Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
Author |
Message |
Christian
Team Kris
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:02 pm Posts: 27584 Location: The Damage Control Table
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
Had he stayed, I surely would have voted for Bill Richardson.
_________________A hot man once wrote: Urgh, I have to throw out half my underwear because it's too tight.
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:57 pm |
|
 |
Anita Hussein Briem
Yes we can call dibs on the mountain guide
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:47 pm Posts: 3290 Location: Houston
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
Ericka wrote: By damaging Obama's electability, it's possible some pledged delegates could change sides. Many strategists believe Obama's speech last week will help him in the short term, but will hurt him in a general election. The ones who say to others that they have been "misguided" are the misguided ones you know. There are some who are being misguided on both sides, this is politics. Obama isn't some saint. He is a washington politician, just like every other candidate at his core. And people who call for this to be over, yet say stuff about wanting the winner to be decided by pure democracy, are saying completely contradicting things. If they want this to be decided like a democracy, every voter will have a voice. So why exactly do you want it to be over now? I'm very excited my state will take part in this in May, and just like Groucho and someone else from PA, they too are very excited they are finally being noticed. Primaries really should include America as a whole, not almost all of America. Precisely, which is why after all the primaries are over, Obama will be ahead. Hence the title and purpose of this thread. Huckabee didn't major in math, and evidently some others haven't either. Wishful thinking remains the central tenet of the Clinton make-believe campaign. A 300-yard gap is no big deal five miles into a marathon, but it is when there are only 2 miles left. I want the race to end for the sake of party unity. There is no talking around the fact that Clinton supporters talking about "counting every voter" are waiting around for the off chance Obama gets killed by a meteorite impact.
_________________
(hitokiri battousai)
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:01 pm |
|
 |
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am Posts: 22182 Location: Places
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
Corpse explain to me the point of voting AT ALL if the super delegates can and will simply overturn what the voters of "all of america" say?????? Damn Hillary; the reason mccains overtaken them both in polls is because all the republicans know hes their man; we aint know yet cause hillary cant take a hint from the voters! honestly, itll all be over soon enough thogh; i cant believe how much press hillary bosnia lie is getting. Just as she was starting show Obama isnt a saint as you said, we are all reminded why we liked him in the first place: HE ISNT A CLINTON! Skeletons in his closet are a given, but a straight up lie as obnoxious as that one??? And today poll says obama down only 10% in penn n with a 21% lead in nc. Ericka has said it herself; a 10% win by clinton is a aweful sign giving everything she going for her and it would mean a tiny, 10-15 delegate gain on obama. a win in NC means its over for hillary but being hillary she still might stay, but if he asskicks her that big there is no other way out. Even if she doesnt drop out, having clear leads in votes, delegates, pledged delegates, and states will make the choice an easy one: obama for nominee 
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:18 pm |
|
 |
Groucho
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm Posts: 12096 Location: Stroudsburg, PA
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
From Daily Kos:
Obama's current popular vote advantage is 813,051, which omits turnout for the Texas caucuses (which Obama won).
Let's say turnout [in PA] is ridiculous, with 100 percent of Democrats voting. That means that if all 4 million voted, and Clinton won by 20 points, that 800,000 vote advantage would still not be enough to overtake Obama in the popular vote. And given Obama's currently huge lead in the only other large state left in the race -- North Carolina -- her chances of making up the deficit are practically zero.
But of course, turnout won't be 100 percent, and she won't win by 20 percent of the vote. So it won't even be this close.
_________________Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com

|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:21 pm |
|
 |
Eagle
Site Owner
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 1:09 pm Posts: 14631 Location: Pittsburgh
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
If you include Flordia, which will happen when the convention seats part of the delegates, then Hillary is down only 420 to 530k, and that includes IA, NV, ME, WA who have not included totals. So that is a much more accurate number.
_________________
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
 |
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am Posts: 22182 Location: Places
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
as everyone says: MAKE BELIEVE.
Florida wont count; the race will be decidely over in 99% of peoples minds come May 6th when Obama takes NC.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
 |
Mr. Reynolds
Confessing on a Dance Floor
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:46 am Posts: 5578 Location: Celebratin' in Chitown
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
Straight cash, homie wrote: as everyone says: MAKE BELIEVE.
Florida wont count; the race will be decidely over in 99% of peoples minds come May 6th when Obama takes NC. I think you meant to type 48% or whatever Obama's polling number is at that point.
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:35 pm |
|
 |
Excel
Superfreak
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 12:54 am Posts: 22182 Location: Places
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
nope when she loses north carolina itll be just as over as the republican race was a month ago when huckabere refused to drop out.
_________________Ari Emmanuel wrote: I'd rather marry lindsay Lohan than represent Mel Gibson.
|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:51 pm |
|
 |
Groucho
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm Posts: 12096 Location: Stroudsburg, PA
|
 Re: Why Hillary mathematically cannot win
Hillary Clinton personally sparked new speculation about how she planned to win in an interview with Newsweek. Asked how she could still win the nomination given Obama’s delegate lead, Clinton said:
“[The math] doesn’t look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they’re all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.â€Â
OK, everyone got that? Everyone got their Hillary talking points down?
Remember: Richardson is a Judas and undemocratic because he isn't following the desires of the people in his state who voted for Hillary. The fact that he is a superdelegate and wasn't picked as a delegate from his state is irrelevant.
Also, any delegate who was chosen by the voters of the state should not necessarily obey the desires of the people who chose them, and should switch to Hillary despite the desires of the people in the state.
The bottom line to remember is this: The consistency is wanting to say and do anything to get the nomination; believing inconsistent things in order to get there is perfectly fine.
_________________Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com

|
Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:51 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|