Obama Campaign: 'She Can't Catch Us'

[frerottenextelway]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Plouffe_She_cant_catch_us.html

Plouffe: She can't catch us

As we wrote last night, Obama has begun to make his own inevitablity case, and David Plouffe made it explicit on a conference call this morning, telling reporters that it's now "next to impossible" for Clinton to surpass what he says is a 136-person lead among pledged delegates.

"The only way she could do it is by winning most of the rest of the contests by 25 to 30 points," he said. "Even the most creative math really does not get her, ever, back to even in terms of pledged delegates."

"This is not about votes -- it's about delegates," Plouffe said.

The other half of this case, of course, is that superdelegates will and/or should follow the pledged delegates.

[alkemical]

Of course not, you ever try catching a cokehead? They are fast!

[Hotrod]

Of course not, you ever try catching a cokehead? They are fast!

LOL you simply gotta out smart'em

I'm not sure it this was a good move or not. It will either piss off the Clintonites or crush their spirit.

[alkemical]

LOL you simply gotta out smart'em

I'm not sure it this was a good move or not. It will either piss off the Clintonites or crush their spirit.

Dude, crush their spirit? They sold that back in Arkansas to the lowest bidder. Where do you think wal*mart got the price roll back thing from?

[TailgateNut]

Of course not, you ever try catching a cokehead? They are fast!


So someone who has experimented with cocaine while young is a cokehead?

I'd be interested in how many posters here have tried/ used drugs in the lifetime. P
I assume we probably would get the same percentage of honest answers as I did when I asked who voted for Bush.

[alkemical]

So someone who has experimented with cocaine while young is a cokehead?

I'd be interested in how many posters here have tried/ used drugs in the lifetime. P
I assume we probably would get the same percentage of honest answers as I did when I asked who voted for Bush.


There are common patterns amongst people who favor certain types of drugs, and cokeheads IMO have some of the least desirable traits.

[TailgateNut]

There are common patterns amongst people who favor certain types of drugs, and cokeheads IMO have some of the least desirable traits.

So in your mind there is no difference with a one time or maybe even a casual user than a habitual user?

IMO Meth and Opiate users are the bottom of the barrel. The will rob their own mother to get their fix.

[alkemical]

So in your mind there is no difference with a one time or maybe even a casual user than a habitual user?

IMO Meth and Opiate users are the bottom of the barrel. The will rob their own mother to get their fix.



HA! You haven't met too many cokeheads then! This one guy ben basically stole $5k from his mom to pay for his nose.

[The Lone Bolt]

Of course not, you ever try catching a cokehead? They are fast!

Then why is bush so slow?;D

[TailgateNut]

HA! You haven't met too many cokeheads then! This one guy ben basically stole $5k from his mom to pay for his nose.


I went to a neighborhood meeting re: the meth issue last year and the consensus was that the meth epidemic was the #1 factor listed as the abnormal rise in burglaries, and identity fraud.

I guess WE need to find some supporting evidence. Regardless, are you STILL comparing a one time user to a full blown COKEHEAD?

[TailgateNut]

Then why is bush so slow?;D
He's pretty fast, when running from the truth.

[alkemical]

Then why is bush so slow?;D

He's out run Cheney's birdshot so far!

[Spider]

So someone who has experimented with cocaine while young is a cokehead?

I'd be interested in how many posters here have tried/ used drugs in the lifetime. P
I assume we probably would get the same percentage of honest answers as I did when I asked who voted for Bush.

Coke is an entire different ball game . hell I have smoked pot , poped pills mainly uppers ....But never ever ****ed with coke or crack , herion , LSD ...

[alkemical]

I went to a neighborhood meeting re: the meth issue last year and the consensus was that the meth epidemic was the #1 factor listed as the abnormal rise in burglaries, and identity fraud.

I guess WE need to find some supporting evidence. Regardless, are you STILL comparing a one time user to a full blown COKEHEAD?

