than men for the same work; most women have to watch as less qualified men get positions for which they are overqualified; most women have to put up with insensitive, boorish, often sexist, comments every single day.

    Wright's sermon WAS hate speech, plain and simple.  Its intent was clearly to incite and antagonize.  

    That kind of speech has no place in a church - period.

    [ Parent ]

    Neither did Obama! (none / 0) (#174)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:58:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm happy to acknowledge (none / 0) (#64)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:44:24 PM EST
    the role of black churches and black ministers.

    I just didn't support Obama before I ever heard of Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright has done nothing to change my mind one way or the other, but I think the Rev. is a serious political liability for Obama that Obama hasn't dealt with very effectively.

    Whether I think the Reverend's statements were justified, misquoted, or whatever has nothing to do with whether he's a political liability.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry. If I were going to a church in which (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    the pastor made shockingly denigrating comments about blacks, gays or women, I would not come back a second time, much less for 20 years.  I would certainly not have that person as a mentor, have him baptize my child and advise me in my campaign for ANYTHING.   Racism is the same no matter who is spouting it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    When talking about Hillary and Bill, he was (pardon the term) "dry humping" the pulpit.  Never saw anything like that in any church I've gone to.

    [ Parent ]
    and said "dirty ride"... yea, I guess (none / 0) (#177)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    it's "new religion" just like "new politics". Well, I'm going to be doing a "new vote". Namely, no.

    [ Parent ]
    Dry humping the pulpit? (none / 0) (#182)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    What does that mean?  And did he actually use those words?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#195)
    by Grey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    And, while he did that, he said "Bill was riding dirty.  He did us like he did Monica."

    The video of that was in the original FOX News story about the IRS investigation.  I'm sure it's in YouTube still.

    Yup.  Here it is.


    [ Parent ]

    first comment I've seen from you (none / 0) (#39)
    by jes on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    that I strongly disagree with. On the Wright issue, I do not believe the voters are shallow and stupid.

    [ Parent ]
    Transferring that reaction (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    to the way you feel about Obama is pretty shallow and stupid, in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    ah. I should have read more carefully. (none / 0) (#63)
    by jes on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    Some will directly make the transference - those are shallow and stupid. Those who were willing to listen to the speech and find it lacking are not, I think, making that transferrence. And those whho look a bit further into Black Liberation Theology, may futher find the arguments valid or invalid.

    [ Parent ]
    I am much more interested to see that (none / 0) (#35)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    Obama has totally run out of positive reasons to vote for him---no surprise, consider how little he has done. What can he say. "Hillary went to Bosnia.. um, me too!!"? LOL

    [ Parent ]
    I thought he was emphasizing she (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST
    went, but it was a tourist trip.

    [ Parent ]
    She wasn't wounded or captured (none / 0) (#67)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    so it doesn't count.

    If ever there was an argument in favor of McCain ...

    [ Parent ]

    She has no admitted she lied, (none / 0) (#175)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    I mean "misspoke" so you may want to drop this one.

    [ Parent ]
    Call me "Goofy" (none / 0) (#87)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:55:27 PM EST
    I consider myself very liberal.

    I consider myself to, uh, not be a racist.

    But the Wright business actually does bother me.  I suspect it has to do with underlying churchgoing and religious attitudes, to some extent.

    I don't appreciate being thought that I'm some kind of dumb cluck for not thinking Wright and the "black church" are so different from my own cultural reference that what I see as hate speech is to be condoned.

    [ Parent ]

    She had the right (none / 0) (#141)
    by magster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    and blew it.  The question is whether she has a right to help McCain beat Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Wright's sermon unspliced (none / 0) (#166)
    by 1jane on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    It doesn't take much effort to find several of Wright's sermons on line instead of listening to a video clip. I watched most of the sermon and others too. Wright's words are taken totally out of context and are being used skillfully to exploit hatred; but what else is new in this dirty campaign season? Obama has stated on several campaign stops that the two people he admires most are Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lamma. Very different men and very different styles than Wright's style. I like to make up my mind based on as much information I can find, not on a video clip.

