Do you Hillary supporters do math at all?

[snooper2]

I seriously do not understand the reasoning on Hillary ( you GO GIRL ) ( We are in IT IT TO WIN IT ) and her supporters...


There are 10 contests left, If Hillary won all of those by a 10point spread (for those that don't do math, that would be 55% Hillary/45%Obama in all remaining races)

Here are the numbers at that point:

Hillary 1,800 delegates-
Obama 1,881 delegates-

So, EVEN IF she wins all remaning contests by 10 points, she only cuts his delegate lead in half...

Okay, now for the supers....to get to the magic number...

Obama would need 43% of the supers to get to 2025 DING DING DING DING WINNER!
Hillary getting 57% of the supers, would still leave her at 1992 total (1992, maybe that's a fitting number :evilgrin: )


So, do you folks just not do math, or is the la la la la I don't hear you too overpowering?

[GarbagemanLB]

1. Hillary supporters are delusional. They think the SDs will overturn the pledged delegate winner.

[snooper2]

3. I would just like ONE of them..

to post some real numbers and how they think this will play out to put her over the top...

[oasis]

43. The magic number is "one".

All it will take is just one more Obama public relations disaster. The media created him and the media will take him down.

Easy come, easy go.

[snooper2]

48. That was cute...

So, besides the one sniper bullet missing this thread,

Show me the delegate count, how does she pull this off? 15points in every state?

Come on, you can do it... www.cnn.com

[oasis]

52. Here's the math once again, since you pretend not to get it.

"One" more screw up by Obama will force "dozens" of delegates to change their votes.

BTW,Hillary has benefited from a first class education, she knows what her numbers are and she's staying in.

[dchill]

60. "The media created him..."

Yeah, that's right. He's nothing but image and platitudes. Heard it all before. What does it take to create a "real" candidate? Somehow that happens without the media coverage that all candidates get? Maybe you're right - if I'd never seen or heard anything about Hillary Clinton, I'd be more apt to vote for her than I am.

Edit to add: Who's ahead right now in "public relations disasters?" Who is more likely to fall or jump into another?

[oasis]

73. Correction: The media AND the mob created Obama.(eom)

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. And Hillary would be more than happy to help create such a disaster

I suspect she dreams about this at night.

[oasis]

72. Maybe. Obama better look out for Hillary's three point shot at the buzzer.

;-)

[TheWraith]

4. And they conveniently ignore the fact that her own SDs are telling her "No" on that.

As well as Pelosi, Dean, and the rest of the high-level Dems.

[2rth2pwr]

2. If it's over why do you care? Why do all of his supporters care?

If it is over why is Obama still fighting her? If it is over why is the media following the story?

[snooper2]

6. Numbers please...

Can you do the math and show me how she gets to 2024, or are you just in la la la land

[joeglow3]

24. I take it that means you refuse to answer the question? nt

[snooper2]

here you go..

Why is Obama still "fighting" her...well, he's going to be running as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, so he will be "campaigning" till November. She's become a side show at this point.

Why is the media "reporting", because all they do is "side shows"


NOW, NUMBERS PLEASE!

[DarienComp]

7. We're still fighting just to piss you off, 2rth2pwr.

It's all an elaborate conspiracy to get your goat.

[TheWraith]

8. Obama's fighting McCain. And the media likes the story because they like the horserace.

It's too early for them to start talking about polls and states in the general election.

Please tell: how do you see her claiming the nomination? Provide numbers.

[joeglow3]

25. The very reason the Superdelegates were created

was if some candidate ended up being totally electable. I don't see anything like that coming up to derail Obama's campaign. However, since she has already come this far, she should stick around just in case that one in a million chance happens.