How do you KNOW Obama's been a "one time user". Support your statements first. Different drugs, relate to the make up of people both psychologically as well as chemically. Some may like Marijuana more just due to the chemical nature of their own bodies, others may like it more for the emotional (It is sort of illusionary though) way they can manage things.

With Meth & Coke (meth is cheaper to make than coke, and is very popular, but crack/coke are still popular on the drug market) - there is a different "profile" if you will of a user of a particular drug of choice. (Sort of like if you are an anal circuited person, or an oral circuited person, etc)

IMO, the make up of a "user" that is into Meth isn't much different than Cocaine.

[alkemical]

Here's a good place to get started:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112457455/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Psychological functioning of cocaine free-basers derived from objective psychological tests
Robert J. Craig, Ph.D. *
West Side Veterans Administration Medical Center Chicago, Illinois

*Correspondence to Robert J. Craig, (123), Drug Abuse Program, West Side VA Medical Center, 820 S. Damen Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60612

Abstract
This paper reports on two separate studies that compared cocaine free-basers with opiate addicts on objective personality tests (Adjective Checklist and MMPI). Both groups showed a similar organization of needs. While opiate addicts were characterized by acting-out traits, rebelliousness, depression, anxiety, alienation, and hyperactivity, the cocaine free-basers were characterized by similar traits, but at modulated levels of severity. Implications for treatment programs and for pharmacodynamic theories, with emphasis on the relationship between underlying personality structure and drug of choice, were discussed.

You will have to track the article down - but you can formulate some starting point from here.

[Hotrod]

HA! You haven't met too many cokeheads then! This one guy ben basically stole $5k from his mom to pay for his nose.

Wow that is low. Your telling me some dude named Ben who happened to use coke stole 5K from his own mother to have plastic surgery on his nose???

[alkemical]

Wow that is low. Your telling me some dude named Ben who happened to use coke stole 5K from his own mother to have plastic surgery on his nose???

lol, smart ass.

[Rohirrim]

So someone who has experimented with cocaine while young is a cokehead?

I'd be interested in how many posters here have tried/ used drugs in the lifetime. P
I assume we probably would get the same percentage of honest answers as I did when I asked who voted for Bush.

Uhh

[Denver Crush]

I can neither confirm nor deny those accusations, but a few snorts back in the day doesnt make one a cokehead or a methhead. For some its just a phase.

[frerottenextelway]

Clinton Campaign: 'We Can't Catch Him'

From Drudge:

NYT THURSDAY: Clinton's advisers acknowledged it would be difficult to catch up in race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning 3 states on which she is most pinning her hopes: Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April. Dem party's rules would be decided obstacle in efforts to catch up to Obama before voting phase of nominating process ends later in spring... Developing...

[TexanBob]

Just drama. Don't write off the Clintons until they have sued to have the delegates counted in Michigan and Florida. You know it is coming. They aren't going to shrivel up and blow away, much as I wish they would.

Now Bill is out there screaming "Media Bias!" ROFLMAO The same media that carried his water all throughout the 1990s. NOW, they're suddednly biased! LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Of course not, you ever try catching a cokehead? They are fast!

Especially on a mountain bike. ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The same media that carried his water all throughout the 1990s.

You must have been living in some strange parallel universe in the 90s.

Here in the real world, it was open season on Clinton by the media - and no holds barred.

[frerottenextelway]

RASMUSSEN: Obama Takes Double Digit Lead Nationally: Obama 49% to Clinton 37%; Obama leads among women 46% to 41%

Put a nail in it, this one is over.

[Traveler]

RASMUSSEN: Obama Takes Double Digit Lead Nationally: Obama 49% to Clinton 37%; Obama leads among women 46% to 41%

Put a nail in it, this one is over.

Can't get setup like that. This might derail his possible nomination:

[frerottenextelway]

Can't get setup like that. This might derail his possible nomination:

There's a lot of remaining super delegates who are simply waiting for who ends up with the most pledged delegates before committing. Most of the ones who already are committed to her committed because they assumed she would be the nominee (and will jump when she loses). The super delegates storyline is overblown.

