she won't

Obama went from 20 points behind in Pennsylvania to only 6 or so points behind.

His numbers are increasing and hers are decreasing.

The obsession with who "wins" the state is silly, especially since this is not a "winner take all" race.

The Hillary people will, of course, spin this to say that Obama can't win while ignoring the fact that his numbers keep rising while hers are falling.

She has a very good shot here. OH and PA have showed that having a very well liked GOV on your side can do, and she has Evan Bayh (arguably the most popular DEM in Indiana's history based on his margin of wins as a Senator and as GOV) supporting her. And the polls before PA in Indiana have been very tight, less than a 5 point lead for either Obama or Clinton.

If she wins Indiana (more likely than North Carolina at the moment, though I'm waiting on whether or not the Elizabeth Edwards supporting Clinton there is true or not since it likely means John Edwards will endorse Hillary) she is still in this.

Clinton wins both IN and NC - Her chances at the nomination just skyrocketed. It will be Obama's last chance to win the CORE of the DEM Party (blue colar) workers. Hillary won all those counties in PA with over 70% of the vote.

Clinton wins IN only - Still has a shot, though it's going to be very slim.

Clinton wins NC only - Not really sure actually. I'd rather have an IN win even though NC is a bigger state. But I guess it would be about the same as an IN only win on her chances at the nomination.

Clinton loses both - Done.

North Carolina is the final must win for her. Shes won the 1st 3 of them, lets see if she can win the 4th. A slight loss by 1-4% gives an excuse to go on, but a 15% beating like current polls have would be reallllly bad for her. Due to its size though, make no mistake, this is another must win. A loss here means NO chance at victory in popular vote or pledged delegates.



The problem is Loyal, that is a lot bigger than a HUGE "if".

1. Polls in NC, the biggest state remaining-look horrible for her.

So the bat, the plan is a failure. But anyways...

2. She is gonna have a very hard time getting FLA to count. I think thatd be obvious.

3. Obama will take Oregan handily. Shell do well in kentucky and Puerto Rico but nto near nough to change the math.

Regardless if she wins that or not, she's still going to lose NC and that will shut the door except for the back door that she still has left. No matter. Continue blowing up the democrats Hillary unless of course she and Bama make up and run together.

She doesn't have a chance to win the pledged delegates even if she wins every remaining state, Excel. It's no longer important for her Campaign. And if she does lose NC, she can still win the popular vote. It will be harder, but it's not impossible. Especially since Dean has said he wants to include FL somehow now.

The most recent poll (SurveyUSA) has Obama 50, Clinton 41 in North Carolina. And that obviously doesn't factor her PA win yet if that has an effect on the polls. Nor the Edwards news that is going around right now (maybe the Edwards decided that whoever won in PA, they would then support?).

People thinking this is over are living in a dream world. It's not over. Anything can happen in politics. One single day can make all the difference.

Please corpse, everywhere Obama goes his poll numbers go up. Every states been like that. e leads NC by an avegage of 15% and expect him to unload. This is Obama going for the kill and honestly he will embarass her in this state. At this point, a lot of supers will come out for him.

I expect him to clinch the nomination with when he loses in Puerto Rico

Right now there are roughly 2350 undecided supers. They will remain this way for a bit. They cant go to Hillary simply because Obama is leaing in every category, but they cannot go to Obama because he has yet to win a big state. A blowout win in NC is just what they will want to come for him and they will.

Come PR on June, 1st, the pledged delegate total will look something like 1657-1491 for Obama. I expect Obama to be around 345 supers and Clinton around 315 (leaving the undecided amount at 135ish) giving them totals of 2002-1806.

Puero Rico goes to Hillary, 58-42, and delegates go to her favor 23-32. Obama clinches 2,025 is deemed the pressumptive nominee. At this point you will see the remaining undecided supers come out for him and increase his lead, but lets assume that doesnt happen and Hillary keeps trying to win over some.

Ok, Montana and S. Dakota add a combined 219-20 delagates, and Obama's over 2,050. Shortly after realizing it wont happen, Hillary bows out in Mid June, spinning it as an early leave "for the sake of the party".