    [ Parent ]
    Ferraro's and Bill Clinton's comments (none / 0) (#181)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:06:16 PM EST
    were quoted out of context too.  It's kind of late to put the genie back in the bottle.  That's the nature of politics and media in our culture.  The question is how can we transcend it?  I am afraid I don't have an answer.  Pointing fingers and acting hurt doesn't work, however.  Perhaps Obama is right.  Not this time.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Can't Win (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    That's why there are all these calls for Hillary to drop out, because he can't win.  He's had three opportunities so far and has failed every time.  He has another in Pennsylvania and will likely fail again, most likely by double digits. He could have two more after that if he'd agreed to a Florida and Michigan re-vote, but since he wouldn't agree, I think it's safe to assume he wouldn't have won then either.

    The pressure coming for Hillary to drop out is coming because Obama's supporters are scared, not of a split in the party (no one has acted more divisive than some of the Obama supporters, once you call someone racist, that tends to leave hard feelings), but because they know he can't win this thing.  Which means he might lose it.  

    Because at a certain point, automatic delegates might start to ask themselves why a guy with more money, better press, and just about everything going for him can't put her away.  With everything that has gone Obama's way, he should have clinched the nomination by now, not be hoping to lose Pennsylvania by less than double digits.

    All this talk about The Math is really an attempt, IMO, to paper over Obama's big weakness - he can't win.

    To Be Clear (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    That doesn't mean he can't become the democratic nominee, it just means he cannot do it by beating Hillary at the polls - either in pledged delegates alone or by winning a must-have state that would appear to break her base.

    [ Parent ]
    Hide the Weaknesses (none / 0) (#124)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:20:03 PM EST
    Agree - PA will be a snapshot of his electoral weakness in November - and his campaign would prefer to keep that out of sight.  Hence the calls to end it all sooner, rather than later.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe he can win; just a rough patch; (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    but the pilot hasn't announced it will level off in X minutes either.

    [ Parent ]
    Earn it? (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by ricosuave on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    You mean Obama actually has to finish this election out and earn the nomination?  How absurd!  We all know that he deserves it!  If Hillary would only drop out, it would be his!

    We have to end this thing before he loses more elections, and possibly the nomination! For the sake of the party!

    Yeah it sucks that he (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:55:44 PM EST
    has to actually close the deal. He had chances to do that in New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday, and in Texas and Ohio, and failed each time. If he loses PA by some 15-20 points, which is what I believe will happen, that's pretty far away from closing the deal. Then goes to IN and NC where if he wins either it'll probably be over, but it's not hard to see Hillary winning both on the momentum of a big PA win.

    He's certainly still the favorite, but this smarmy elitism from Obama supporters--that Hillary has to get out so we can crown Obama far before he has come close to wrapping up the nominatio--is pathetic. It doesn't breed a feel of confidence. They need to tell their boy to close the deal, and stop bitching about Hillary not dropping in until Obama actually does.

    [ Parent ]

    Easy (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Cayey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    Since Hillary will not quit, I suggest Obama  removes his name from the remainig states primaries and call Keith Olbermann to have a "special comment" to declare him the winner, forget the SD, forget the Convention, game over, is November here yet?

    [ Parent ]
    I thought she was the anointed, inevitable (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    one.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? I bet you heard that on MSNBC. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:22:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Pennsylvania by 20 (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    may not be possible for Clinton. But BTD, you are  absolutely right, this type of argument and MSM's constant suggestion that it is only Hillary who cannot mathematically get to 2024 deligates (but somehow Obama can) and that for party unity Hillary should drop out, is making a lot of voters in PA absolutely mad. Today, outside our local Wal-Mart I saw a number of  people  registering (today is the last day for doing so) and pledging their support for Clinton to the Clinton volunteer. I do not think that Hillary can win by 20, but by a margin of 14-16 is not impossible.

    Quite nefarious. Clinton volunteer (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    registering voters in front of Wal Mart, of all places.  

    [ Parent ]
    Registration in front of Wal-Mart (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:03:25 PM EST
    You know the narrative--Hillary supporters are Wal-Mart shoppers not the Starbucks customers and also they donot have high level of education! Actually, one woman switched her registration and said she would vote for Hillary!

    [ Parent ]
    Wait, Clinton's Team Was Registering Voters? (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:13:55 PM EST
    I thought only Obama brought new voters to the democratic process.  