[Traveler]

There's a lot of remaining super delegates who are simply waiting for who ends up with the most pledged delegates before committing. Most of the ones who already are committed to her committed because they assumed she would be the nominee (and will jump when she loses). The super delegates storyline is overblown.

Let's hope you are correct.

[Kaylore]

Can't get setup like that. This might derail his possible nomination:
:spit:
Ain't that the truth. What a sham. It's basically elitism. The Democrat party is fundamentally undemocratic. The irony.

[Old Dude]

About superdelegates:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/superdelegates/

Clinton insiders say they won't cede just because Obama wins more "committed" delegates. They will not hesitate to take the nomination if they win it on the basis of superdelegates. They would point to other "undemocratic" aspects of the process: the imbalanced caucus process (that tends to make things harder on low-income or single parent voters), the Michigan and Florida mess, etc.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html

[frerottenextelway]

:spit:
Ain't that the truth. What a sham. It's basically elitism. The Democrat party is fundamentally undemocratic. The irony.

Quick, has the Democratic Party ever put someone up for election who hasn't won the pledged delegate count? The super delegates were put in to break ties and overturn potential dead (literally) candidates or convicted candidates. It's being overblown this year.

[Old Dude]

Quick, has the Democratic Party ever put someone up for election who hasn't won the pledged delegate count? The super delegates were put in to break ties and overturn potential dead (literally) candidates or convicted candidates. It's being overblown this year.


Actually, Hubert Humphrey was named the democratic nominee back in 68 despite the fact that he hadn't won a single primary.

Here's some interesting history on the whole thing:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/berman

[Rohirrim]

Traveler has jumped onto the Obamatrain with both feet! Look at that sig! It's the human fortune cookie in action!

I kid, I kid. ;D

[frerottenextelway]

Actually, Hubert Humphrey was named the democratic nominee back in 68 despite the fact that he hadn't won a single primary.

Here's some interesting history on the whole thing:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/berman

'68 saw the leading nominees either withdrawl later or be killed. As I said, the system was set up to help not elect a deceased person.

Edit: it would be akin to Hillary dropping out, Obama being killed, and then electing Edwards.

[Rohirrim]

There's a lot of remaining super delegates who are simply waiting for who ends up with the most pledged delegates before committing. Most of the ones who already are committed to her committed because they assumed she would be the nominee (and will jump when she loses). The super delegates storyline is overblown.

You're absolutely right. The media are having fun with this, but of course, their job now is entertainment, not objective reporting. There are already super delegates talking about leaning toward Obama. They will go in the direction of the majority. If Billary cannot take Texas, Ohio and then, Pennsylvania, the SDs will line up behind Obama and make it unanimous. By the time the Dems hold their convention, it will be all kumbaya.

The Clinton elevator has gone to the basement. :wave:

[Old Dude]

'68 saw the leading nominees either withdrawl later or be killed. As I said, the system was set up to help not elect a deceased person.

Edit: it would be akin to Hillary dropping out, Obama being killed, and then electing Edwards.

You are right that 1968 was a strange year, but the system was not "set up" to avoid electing a "deceased person."

What actually happened was this.

1. LBJ was the incumbant, and he was eligible to run again in 68, despite the fact that he took over for JFK in 63.

2. Early on, there was almost no serious opposition to LBJ in the democratic
party. Again, LBJ was the incumbant, so no one thought they had a chance.

3. But Eugene McCarthy, an anti-war activist, made a challenge to LBJ in the first primary, NH, on 3/12/68 and though he lost, he came far closer than anyone could have expected... 49:42 (with the other 9 percent uncommited or going in random directions). This was a major jolt to LBJ and underscored his vulnerablity. (In this regard, McCarthy had the support of many young people - - those most likely to be affected by an ongoing war.)

4. RFK was an outspoken critic of LBJ, and also anti-war (though perhaps not so much as McCarthy), but he had already declined to run in the primaries.