[TheWraith]

68. And continue trying to kneecap our nominee in the process? No good. nt

[PetraPooh]

42. You ask why? If I answer you, will you listen?

The answer is simple, she has become an embarrassment. Her tactics are entirely Rovian making it likely that the difference between herself and McCain will be nearly nullified, she has shown a complete disregard for her party and anyone in the party that doesn't side with her, she is proving herself to be a sorry and spiteful loser and I think one can tell more about a person by how they handle losing than how they handle winning, she has proven a lack of good judgement through voting for the Iraq War on the recommendation of Condi Rice rather than her own reading and through the hiring of Mark Penn, she has shown that she NEEDS Bill to become the presidential hopeful even though she claims she is running on her own merits, she has shown a complete lack of self-esteem through her constant need to exaggerate her stories till they become out and out lies, she is beholden to big corps big pharmas and big insurance to name a few, she doesn't pay her bills, she claims to be out of money but has $109M in order to pay those bills, she has a husband who has WAY more clout than she would ever hope to have working against her supposed objectives. . . ; I can't find a trustworthy thing about her, I can't find a calm secure thing about her, I cannot find one respectable aspect to her personality.

As I said, she is an embarrassment. . . to herself, to the Democratic Party, and if she were to get to the white house, she would be nearly as big an embarrassment to the country as Bush has been or McCain would be.

[burythehatchet]

76. Great post. But the answer to your question is "no", they will not listen

[K Gardner]

5. Reading comprehension and math, evidently not strong suits over there.

[rinsd]

23. self delete

[Shae]

9. Unfortunately ...

words and speeches aren't their thing either.

:evilgrin:

[XemaSab]

13. Not to mention

winning elections or delegates. :hide:

[YOY]

10. They sincerely hope to keep digging up everything they have on Obama until something sticks

They have nothing. He even turned the whole Wright thing around and used it to his benefit. If anything the FReeps are now collectively fingering their bungholes and pondering what happened to their "he must be a Muslim" swiftboat tactic that they planned on digging out at the last moment.

It's not about the math. It's about mudslinging...in a party (or perhaps a country) of folks who are sick of mudslinging politicians and want a real leader and not the person who says/does what gets hem the most votes. A real leader that can convince you that his way is better instead of picking their stance on what gets the most votes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. To put this simply

If Hillary won all ten remaining contests by a ten point spread and the Super Delegates allowed him to become the Democratic nominee anyway, they should be forced out of any positions of responsibility in the Democratic Party. Beyind that it is only a matter of judging degree. If Clinton only edged out Obama from here on out, not to even mention OBama beating her, Obama will be our nominee. I am under no illusions about that. But if Clinton is relatively surging and Obama is relatively collapsing over the final contests (and it would not take the type of scenario you described to indicate that) we would be in different ball game.

[cali]

16. I agree with that

It would be irresponsible of the SDs to do such a thing.

[TahitiNut]

27. Quite frankly, as an independent liberal myself, I can't comprehend how folks ....

... could be so obsessively partisan that they'd subordinate themselves to politicians who'd conceivably preempt the very electorate to whom they owed their office and whom they're duty-bound to represent. Such a violation of the principles of a representative democracy, to me, is abhorrent even in contemplation.

[2rth2pwr]

37. I agree Kerry , Kennedy and Richardson should be ashamed.

[TahitiNut]

39. I think you've been sniffing too many banana slugs.

:shrug: :eyes:

[snooper2]

30. So all those states who have voted already..

They don't count?

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I can tell that you didn't read my thread.

Actually I support a fascist dictatorship. You no doubt will find that written somewhere between the lines in one of the paragraphs in it.

[snooper2]

38. I just want numbers...

Show me where you think she needs to win ( USING NUMBERS ) for the supers to decide it for Hillary.

I'll help... www.cnn.com has a handy tool you can use

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Again, it is a red herring to start with an assumption she needs a majority of pledged delegates

to legitimately win the nomination. Hillary Clinton would need to close very strong to become our nominee, and Obama would need to show unexpected and disturbing weakness under the circumstances. Put another way, if Clinton dramatically outperforms while also winning most of the remaining contests, while Obama dramatically underperformed while also losing most of the remaining contests, the case for him to be our nominee weakens substantially.

But here is a specific for you. I think Clinton has to win the States where she is favored, like PA and Kentucky. She also has to win the more or less toss up contests, such as Indianna. AND she needs to win at least one state where Obama was expected to clearly defeat her, such as NC or Oregon. It is a difficult feat for Clinton to pull off I agree, but it remains doable.