    It is a novel concept to hope to win an election by insulting voters.  Between telling them they don't matter and insinuating they're racists, I bet there are a lot of Pennsylvanians (is that right?) who aren't all that interested in getting a Unity Pony.

    [ Parent ]

    yup, that's right (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh he can get there (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:16:21 PM EST
    if she drops out completely and he gets all the rest of the delegates!!!

    /snark.

    [ Parent ]

    The path to the nomination is the superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Prabhata on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:04 PM EST
    The superdelegates will decide on their judgment.  Obama or HRC will have to win one superdelegate at a time.  We the voters need to recognize that reality and not allow the partisan pundits to poison how we view the vote of the superdelegates.

    panic . . . the whole hill . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    smells like . . . victory.

    [ Parent ]
    Equal chances (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ClassicLib on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    Hillary has just as good a chance of winning the nomination as Obama seems to at the moment. She may well win the popular vote and may tie or surpass Obama in delegates. The SDs will decide in any case and their job is to choose the candidate who is best able to win in the fall. That means, the one who can command the most electoral votes. That's what the primary season is all about: who can win in the fall.

    It's becoming quite apparent that Obama has no chance to win against McCain when viewed from the electoral perspective. He would be, without a doubt, the weakest candidate since Dukakis in 1988.

    If you want change, that'd be Hillary, the first woman president in US history.

    Well, not exactly. (none / 0) (#76)
    by thinkingfella on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    Speaking as someone who would vote for either Clinton, or Obama in the GE, I think it is a pretty well established fact by now that Clinton has a substantially smaller chance of winning the nomination then Obama, as apparently her own advisers are now conceding:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
    I'm not trying to rub salt into the wound here, just pointing out that what you are saying "Hillary has just as good a chance" doesn't jibe with reality.

    And again, speaking as a supporter of either candidate, I think it is a bit of an overstatement to suggest Obama has no chance to win against McCain. He has certainly come from farther behind before (ahem, Hillary).

    Although I do think that if the Democrats can't unite behind a candidate fairly soon, we do run the risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory regardless of who the nominee is, and this goes for both Hillary and Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Name that advisor (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    If you can't, then who cares?  It's just another anonymous supposed Democrat.  It is not an overstatement to say that McCain will most likely wipe the floor with Obama.  Since all but the most partisan will vote for the person they believe will be the best president, via different routes, I can't see Obama winning at all.
     

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is change? (none / 0) (#103)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:07:44 PM EST
    If you want change, that'd be Hillary

    Hillary would be Clinton II. I have no real problem with that; I rather liked much of Bill's two terms and I like and respect Hillary. But it's not really change; it's just a return to an earlier administration, with a lot of the same players in the same roles. Better than Bush by an order of magnitude...but change? Not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    how can you possibly (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    say that the first female president would not be change.
    really?

    [ Parent ]
    My parents had nothing in common politically (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    but remained married for over 50 years.  Happily.  Do women just vote the way their husbands do? They can't think for themselves?

    [ Parent ]
    What? No One's saying she should drop out! (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by katiebird on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:40:08 PM EST
    That's what my mom's best friend a former County & District Democratic Chairwoman said today.

    I said, "oh, yes -- it's all over the blogs."

    She went on, "Oh, no -- there's no reason at all for HER to drop out.  Neither of them should."

    She and I ran our local caucus (to the degree it was possible) and she may not be famous but she's a very sophisticated politician.

    I can't tell you how shocked she was at the idea that Hillary should drop out.

    I've spent so much time reading about politics, it was fun to spend some time talking to someone with a real on-the-ground sense of political reality.

    Among the people not saying (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by AF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:11 PM EST
    that Hillary should drop out are Barack Obama and his campaign staff.  

    My fellow unaffiliated Obama supporters are taking it upon themselves to make this argument, and I wish they would shut up.  

    [ Parent ]

    you will pardon me (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:51:59 PM EST
    if I hope they do not

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#85)
    by AF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    Because they're pissing off Hillary supporters and hurting the Obama campaign on the margin.

    I can pardon you for hoping that happens, but be careful what you wish for.  I don't think you will enjoy a McCain presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    IMO (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM EST
    the only we will have president McCain is if Obama is the nominee.