5. Four days after the NH results, RFK changed his mind (presumably because he saw LBJ's vulnerability) and entered the race. This really POd the McCarthy people, who viewed it as a stab in the back. Their guy had taken the risk, suffered the abuse, spent the money, and here comes one of the Kennedys trying to cash in on it.

6. RFK and McCarthy would spend most of their time battling it out in the primaries. The contests became increasingly bitter, partly because they were both fighting so hard for many of the same people. On 3/31/68, LBJ, citing health reasons (which were not completely bogus) announced he would not seek another term. Many people feel that the real reason was because polls showed him losing the Wisconsin Primary to McCarthy. (And, in fact, he did lose).

7. After LBJ officially withdrew, party bosses in non-primary states (most of them) started gathering around Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey played it all behind the scenes and did not really run in any primary. He arguably used "surrogates" (favorite sons) to eventually win primaries in Florida and Ohio but won nothing on his own.

8. Meanwhile, a significant number of "Dixiecrats" rallied behind George Wallace.

9. Up until the time of his assassination, RFK won more delegates than McCarthy - but McCarthy was putting up a hard fight. He had upset RFK in Oregon. Then RFK narrowly won California (by 4%) and the race was expected to turn to New York, which both sides thought they could win. But RFK was assassinated on the eve of his California win.

10. By the time all the dust had cleared, HHH's surrogates had won primaries in two states (Ohio & Fla). LBJ had won only NH. RFK, prior to his death, had won California, Indiana, Nebraska and South Dakota. McCarthy had won Illinois, Mass., Wisconsin, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He would win a New York primary, even though it was technically moot due to RFKs death.

11. You would think that since RFK and McCarthy were so close on the issues that RFKs constituents would have backed McCarthy at the convention. About half of them did, but the other half was very still embittered and instead started moving toward George McGovern.

12. Then comes the DNC, and the Party bosses basically let everyone know that they've already decided that HHH will be the nominee and screw them if they don't like it, because primaries were nothing more than beauty contests.

13. And then all heck broke loose.

Many people assume that RFK, had he lived, would have been able to win NY, knock out McCarthy, and wrest the DEM convention from the party bosses. There are other people who think that would not have been all that simple.

[Traveler]

Traveler has jumped onto the Obamatrain with both feet! Look at that sig! It's the human fortune cookie in action!

I kid, I kid. ;D


Yeah, I finally made up my mind this week.

[Rohirrim]

Yeah, I finally made up my mind this week.

Looks like he might be the guy, the way things are trending now. Obama will have deja vu running against McCain as it won't be much different than running against Alan Keyes. He can use the same strategy. Just give your opponent the mic and let him do his own damage. I wonder how long it will be before Insane McCain is telling us all to run for our duct tape?

[Rigs11]

Not so fast. clinton is leading obama in ohio and pennsylvania by double digits.

[frerottenextelway]

Not so fast. clinton is leading obama in ohio and pennsylvania by double digits.

We went through this same thing on here after McCain took Florida. She has to take all 3 by 25 points - won't happen. She probably won't even take all 3 given past trends.

[Old Dude]

Not so fast. clinton is leading obama in ohio and pennsylvania by double digits.

True, but her Ohio lead has declined somewhat. For the past several months she was leading there by a steady margin of 20 to 25%. Last I saw, it was now down to 17% and falling.

Calculations are that she will have to win both Texas and Ohio by 20% or more to catch up with Obama [in non-super-delegates]. She's certainly within range of that in Ohio, but she's only around 10% in Texas, and 1/3d of the delegates there are distributed according to caucuses anyway, where Obama has been much stronger.

Pennsylvania would be a big help for her, especially if she could win by 20% or more, but that tends to get more than balanced out by potential Obama wins in Oregon, North Carolina and Mississippi.

This is why we are hearing more and more rumblings from the Clinton Camp about finding some way to credit her for her wins in Michigan (where Obama was not on the ticket) and Florida.

The problem is that both Florida and Michigan defied the Party rules and moved up their primaries. They were told that if they did that, the vote would not count, and neither Clinton or Obama would campaign there. The primaries were held anyway. Now the question is what to do about it.