And on top of that most National opinion polls would need to swing strongly in Clinton's favor by sometime in June, showing her both the favorite of most Demorcrats and the Democrat most likely to defeat McCain. That can not be discounted for not being plausible based on current political realities however. Should Clinton dominate the final stages of this contest starting with PA, and should she out perform Obama in the final debates, that can shift public perceptions in ways that can't be appreciated when viewed from our current political vantage point.

[dchill]

66. I'm not going to buy "relatively surging"...

I don't think the supers will, either. And anything that can be described as "Obama ... relatively collapsing" will be artificially generated. I think you know what I mean by that.

[depakid]

12. I wonder the same about some Obama supporters

because he, too won't win without superdelegates.

A candidate need 2025. That's the number.

So who here is really "math challenged?"

These posts remind me of the Hillary inevitability threads from last fall- shallow efforts at bullying- and equally as vacuous.

[GarbagemanLB]

18. If you cannot see a major difference in SDs pushing a candidate over the edge rather than OVERTURN

ING the pledged delegate winner, then I feel sorry for you.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. I reject your fallacious and revisionist argument

It is political spin at its finest, or worst depending on how you look at it. Here, I have a thread all ready for you that explains why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5439012

[GarbagemanLB]

33. You would have a point if all the elections were primaries. They were not. Hence, 'popular vote' is

bullshit. Pledged delegates are all that matters, and you are fooling yourself if you think the SDs will go against the winner of that category. You want a guaranteed loss in November? Take this to the convention and have Hillary win by a small majority that involved the SDs voting against the winner of the pledged delegates. That will ensure a dramatic decrease in the black and youth vote (which by all counts seems to be at record levels just by voting numbers in the primaries alone).

FL and MI do not count because there was no competition in either one. Their delegates will be seated AFTER the SDs have come out and chosen a nominee, as Dean has said before.

Again, it is over for Hillary, no one near her has the balls (sorry for the sexist comment!) to say it to her.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. I find your summary of what I wrote inaccurate

The popular vote is no more or less an official way of establishing "the popular will" than a pledged delegate lead. Look, I wrote a very long OP on this already, longer than most want to wade through I am sure, so I'm not about to repost all of my points onto this thread. If people want to discuss this I left a link.

But the most basic counter to your premise is obvious. Winning a majority of all of the certified delegates is all that matters. You are using a system for your argument that we have clear evidence does not validate the popular will in awarding delegates. There have been several contests where both caucuses and primaries were held, and caucuses consistently returned greater margins of victory for Obama, if not overturning a Clinton victory, than did the primaries even though more people particiapated in the primaries than the caucuses held in the exact same states.

None the less I accept the role of caucuses as established under DNC rules and supervision. The DNC also established Super Delegates, and it is within their agreed upon role for SD's to consider a wide range of factors in a very close contest, including their appraisal, should they be so inclined, of the relative roles of primaries and caucuses, along with their read on the support each candidate has in the two states for which delagates may not be allotted; Florida and Michigan.

[depakid]

32. Well, I can easily see the superdelegates not wanting to lose in the fall

and deadlocking the convention. I wouldn't put even odds on it, but depending on how things are don the line- it would be the responsible thing to do. AND it's been done in the past.

Frankly, I think the people who deserve pity are those who cannot step outside their "candidate aura" and realize that marching down the primrose path to defeat in November will be an unparalleled disaster.

My guess is that a LOT of superdelegates aren't sold on Obama, and they have good reasons. There's nothing in the rules that says they have to vote for whoever has the lead.

Indeed, the very reason they were put in place was to prevent a a GE disaster. If they see that coming, then it's their responsibility to take steps to stop the Republicans from keeping the executive.

Whether they will do that or whether they'll act like Congress has these past 8 years, remains to be seen.

[GarbagemanLB]

35. A contested convention will guarantee a loss in November. The SDs will decide this in June for Obama

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. You are conflating two scenarios

One is a contested convention, the other is the support of enough SD's putting one candidate over the edge to victory, which could happen after the last primary but prior to the convention. You I think rightly expect the SD's to settle this in June, and right now Obama is the clear favoorite. But to use the most extreme pro Clinton scenario outlined in the OP just to make the point, were Clinton to sweep all the remaining contests by 10% or more she would be the one winning the majority of all the delegates needed well before the convention was held.