    [ Parent ]
    By all means (none / 0) (#99)
    by AF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:04:39 PM EST
    Vote for Hillary if that is your opinion.  

    However, if Obama does get the nomination, he will be the only thing standing in the way of a McCain presidency. Any Democrat who does not vote for him will be helping McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    I think they have had paid shills (none / 0) (#212)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    commenting at dailykos.

    I would notice the same phrases repeated over and over by those with user ID's registered around Dec 2007. 146,000, 147,000 and 149,000 and something.

    Eventually I started pointing it out, and now I hardly ever see those UID's.

    It was too much of a coincidence that those with the same UID's used the same phrases and concepts, and ran 9 or 10 identical Hillarybashing stories up the diaryroll daily.

    shrill
    antics
    should drop out
    will do anything to win

    I forget the rest - but really: it was the same 10 phrases over and over...

    [ Parent ]

    I appreciate (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    your comment, because I often ask regular folks what they think is going on, because I don't trust that what I hear, actually read, is representative of the average folks who get their news in short sound bites. or even just through gossip.

    [ Parent ]
    He will always be wiping something from his shoe. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Dancing Bear on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
    I am not feeling united in any way whatsoever. I have less hope than I have for a very long time.

    He will never, even if elected, be my President.  

    Is that.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by scarpy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    ...a "No Country for Old Men" reference?

    Just wondering.

    [ Parent ]

    This is apostasy! (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    How dare he imply that the race isn't over yet?!

    you could almost say (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:01 PM EST
    an Obamanation

    [ Parent ]
    Cute. (none / 0) (#34)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh NO! (none / 0) (#33)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:23:15 PM EST
    Bring out the comfy chair!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama favored to win Indiana?!? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:04:42 PM EST
    Obama didn't even win southern Illinois and that was at the peak of Obamamania. I would be suprised if he got within ten points of Clinton in Indiana.

    I'm thought that the CW, (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    and pretty reliable (though I'm not sure what the source is, actually) was that Clinton and Obama were expected to go 50-50 in Indiana, as of, oh, a month ago--well before the Wright flap.  I don't know the area, so I wondered about that.  Indiana is deep red in Presidential elections, and I close to Ohio and TN and etc. etc., so I would think Clinton would do better.  OTOH, it is an Illinois neighbor, too.  I just don't have any idea, and I gather that nobody does any polling there to speak of.

    6.3 million residents (90% white), 15th most populous state

    85 delegates at stake.

    [ Parent ]

    Difficult to Say (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    Unlike the other states in the region, Indiana (where I'm originally from) is red and has had little polling.  As is so often the case it'll depend on voter turnout.  I think these questions are likely to decide it:

    1. Turnout in Indianapolis and Chicagoland/NW Indiana, both have strong AA populations and should favor Obama.  NW Indiana is practically part of Illinois and is served by Chicago media.

    2. Rural & Working Class Whites - Indiana has a lot of rural and working class folks, will these voters, who often vote Republican, turn out for Hillary or does the Hillary hate run too deep?

    3. Rev. Wright controversy - will it have any long-term impact here?  In the early 1900s, Indiana had one of the largest Klan populations in the country, while it's not that bad now, it's also a conservative state overall.  The word that comes to mind when I think of my Indiana family members is - restrained.  They are polite, kind, nice, and very religious in a private, quiet way.  I don't think they'd vote against Obama because he's black, I've never seen or heard anything particularly racist from any of them, but I do think they would've been upset by the tone of Wright's sermons.  It was all so confrontational, not something they like or are used to (but that might just be my family, who believe that if you can't say something nice you should say nothing at all, obviously, not a trait I inherited).  So it might not hurt Obama because of race, but because it makes folks doubt his unity message.

    4. Cross-over voters - will Republicans and independents cross over to help Obama, will they help Hillary (especially after Wright) or will they simply stay home.  Most of Indiana is Republican.


    [ Parent ]
    One More Issue (none / 0) (#111)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    Hispanic turnout.  Indiana has twice the hispanics (~4%) as Ohio.  Will they turn out and will Hillary carry them by a large margin as she did out West (I believe that as in the Western States, they are predominantly Mexican American).  A small voter segment, but they could be an important one.