That will be a major issue that we can expect to see getting batted around over the next several weeks.

[Rigs11]

True, but her Ohio lead has declined somewhat. For the past several months she was leading there by a steady margin of 20 to 25%. Last I saw, it was now down to 17% and falling.

Calculations are that she will have to win both Texas and Ohio by 20% or more to catch up with Obama [in non-super-delegates]. She's certainly within range of that in Ohio, but she's only around 10% in Texas, and 1/3d of the delegates there are distributed according to caucuses anyway, where Obama has been much stronger.

Pennsylvania would be a big help for her, especially if she could win by 20% or more, but that tends to get more than balanced out by potential Obama wins in Oregon, North Carolina and Mississippi.

This is why we are hearing more and more rumblings from the Clinton Camp about finding some way to credit her for her wins in Michigan (where Obama was not on the ticket) and Florida.

The problem is that both Florida and Michigan defied the Party rules and moved up their primaries. They were told that if they did that, the vote would not count, and neither Clinton or Obama would campaign there. The primaries were held anyway. Now the question is what to do about it.

That will be a major issue that we can expect to see getting batted around over the next several weeks.


"Clinton, a New York senator, has lost eight straight nominating contests to Illinois Sen. Obama, but leads him 55 percent to 34 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio, the poll found."

"The survey found that among likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23164926

[Old Dude]

Rasmussen Reports.com


New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads Illinois Senator Barack Obama by fourteen percentage points in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary. Clinton currently earns 51% of the Buckeye State vote while Obama attracts 37%.

Clinton leads by seven points among men and eighteen points among women. She holds a solid lead among voters over 50.

In Ohio, Clinton is viewed favorably by 81%, Obama by 71%.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Likely Democratic Primary Voters say that Clinton would be at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. Seventy-six percent (76%) say the same about Obama.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Ohio voters name the economy as the top voting issue. Eighteen percent (18%) say it’s the War in Iraq while 13% name Health Care issues as the top priority.

Ohio is one of two states that the Clinton campaign and many outside experts have deemed essential for the former First Lady to win is she is to have a chance of winning the Democratic Presidential nomination. Texas, which also votes on March 4, is the other. To improve her chances in these states, Clinton is hoping for a strong showing in Wisconsin where new polling data shows the race to be quite competitive.

In a stunning turn of events, the woman who was considered by many to be the inevitable nominee when the campaign season began now trails Obama nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Rasmussen Markets data suggests that Obama is now strongly favored to win the nomination. Recent state polls in Colorado and New Hampshire show that Obama performs better in general election match-ups against McCain. However, a recent Rasmussen Reports analysis suggests there is more to the question of which Democrat might fare better against McCain in the general election

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/ohio/ohio_democratic_presidential_primary

[Old Dude]

As for the Michigan / Florida Controversy, here's the most objective info I have found:

What Happened to Florida and Michigan's Delegates?

The states that hold the earliest primaries and caucuses have generally had disproportionate influence over the nomination process.

In 2007 the Florida legislature voted to move their primary date up to January 29 for the 2008 primaries. This set off a slew of moves by other states jockeying for position, and the national committees trying to establish order.

The new order set February 5 as the earliest date for primaries. With a few exceptions, any state holding a primary earlier would be penalized.

The Republican National Committee decided to penalize non-compliant states by seating only half their delegates. This compromise penalty was generally accepted, and the Republicans entered the primaries without controversy on this issue.

The Democratic National Committee, however, decided to penalize non-compliant states by stripping them of all of their delegates. Some Democrats in Florida attempted to amend the legislation they had passed, but the Florida Republicans blocked these amendments.

Michigan also decided to go ahead with a primary in January, despite the Democratic National Comittee's declaration that it would not seat any of the delegates.

Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign in these states, but they were allowed to raise money there. The Clinton and Obama campaigns have been accusing each other of campaigning in those states in violation of DNC rules.