I am talking about polling before the race, not a month before the race. Where ever polling has him at, whether it be low 40's or in the 60's, that is how he performs. The same cannot be said about Hillary because she has constantly performed better than the polls suggest. Why is this? Also, Obama's lead in NC has remained the same for weeks and weeks now, it's not increasing, rather decreasing if the latest poll is an indication.

She has effectively stopped him in his tracks many times so far. First in New Hampshire, then in Massachusetts, again in both Texas and Ohio, and now once again in Pennsylvania. She knows how to win where she needs to win.

The most important issue for the Democrats this election is to nominate a candidate they feel will win in November. And the same goes for the Super Delegates. You here the undecided ones, like Donna Brazile, say it all the time on CNN, FOX, etc. "The Super Delegates are looking for the candidate they best feel can win in the general election." And you will want a candidate that performs better with the core of the democratic base. And Hillary has beaten Obama here every single time. And voters know this too, and it's proven based on the exit polls. 43% of the voters in Pennsylvania thought she can still win the nomination. But why did voters in PA vote for her if the majority (57%) believed Obama will win the nomination? Because they know Hillary would be better in a general election. McCain beats Obama by double digits in Flordia and Ohio, while Hillary beats McCain in OH by double digits and polls even with him in Flordia. I don't care if you can pick off a few red states (most worth less than 10 electoral votes) in a general election, if you lose two of the three, the three being Flordia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, you will LOSE. Hillary ran the EXACT same campaign McCain would run against Obama in Pennsylvania, and look at the result. She is effectively hurting his electability in the general election. And it's also important to add that her supporters are strongly standing by her, and her only. In the exit polls 26% said they would vote for McCain over Obama if Hillary lost, while 17% said they would just stay home. Much higher percentages than for the Obama supporters.

Popular vote is all that matters right now and the one chance Hillary has. She has to find a way to pull ahead in total votes, at least with FL included, to make a case. If Obama secures the triple crown (pledged delegates, popular votes, and # of states won), there is really no argument to lay her hands on.

Right now I give Hillary a 5-10% chance. She needs Obama to make bigger stumbles.

In the end, I think Clinton will be kicking herself for not getting organized earlier and better in the caucus states. Even with all of Obama's charms, oratory skills, and fund-raising power, I believe Clinton would have no problem winning if she had run a better campaign right from the beginning and going for the kill right away instead of believing in the role of presumptive nominee for way too long.

Corpse you cannt argue facts. The states Obama lead in polls early on and up to election day-Mississippi (14%), Maryland (22%), Virginia (17%), Washington (14%)-have all gone to Obama by MORE predicted. You do the math.

Obama has 15% lead + Obama numbers go up everywhere he campaigns=15%+ WIN in NC.



Ill give you NH even though lead all polls until a week before it. But Mass? Texa or Ohio? Penn? Corpse,she's not stopping anyone in their tracks, to do that she needs upset. A surprise, unexpected win. She leads polls in Ohio, Texas, and Penn by over 15% a few weeks out before election. It is not that she knows how to win when she needs to-that will be tested with NC-the schedule just favored her.

These are states she SHOULD have won because of high she was polling early on.



Corpse, she is not even the most popular candidate in the Democratic Party. How do you guys not get that? Supers will not go against the majority of the party voters -the 14.4 million who have voted for Obama vs. the 13.9 who have votefor Hillary. They will not risk turning off the MAJORITY of their party.

Brazile also said supers fear going for clinton and against Obama simply because they know itll hurt the voters. When Obama wins big in NC, you'll see a big break for him in super delegates who use his big win as an excuse to go to him.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... a-225.html

vs.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... n-224.html

or better yet:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... a-244.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... a-244.html

What Clinton supporters do not get but all dems do is Hillary big state argument is WRONG. The deal is in November, Obama will still win those states.

Even if Hillary is not running, Obama wil still carry New york and California for sure. Polls have him winning Pennsylvania vs. McCain. Its very close in Ohio. What you need to explain corpse, is how this is wrong. Hillarys people are on a different page then her supporters. They know that to get supers, it has nothing to do with her beating Obama.

She has to convince the supers that MCCAIN will beat Obama in these battleground states.