[depakid]

47. I don't buy that assertion

Even FDR wasn't chosen on the 1st ballot.

Among other things, a contested convention would be mean a ratings BOOM. Americans would actually pay attention- and the Dems would have a chance to draw distinctions about policies. And the far right always loses when the debate turns to policies that matter.

On the other hand, another snorefest (especially a Kerry Kumbaya convention) just plays right into the Republicans' hands.

[GarbagemanLB]

49. Yeah, let's keep both sides thinking they have a legitimate shot and then devastate one camp with 2

months before November. In those two months we will now have to not only face McCain but also work at shoring up hurt and angry Obama/Hillary supporters! Great idea!

No, this thing will not go to the convention, as that will only split the party further apart and give LESS time to heal the wounds before November.

[depakid]

53. Just goes to show that you haven't read much history....

The conventional "wisdom" we hear from today's pundits is shallow and often agenda driven. A compromise endorsed by both candidates may "hurt and anger" a few of the diehards (the same ones who'd march us all down a primrose path to defeat) but it would also bring in many, many more who'd otherwise vote Democratic, but don't care for either candidate over McCain.

[GarbagemanLB]

55. Ah, so instead of only pissing one side off, the DNC would piss BOTH sides off. Great logic! No, it

will be either Hillary or Obama as the nominee at the end, and from Cook's latest article, it appears Obama has a 95% chance of that nominee being him.

[MattBaggins]

64. Say this with me

Hillary has terrible negative ratings. Obama has a better chance in the GE than she does. The SDs will examine the GE chances and Hillary will not come out on top of that argument no matter what her supporters wish to believe.

[Tarc]

14. We deal in common sense, kiddo

Common sense looks at McCain's popularity surging when matched up against Obama, who has taken a well-deserved hit over his race-baiting church and pastor Wright.

At this point it'll take a minor miracle to edge him for the nomination, but I cross my fingers anyways, as he has a poor chance of winning in the Fall. Wright, Rezko, McClurkin, NAFTA-gate and the dissing of critical election states Michigan and Florida make him a weak candidate.

[MessiahRp]

20. Strange since most state by state polls I see

have Obama beating McCain by as much as 10 pts while Hillary is at best tied, at worst down 5-10 pts to McCain in most states.

Rp

[MattBaggins]

65. I'm going to go ahead

and call you less than truthful. There are so many polls flipping six ways to Sunday; it is impossible to garner any meaning from them at all. The only trend that is apparent is that Obama and Clinton are about even across the country with Obama perhaps a bit in the lead. You Clinton folks keep on spewing off about how Hillary is way ahead in the GE indicators. Keep repeating it and maybe you will actually start believing it.

[TexasObserver]

15. No, she can't do math, and neither can her supporters.

She always assumes that she can buy, bribe, extort, or knee cap enough delegates to get her way.

[ClayZ]

17. Donuts and Math

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMi5TUJDso&feature=related

K and R

[progressoid]

26. Ha!! I forgot about that one.

[rinsd]

21. self delete

[pnwmom]

22. Do "you" Obama supporters really think

you will help Obama's chances in the general election if you continue to insult and alienate Clinton's supporters?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. That goes both ways pnwmom

Some of the latte-sipping koolaid cultists from states that don't count might not be inclined to support Sen. Clinton if she miraculously pulls off the nomination.

[pnwmom]

69. I think it's more likely Obama will be the nominee, so his supporters

should be doing what they can to encourage her supporters to stay on board -- not to be trying to kick them overboard.

[KittyWampus]

44. at this point I don't give a shit. Hillary is emotionally sick for staying in and her supporters

are just enabling this sick behavior.

Obama is the presumptive nominee and Clinton is sucking up precious time and money that could be spent burying McCain.

If Clinton supporters don't realize that the Math precludes Clinton from EVER winning, then screw them.

[pnwmom]

70. You haven't been through enough election cycles, apparently.

Anything could happen between now and August -- those delegates could do anything. They are free agents.

I think the likelihood is that Obama will win. But his supporters are very short-sighted if they think they will gain by abusing HRC's people.