Both candidates had their names on the ballot in Florida. In Michigan Barack Obama (like other leading candidates John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson) removed their names from the ballot, in support of the DNC ruling. Hillary Clinton kept her name on the ballot.

Clinton won 55% of the vote in Michigan. 40% voted "uncommitted," as supporters of candidates not on the ballots were requested to do. Clinton won 50% of the vote in Florida, with Obama winning 33%.

After establishing a large lead in Michigan and Florida, Clinton began advocating reversing the DNC decision and allowing the delegates to be seated.

Democrats fear that the controversy will have two negative effects on the party. First, the conflict with the DNC might slightly shift some voters away from the Democrats. This could be particularly critical in Florida. Some Democrats hope that Floridians will blame the Florida Republicans for not allowing the state to amend its legislation. Second, Democrats fear that if the margin of victory for the winning candidate is less than the delegate total of Florida and Michigan, that the losing side will not feel that it lost the election fairly, and thus might feel less loyalty to the winner.

This is one of two major controversies for the 2008 Democratic Primaries. The other involves the superdelegates...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happened_to_Florida_and_Michigan's_delegates

[Traveler]

As for the Michigan / Florida Controversy, here's the most objective info I have found:

What Happened to Florida and Michigan's Delegates?

The states that hold the earliest primaries and caucuses have generally had disproportionate influence over the nomination process.

In 2007 the Florida legislature voted to move their primary date up to January 29 for the 2008 primaries. This set off a slew of moves by other states jockeying for position, and the national committees trying to establish order.

The new order set February 5 as the earliest date for primaries. With a few exceptions, any state holding a primary earlier would be penalized.

The Republican National Committee decided to penalize non-compliant states by seating only half their delegates. This compromise penalty was generally accepted, and the Republicans entered the primaries without controversy on this issue.

The Democratic National Committee, however, decided to penalize non-compliant states by stripping them of all of their delegates. Some Democrats in Florida attempted to amend the legislation they had passed, but the Florida Republicans blocked these amendments.

Michigan also decided to go ahead with a primary in January, despite the Democratic National Comittee's declaration that it would not seat any of the delegates.

Democratic candidates were not allowed to campaign in these states, but they were allowed to raise money there. The Clinton and Obama campaigns have been accusing each other of campaigning in those states in violation of DNC rules.

Both candidates had their names on the ballot in Florida. In Michigan Barack Obama (like other leading candidates John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson) removed their names from the ballot, in support of the DNC ruling. Hillary Clinton kept her name on the ballot.

Clinton won 55% of the vote in Michigan. 40% voted "uncommitted," as supporters of candidates not on the ballots were requested to do. Clinton won 50% of the vote in Florida, with Obama winning 33%.

After establishing a large lead in Michigan and Florida, Clinton began advocating reversing the DNC decision and allowing the delegates to be seated.

Democrats fear that the controversy will have two negative effects on the party. First, the conflict with the DNC might slightly shift some voters away from the Democrats. This could be particularly critical in Florida. Some Democrats hope that Floridians will blame the Florida Republicans for not allowing the state to amend its legislation. Second, Democrats fear that if the margin of victory for the winning candidate is less than the delegate total of Florida and Michigan, that the losing side will not feel that it lost the election fairly, and thus might feel less loyalty to the winner.

This is one of two major controversies for the 2008 Democratic Primaries. The other involves the superdelegates...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happened_to_Florida_and_Michigan's_delegates

Nice find...

[frerottenextelway]

"Clinton, a New York senator, has lost eight straight nominating contests to Illinois Sen. Obama, but leads him 55 percent to 34 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio, the poll found."

"The survey found that among likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23164926

Here's the recent polls in Ohio courtesy of realclearpolitics.com:

Rasmussen 02/13 - 02/13 754 LV 51 37 Clinton +14.0
Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 564 LV 55 34 Clinton +21.0
SurveyUSA 02/10 - 02/11 720 LV 56 39 Clinton +17.0

So the poll that she does best in that you reference goes back 8 days. But the much bigger point is that Ohio will have 140 delegates up for grabs. She'll be down 150 pledged delegates entering the race.