That's it. The battleground states shes won are Ohio and Pennsylvania, and with Obama beating McCain in Penn polls and down by only 2% in Ohio while Hillary is still int he race, thats not much an argument.

They know that whenever one of the candidates leave and they have their nominee, that person will see a big spike in polls as the party is for the most part unified. That means Obama wins in Cali, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, ect.

Thats it. Her "i won, he lost" does not work. It HAS TO be "McCain will beat him here, he wont beat me" and polling has Obama winning and Hillary says "Yes yes yes" to wether or not Obama can beat McCain, her argument either doesnt mathematically hold up or is extremely hypocritical.



Wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... a-400.html

As I said before, whenever Hillary gets outta the race, Obama will catch up. Florida McCain does lead him by 11%,



And the only one supers beieve Obama would lose is Florida. Again, he is very close in Ohio and leads McCain in Pennsylvania.



Um no. That is completely wrong. Obama and McCain are opposites on issues and appeal. An Obama-McCain match up in Penn would be strictly issues only and Obamas are the same as Hillarys. McCain doesnt have healthcare, is worse on the economy...that would be a joke. McCains only strength over Obama would be national security.



Which is why so many want her outta the race and at some point in the near future, you can expect supers to flock to Obama to justget her out of it.



I doubt super delegates buy this nonsense at all. Whoever the dem nominee is will have no trouble making mccain out as bush 2.0. McCains own staff have sent out memo's at fundraisers saying they expect the dem nominee to recive a 10-15% boost in polls whenever they figure out who it is. Not only that but Hillary voters-older people-ALWAYS vote.

The parties biggest fear is that Obama is bringing in so many new voters. If they go against him, they will not vote periof. They know for a fact Hillarys voters will vote, even the old
feminists are too stubburn right now to say theyd vote.

Clinton's best hopes are Kentucky and West Virginia. They are solidly in her column.

Oregon and North Carolina are not competitive. Wherever Obama has had a large lead, Clinton has not been able to reduce it.

At the end Obama will have more normal delegates then Hillary (overall). I agree with BKB. The only way to win for now Hillary is to get the Superdelegates. The other way she wont do it.

So keep dreaming Loyal!!!

Here's how she can still win:

Funny too, how a 9% win in PA is a "big win" for Clinton whereas the 29% win in VA wasn't a big deal for Obama. The "crucial victory" in Texas where she actually lost delegates still boggles my mind.

Thanks to, you guessed it, Hillary Clinton!

I'd rather have McCain than Obama in the Whitehouse. At least McCain has a decent record of actually you know, experience.

Is age the only criterion you use? I thought you are liberal?

Besides, if experience is your yardstick, only John McCain has extensive experience. Hillary Clinton is a neophyte that has no idea what she is doing. Given the way her campaign has been run, I wouldn't trust her readiness to lead my city council on day one. At least Obama is like that new guy that somehow knows what he is doing despite not having done it before.

At least she's been in the WH before, that at least counts for something. Obama is about as clueless as they come.

I've in the White House before too. Being a tourist does not count.

Obama is a lot less clueless than Hillary. Running this campaign has been the first executive experience either of them had, and look at how it reflects upon them. Hillary surrounded herself with a fratricidal eunuch chorus, and I don't see how that would change if she were to become president. Let's not even get to her finances, because our country's budget deserves somebody that hasn't reneged on health insurance payments.

If the Dems wanted experience, why was no one voting for Dodd way back when?

If calling Hillary's experience in the White House qualifies because shes a first lady, Im buying all the Yoko Ono records because shes qualified to be part of the Beatles

Because Hillary usurped that from him. If I publicly proclaim that I am extremely good at sex, after time the low-information voters would sleep with me, shunning the men that are, in fact, much better at having sex.

And I will add, would anyone buy that argument from Laura Bush.

Sure, I think Hillary was a lot more involved then Laura Bush, but being married to the President is not the same thing as being President.

Wouldn't Gore have been an obvious choice in 2000, he was VP and Bush was a just a Gov.

So experience is a relative term, its not like your President with a team of advisors, and no President came in with all the experience you'd actually want in a perfect world.