[gcomeau]

28. There are far better ways to make this argument...

...without explicitly insulting Clinton supporters. It is entirely possible to point out the mathematical near-impossibilities of a Clinton win without the derogatory comments.

This approach does not help anyone. While your facts and figures are right on the tone you adopt in presenting them only encourages people not to listen to you or pay any attention to them. You're sabotaging your own ability to effectively convey an argument. You might as well be actively chasing away anyone who might be interested in hearing you out and then complaining about nobody listening to you. And to make matters worse every post that tries to make this argument in this manner predisposes people to ignore anyone else making the same argument even when they aren't being rude and insulting about it. Here, let me take the liberty of serving as an editor:

Title: Do you Hillary supporters do math at all? Looking at the numbers.

I seriously do not understand the reasoning on Hillary ( you GO GIRL ) ( We are in IT IT TO WIN IT ) and her supporters...


There are 10 contests left, If Hillary won all of those by a 10point spread (for those that don't do math, that would be 55% Hillary/45%Obama in all remaining races)

Here are the numbers at that point:

Hillary 1,800 delegates-
Obama 1,881 delegates-

So, EVEN IF she wins all remaning contests by 10 points, she only cuts his delegate lead in half...

Okay, now for the supers....to get to the magic number...

Obama would need 43% of the supers to get to 2025 DING DING DING DING WINNER!
Hillary getting 57% of the supers, would still leave her at 1992 total (1992, maybe that's a fitting number :evilgrin: )


So, do you folks just not do math, or is the la la la la I don't hear you too overpowering? what is the reasoning behind asserting she still has a reasonable chance at winning?

There, is that really so hard?

[snooper2]

41. nope, not hard at all...

most of the hardcore Hillary supporters who only post in GD-P I'm sure can take the original OP

I'm not here to WOOO anybody to Obama's side....If they are for Hillary at this point, it's their own issue to deal with.

[Muttocracy]

51. so why did you praise Skinner's post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5447295#5447387
:shrug:

[snooper2]

62. Because, it was a good post?

And, made me laugh...

:toast:

[gcomeau]

59. Sorry, don't buy it.

If you're not here to woo anyone to Obama, and if it's their own issue to deal with if they still support Hillary, then your post addressed to them has absolutely no point whatsoever. You clearly think it's your issue to deal with as well since here you are, dealing with it.

So if you're going to do that, do it in a manner that doesn't cut your own efforts off at the knees and undermine the efforts of all the rest of us while you're at it? Perhaps?

[snooper2]

63. I'm actually just curious..

What numbers are going around in Hillary supporters heads that take her/them to a win...

If Obama was in this exact situation I would be trying to figure the exact math to get him there....

[Bigleaf]

29. Of course us Hillary supporters do math. We're just a little slower at getting to the bottom line

than you Obama supporters.




:sarcasm:

[Life Long Dem]

36. Awful hard to defend unethical behavior.

That's why there are never answers from her supporters.

[Alter Ego]

40. As much as I don't understand it myself, can we stop these threads?

It just feeds their culture of victimhood.

[PetraPooh]

54. Didn't you know, her base of elderly, white women weren't taught math in school.

It's not their fault really, this is much too complicated for them to understand with the educations they were given.

[slinkerwink]

56. they failed math in high school, I guess

[Rainbowreflect]

57. I voted for Obama and believe he will be our nominee,

but I do understand those who believe Clinton is a better choice and still want to support her. I supported Kucinich until he actually dropped out and I knew there was no chance in hell he would be our nominee.

[Scoobs]

58. They don't do math...or that much else for that matter.

[Ravy]

67. Naw, not overpowering. Just condecending and without a clue. nt

[bigwillq]

71. You all should be so very proud.

You know who you are.

The ones that had to resort to name-calling and other insults in this thread.

You guys are a classy bunch.

[Texas Hill Country]

74. you are acting as if his SD votes are permenant... if he looses 5 or 6 of the next 7...

you will see some serious defections.


They arent as worried about being "ispired", they are worried about 1. winning and 2. keeping their jobs.

[mmonk]

75. Math screws up the inevitability.