Do the math there.

Say she does really good and it breaks 85 - 55, she's still down 120 pledged delegates. And that's a one of the better scenarios for her, as Ohio delegates are largely decided by congressional district where he'll rack up delegates in dense AA areas and while she'll dominate central OH, there isn't the delgates that she'll need. She's almost into Huckabee territory, screw the math and pray for a miracle.

[frerottenextelway]

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/just_got_back_from_the_first_obama_organizational_ meeting_in_cincinnati

http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/ohio_primary_analysis

Couple good blog posts on Ohio.

[Old Dude]

Here's how I see it at this point.

Obama has a substantial lead among "pledged delegates." Barring some huge and unforseen development, it will be very hard for Hillary to overcome that particular lead.

But the size of the lead matters. Here's why.

Superdelegates count for basically 20% of the nomination. (Roughly 800 out of 4,050) The race is still so tight that a big swing in superdelegates, one way or the other, would be decisive.

Obama's argument is that if he wins a majority of the pledged delegates at the end of all the primaries, the superdelegates, who are supposed to act as tiebreakers to avoid brokered conventions, should cut his way.

But there are basically three categories of superdelegates....

First, you have people who have a strong preference for one candidate or the other. That can be based on many things ... personal loyalty, identity of issues, deals, promises, philosophy, etc. We'll call these people "category (a). They are strongly in one camp or the other, and their primary interest is in seeing that their favorite gets the nomination. Period.

Second, in what is probably the smallest group, you have people who see their superdelegate votes as an extension of the primary process. And their inclination, regardless of their personal preferences, is to vote the way their district went. We'll call these people category (b).

Third, you have superdelegates whose main objective is to go with the flow, to put the leader over the top, and to avoid a nasty, divisive situation at the convention. We'll call these people (c).

Both sides are fighting for the uncommitted superdelegates in category (c). And right now, there are roughly 400 people in that category.

Obama's argument is basically that he's going to have the majority of pledged delegates anyway, so they may as well jump on his bandwagon, and the sooner they do that, the quicker things can be wrapped up and the less division there will be.

Hillary's argument is ... "not so fast" because you can't simply ignore the superdelegates in categories (a) and (b) who have already endorsed a candidate. Those are "real' votes. They count. They are part of the equation. And once you factor those in, she is barely trailing Obama at all. She could easily recover the lead after Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

So both of them are continuing to court superdelegates. Obama's argument is based on creating a sense of inevitability. (And this certainly worked for Mondale the last time that superdelagates were any sort of issue.) Hillary's argument is based on the notion that it's just too soon, because she can whoop Obama in the big upcoming states.

That's why it's not just a matter of who wins from here on out .. but also by how much. Hillary does have her work cut out for her, though, because a sub-performance in any one of those states (or continued blowouts in the others) could sink her. In short, there are a lot more things that could go seriously wrong for her, and she has very little margin for error.

But who knows? Big victories in March and April could swing momentum back in her favor ...

[frerottenextelway]

Here's how I see it at this point.

Obama has a substantial lead among "pledged delegates." Barring some huge and unforseen development, it will be very hard for Hillary to overcome that particular lead.

But the size of the lead matters. Here's why.

Superdelegates count for basically 20% of the nomination. (Roughly 800 out of 4,050) The race is still so tight that a big swing in superdelegates, one way or the other, would be decisive.

Obama's argument is that if he wins a majority of the pledged delegates at the end of all the primaries, the superdelegates, who are supposed to act as tiebreakers to avoid brokered conventions, should cut his way.

But there are basically three categories of superdelegates....

First, you have people who have a strong preference for one candidate or the other. That can be based on many things ... personal loyalty, identity of issues, deals, promises, philosophy, etc. We'll call these people "category (a). They are strongly in one camp or the other, and their primary interest is in seeing that their favorite gets the nomination. Period.

Second, in what is probably the smallest group, you have people who see their superdelegate votes as an extension of the primary process. And their inclination, regardless of their personal preferences, is to vote the way their district went. We'll call these people category (b).

