Obama wins the democratic nomination

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

coemgen

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Oct 31, 2002
Messages
3,962
Location
Black and White Town
Or so this Time.com article predicts. It appears as if the math won't add up for Clinton.

Clinton Wins Big, But Math is Troubling
By Mark Halperin

Hillary Clinton's popular vote victories in Texas and Ohio fundamentally change the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in at least one important way: she's still in the race for the nomination. Clinton's long, arduous campaign might have ended abruptly if Obama delivered a knock-out blow in either state.

Instead, Clinton will fight on for at least the next seven weeks, until Pennsylvania votes on April 22. To get an idea of how long a period that is in political years, the Iowa caucuses — remember them? — were only eight weeks ago.

Clinton is emboldened not just by her Tuesday wins, but by several other developments over the past few days. She has now taken the popular votes in all the major industrial states that have held contests, except for Obama's home state of Illinois. Additionally, from Clinton's point of view, Obama is only now beginning to experience the aggressive media scrutiny standard for a serious presidential candidate. And she has finally found an advertising and rhetorical strategy to highlight Obama's relative lack of national security experience — his greatest weakness with voters.

But the March 4 results have not changed Obama's strongest talking point (and reality point) for why Clinton should exit the Democratic race: Math. It appears numerically impossible for her to overtake his lead among elected delegates.

Neither Obama nor Clinton can win the 2,025 delegates required for nomination without some combination of elected delegates (those chosen in primaries and caucuses) and superdelegates (party and elected officials who are automatic delegates to the Democrats' Denver convention this summer). About 800 of the approximately 4,000 delegates are superdelegates and several hundred of them are still uncommitted to either candidate.

Given the remaining contests — many with electorates favorable to Obama — Obama's existing hundred-plus delegate lead, and the rules by which Democrats apportion delegates, it is almost a political and mathematical certainty that Obama will have an elected delegate lead at the end of the process, barring dramatic, unforeseen circumstances.

Some of the upcoming states to vote — including Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on March 11 — are likely to swing strongly for Obama, and certainly show no signs of being Clinton blowouts. The same goes for North Carolina on May 6, and Oregon on May 20.

Other contests might be more favorable for Clinton (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota), but even decisive wins in those states — say, in the 60-40 range—would still leave her behind in both elected delegates and the overall count. That remains true even if Clinton somehow succeeds in getting the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.

Clinton's only hope of winning a majority of the delegates is to overtake Obama's elected delegate lead by winning the bulk of the remaining superdelegates.

This is the heart of Clinton's multi-dimensional challenge. Obama has of late signed up more superdelegates than Clinton in part because they are swayed by his lead in elected delegates. Yet unless there is a significant change in the overall dynamic — a major Obama blunder or scandal for example — he is likely to continue accruing superdelegates regardless of Clinton's big March 4 wins. Also, the act of securing the nomination with unelected convention votes could be considered by many Obama supporters as highly undemocratic, embittering and dividing the party on the eve of the general election.

So Clinton lives to run for another seven weeks. But if you believe in the power of numbers, the candidate of inevitability is Barack Obama.
 
The only problem is that it doesn't add up for Obama, either. Neither will have the delegates to secure the nomination at the end.

Now you'd hope that if he has the lead by the time the primary season is over (and he should) that Clinton would concede. But the truth is, if they are still within only 100 delegates of each other, with many superdelegates still at play, it's hard to back away from that scenario.
 
phanan said:
The only problem is that it doesn't add up for Obama, either.

the writer of these articles just have one agenda, can Hillary win the nomination?


Obama can not reach the 2025 number, either.


And then there are the 366 delegates in Michigan and Florida.

That would make the 100 delegate lead Obama has evaporate.


If they hold new primaries in Florida Hillary will easily beat Obama again, for sure.

And I also believe she will beat him in Michigan, very similar economy and demographics as Ohio.
 
Though I think this "You have broken our rules, so we take away your delegates!" is ludicrous, and very unfair for the voters who are taken their political rights, now that it has happened and everyone excepted it they cannot pull back and suddenly make those votes count, for which ever reason. That would be ridiculous.
You have brought yourself in that stupid situation, now live with that, no matter who will win or lose due to this.
 
Vincent Vega said:

You have brought yourself in that stupid situation, now live with that, no matter who will win or lose due to this.

The millions of people that waited hours to vote did not put themselves in that situation.

Who did?

Party officials, some of the same people that don't want the votes to count, now.

Again, why not hold new elections?

Except that even now, Hillary would win and get the delegates?
 
I didn't mean the citizens, I mean the Democratic party, and the candidates, whether it is Obama or Clinton.

Like I said, it's ridiculous that the citizens in those states got taken away their political powers, which in my view has priority over any party rules for elections. So my quoted sentence doesn't in any way mean the citizens, because they haven't brought themselves into that situation, but the Democratic party.
And now that they made that decision, they have to stick by that.