    [ Parent ]
    And will Richardson's endorsement of (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:17:45 PM EST
    Obama influence some Latinos to vote for Obama who otherwise would have voted for Clinton?

    [ Parent ]
    Richardson Couldn't Influence Hispanics (none / 0) (#136)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    In his own favor.  One of his problems is that he never got any traction in Nevada.

    [ Parent ]
    Flat Endorsements (none / 0) (#200)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:19:33 PM EST
    I agree with you. Obama has an uncanny ability to gather endorsements from high profile politicians that do not help his campaign (i.e. Kennedy, Kerry) Richardson with hispanics will not help. He is just more window dressing.

    [ Parent ]
    Flat Endorsements (none / 0) (#201)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    I agree with you. Obama has an uncanny ability to gather endorsements from high profile politicians that do not help his campaign (i.e. Kennedy, Kerry) Richardson with hispanics will not help. He is just more window dressing.

    [ Parent ]
    Great Info -- Thanks! (none / 0) (#122)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM EST
    If I remember correctly, Obama did not win white Democrats outside of the Chicagoland area in Illinois and, as you say, Ohio is to the East and Kentucky to the south, so it doesn't seem to bode well for him in areas outside of NW Indiana and Indianapolis.

    [ Parent ]
    But That's Where the Dems Are (none / 0) (#143)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    in NW Indiana and Indy.  So the issue will be if Clinton can get enough voters to the polls to offset those areas of Obama strength.  Of course, without a recent poll, this is conjecture.

    [ Parent ]
    True, but... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:46:24 PM EST
    I think it will be like Ohio, where he does well in a few urban pockes but loses the non-urban counties by huge margins, translating into a good Clinton victory.

    [ Parent ]
    True, but... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:46:36 PM EST
    I think it will be like Ohio, where he does well in a few urban pockes but loses the non-urban counties by huge margins, translating into a good Clinton victory.

    [ Parent ]
    HRC (none / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:51:24 PM EST
    has the backing of Sen. Evan Bayh (a former popular governor) and he has been working tirelessly for her. If endorsements will mean anything (his name has also been bandied about as a possible VP choice).

    [ Parent ]
    You conceded yesterday (none / 0) (#18)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    that Hillary's chances of winning the nomination are now somewhere between slim and none. In other words, the voters have already decided who the nominee is going to be. For those voters who slightly favor Clinton over Obama but feel strongly that a democrat should be in the White House come 2009, the only rational vote for that voter is a vote for Obama. Their vote will not help Clinton win the nomination, and will only serve to prolong the campaign for nomination.

    THe problem is that some people (Jeralyn included) keep suggesting, contrary to all known fact and calculation, that this is still a winnable race for Hillary. It's not, and you, at least, will admit that much.
    [tagline censored]

    I asm not a candidate (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    so my stating MY opinion is not conceding.

    Let me repeat this again for you folks, pundits like me BLOVIATE, VOTERS decide.

    I have bloviated my opinion. Voters are still deciding.

    [ Parent ]

    You conceded the point (none / 0) (#29)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    that Hillary's chances of getting the nomination are remote. It's the first time I've ever seen you concede a point in a debate, so I feel mighty proud of myself for getting you to do so.

    I am assuming, since I take you for a rational person more or less, that the reason you were willing to make that concession was because you are aware of the pledged delegate math from here on out. Is that correct?
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]

    That sounds like you're more interested (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    In getting BTD to concede something.

    Part of the reason why he conceded that point is also because BTD had established in his mind some culpability with the Clinton folks for not screaming at the top their lungs for revotes even though they had put up the money for it, and approved revotes, it wasn't their place to scream that loudly for it.

    Anyway, BTD's concession on the issue in question is more of product of him sticking too the revote an issue than it is a product of his analysis of the primary in general.

    [ Parent ]

    How about we let him (none / 0) (#46)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    speak for himself?
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    If he feels like it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:35:30 PM EST
    I'm sure he'll put us both in our places.


    [ Parent ]
    You can speak for yourself there (none / 0) (#71)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    Me, I'm looking to give him another in a long line of whuppings.
    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]