Third, you have superdelegates whose main objective is to go with the flow, to put the leader over the top, and to avoid a nasty, divisive situation at the convention. We'll call these people (c).

Both sides are fighting for the uncommitted superdelegates in category (c). And right now, there are roughly 400 people in that category.

Obama's argument is basically that he's going to have the majority of pledged delegates anyway, so they may as well jump on his bandwagon, and the sooner they do that, the quicker things can be wrapped up and the less division there will be.

Hillary's argument is ... "not so fast" because you can't simply ignore the superdelegates in categories (a) and (b) who have already endorsed a candidate. Those are "real' votes. They count. They are part of the equation. And once you factor those in, she is barely trailing Obama at all. She could easily recover the lead after Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

So both of them are continuing to court superdelegates. Obama's argument is based on creating a sense of inevitability. (And this certainly worked for Mondale the last time that superdelagates were any sort of issue.) Hillary's argument is based on the notion that it's just too soon, because she can whoop Obama in the big upcoming states.

That's why it's not just a matter of who wins from here on out .. but also by how much. Hillary does have her work cut out for her, though, because a sub-performance in any one of those states (or continued blowouts in the others) could sink her. In short, there are a lot more things that could go seriously wrong for her, and she has very little margin for error.

But who knows? Big victories in March and April could swing momentum back in her favor ...


Less than half the super delegates have committed to someone. The remaining half isn't holding out to commit to the loser at the end, they're holding out to commit to the winner. Bottom line, the winner of the pledge delegates will be the Democratic Candidate and this is a non-story story.

[Old Dude]

Well, if I was managing the Clinton Campaign right now, here's the strategy I'd use:

1. Work tail off to win any kind of victory in Wisconsin, and try to portray it as an "upset." The fact is that Obama's lead in Wisconsin is within the margin of error, and 1 in 4 (on both sides) say that they could change their mind in the next few days. But she can't look like she's putting too much effort in there, otherwise a loss looks even worse.

2. With an "upset" win in Wisconsin, she can claim that voters have taken a closer look at Obama and decided he's lacking "substance." The old "where's the beef" ploy ...

3. If she can boost her popular vote margin in Texas up to 15% or so, she can claim a "substantial victory" there even if she doesn't get that much of a delegate edge out of the contest. It's not at all impossible for her to take Ohio by 20%. She has a very good chance of winning Rhode Island outright, and no one really knows what Vermont will do. She could sweep (or come close to sweeping) March 4.

4. She needs to underplay the March 8 contests. It's very unlikely that she can take the Wyoming caucuses. But who cares? She needs to stay close in Mississippi, but even if she loses there, she can always write it off as a Republican stronghold that won't mean much in the general election anyway. Insead, she'd portray Pennsylvania as the big prize, and focus the public's attention there, where she could score a blowout on 4/22.

If she does that, then she will have brought Obama's momentum to a screeching halt. An upset win in Wisconsin, followed huge popular vote wins in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island. Then a couple of meaningless losses in small red states, followed by another huge win in Pennsylvania - a key state in the national election, would make the Potomac losses a dim memory.

If she can get a few more superdelegates to commit on the basis of all of that, she becomes a perceived leader, regardless of the "pledged delegate" count, where she would be closing ground in any event.

She has to be careful how she handles the whole Florida & Michigan situation. She needs to keep reminding everyone that she technically "won" those states without seeming like too much of a whiner.

After Pennsylvania, the next big ticket item would be North Carolina, where she trails by roughly 10%. But momentum could close that gap. And Edwards is still riding the fence. Deals could be struck there. Or, she might be able to offset that with a substantial win in Indiana.

She could win Kentucky and W. Va. during the same stretch in May.

So she could still get on quite a roll. If, at the end of all that, she has a substantial lead in overall delegates (regardless of how they break down in terms of pledged vs. supers) she could claim that she was "the clear leader" and that he uncommtted superdelegates should swing her way.