New elections might be an option, if both states got a date that allowed the candidate's and the voters to prepare and do some appropriate share of campaigning and informing.
Taking the results from those pseuo-elections would be voter fraud in my eyes, and undermine the party's credibility.
 
Vincent Vega said:
New elections might be an option, if both states got a date that allowed the candidate's and the voters to prepare and do some appropriate share of campaigning and informing.
Taking the results from those pseuo-elections would be voter fraud in my eyes, and undermine the party's credibility.

We seem to be some what in agreement here.

The Michigan vote is very problematic, and no good case can be made for giving delegates when Obama's name was not even on the ballot.

Florida is a different case.
 
A Diamond Prediction:

Clintons will steal the nomination thru some questionable legal channel or means, and from that point forward a lot of African Americans will then reassess their loyalty to the Democrat Party.

Write it down ppl, I said it first.

dbs
 
If there was no "ban", all candidate's would have taken Florida as a regular election and campaigned accordingly. Voters would be presented a better picture and all voter's would have showed up at the polls. It might not have reversed the results, but it would have presented a more accurate picture. And the voters would have benefitted from some actual campaigning.

This has not happened, so the results are not legitimate in a democratic process (agreed, democratic process and Florida might seem paradoxical ;)).

So either re-election, or leaving it.
 
diamond said:
A Diamond Prediction:

Clintons will steal the nomination thru some questionable legal channel or means, and from that point forward a lot of African Americans will then reassess their loyalty to the Democrat Party.

Write it down ppl, I said it first.

dbs

What? :huh: Why specifically African Americans?
 
phillyfan26 said:


What? :huh: Why specifically African Americans?

All of the Democratic African Americans I know have always been big supporters of Bill Clinton. Some are supporting Hillary this election season. I would hope that African Americans wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he shares their ethnicity. That's as terrible as racist whites who refuse to support Obama simply because he's black.
 
diamond said:
Because Obama is African American and they will take it personally.

dbs

That might be one of the most offensive things I've heard recently.:|
First off, not all black individuals are supporting Obama. You're assuming they're voting based solely on race. Based on that logic, why am I, as a woman, not supporting Hillary? Why aren't Irvine and BVS as white males not supporting McCain?
 
Last edited:
I still can't understand how Obama's race would cause African Americans to question their loyalty to the Democratic party. If Hillary does something dirty that pertains to race ... she won't get the nomination. If she doesn't ... how does race factor in?

Diamond honestly seems to believe that all blacks are going to vote for Obama for the sole reason that he is black. He also believes all blacks think Hillary Clinton summarizes the views of every white Democrat. He also believes that black will interpret actions of Hillary Clinton to be racist no matter what.

That's the only way his statement makes sense.
 
All African Americans are exactly the same, just as every Mormon is exactly the same, right?
 
Dread said the same thing a little while back.

IF Michigan and Florida have redos, which is a big if, they would be caucuses, not primaries. Because the states, not the Party, pay for primaries, which are very expensive, and they're not going to cough up that much again.
 
yolland said:
Dread said the same thing a little while back.

IF Michigan and Florida have redos, which is a big if, they would be caucuses, not primaries. Because the states, not the Party, pay for primaries, which are very expensive, and they're not going to cough up that much again.

That would be great if it happens. I'd be interested to see how or if the caucus results would change the current race. I'd love to have a chance to caucus for Obama.
 
diamond said:
Because Obama is African American and they will take it personally.

dbs

Yep. When W took it from Gore through the Supreme Court I voiced my opinion that it was bullshit - as a white male I took it personally - I haven't voted for a Republican since.
 
diamond said:
A Diamond Prediction:

Clintons will steal the nomination thru some questionable legal channel or means, and from that point forward a lot of African Americans will then reassess their loyalty to the Democrat Party.

Write it down ppl, I said it first.

dbs



this has never happened before.

i agree.
 
I just heard on Air America that the Republicans are phoning the conservative talk shows all over Texas that they were disfranchised yesterday. The dummies followed Rush Limbaugh's instructions and requested a Democratic ballot at the primary so they could vote for Hillary. Then they found out that by doing, so they couldn't vote for the other Republicans that were running for other offices. Hillary's win in Texas and Ohio doesn't show that she can win in November because there were lots of Republicans that voted for her yesterday because they hate her.
Texas caucus results aren't in yet and Obama might have won the caucus there. Texas is kind of a strange place I should know because my state is neighbors with them and they come here to ski all the time.
 
THE TRUTH:
OHIO : Gave the world George W. Bush for 4 more years in 2004
TEXAS : Gave the world George W. Bush
OHIO : Four peaceful protesting students gunned down
TEXAS : JFK gunned down
OHIO : Helped elect John McCain in 2008 by voting for Hillary
TEXAS : Helped elect John McCain in 2008 by voting for Hillary

America get's what it deserves if it elects Hillary Clinton as the nominee of the Democratic party...John McCain!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom