Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Slate's HRC Deathwatch - Down to 4.2% to win the nom.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Yukari Yakumo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 05:44 AM
Original message
Slate's HRC Deathwatch - Down to 4.2% to win the nom.
http://www.slate.com/id/2190778

Obama comes up big in North Carolina, and Clinton merely ekes out a win (as of 11 p.m. ET) in Indiana, the combination of which all but ends Clinton's shot at the nomination. Her chances drop 8.4 points to 4.2 percent.

For the past few weeks, Hillary Clinton's candidacy has rested on two possibilities: 1) winning the popular vote and 2) convincing superdelegates that Obama cannot win certain types of voters. (The delegate count is out of reach; she would need at least 70 percent of the remaining delegates to surpass Obama.) Today, Obama exploded both arguments.

The numbers are still trickling in, but it's pretty clear Obama's large win in North Carolina gets him a lot more votes than Clinton's small win in Indiana. If his final North Carolina margin is as high as 14 percent (it's at 15 with 90 percent of precincts reporting), Obama would essentially erase Clinton's popular-vote gains in Pennsylvania. (She netted 215,000 votes in that primary. If 1.5 million people turned out in North Carolina—which looks about right—a 14-point win would net Obama 210,000 votes.) Clinton could still tighten Obama's popular-vote lead by counting votes in Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot, and Florida. But at this point, she doesn't appear able to close the gap. Some superdelegates say they're waiting to see who wins the popular vote. With that metric out of reach, Clinton loses her strongest case to supers.

Her other argument—that Obama is a flawed candidate who can't win white, working-class Democrats—also loses its punch with tonight's returns. The last few weeks have been the roughest of Obama's candidacy, with the Return of Wright, the "cling" thing, and questions about his patriotism. None of that appears to have severely damaged him today. Meanwhile, Indiana is only 8.9 percent African-American. To an extent, demography is still destiny, as it has been in previous contests: Clinton won 60 percent of whites, and Obama won 92 percent of blacks. But Clinton by no means owned lower-income voters—in fact, Obama won the poorest group of voters. Superdelegates may have been concerned that Obama would be abandoned in states like Indiana in the general election—even though there's no evident relationship between winning states in the primaries and winning them in the general. This vote should put that concern to bed.

So, right now her shot at the nomination rests on one thing: Obama messing up big time. Barring this possibility—which certainly is a possibility, but it's out of Clinton's control—she has no arguments left. She may have the most experience; she may still be the best fighter for the middle class; she may be the stronger general election candidate against John McCain. But that's not enough to persuade superdelegates to vote against the candidate who won the pledged-delegate count and the popular vote.

In her speech tonight, Clinton pledged to stay in the race. The question is, why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. why? simple answer: $$$$
she loaned her campaign 10 mill before, and another 7.5 mill last week. She wants her money back. and there STILL are some iowa vendors who remain unpaid.

Oh, that 10 mill she raised after Pennsylvania? it never happened. But the MSM kinda, sorta, maybe, got distracted or forgot to tell us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flor de jasmim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. where did you get the financial figures? I haven't seen anything posted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. I was listening to the radio, leaving a
Drinking Liberally meet-up, when they had a Clinton person, I think Wolfson, refusing to admit or deny a second, perhaps a third loan to herself. The talking head made two points, given the rate of money her campaign was burning through, the ads (now cash up front as companies smell her financial difficulties) she took out in NC and IN, and the lower rate of donations, the best estimate was 7.5 million that was being spent, but that had not come in from outside sources - ergo a loan. The second point was that the 10 million pump after PA never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. i was wrong. it was 6.4 million, not 7.5.
so admits howie wolfson. and she may lend herself more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InAbLuEsTaTe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Simpler answer: 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. The question is, why? Limbaugh and Operation Chaos demand her to stay in. .....
heard she has a crush on Limbaugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Champion Jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. hmmm, I heard Limbaugh has a crush on little boys
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-07-08 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. as fat as he is, that may be true.
Oh, not that kind of crush.

sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC