To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Clinton's only hope lies in the popular vote--a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee (wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular-vote margins.

Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Clinton to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does 5 points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of Slate's Delegate Calculator, I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Clinton's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one--Pennsylvania--and it's a Clinton blowout: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Clinton 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Clinton wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Clinton pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?


We know that Clinton is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national-security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former senator Sam Nunn or retired general Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

Hillary will still come up short on delegates even if she wins every state from here on out. They will all have to wheel and deal with each other.

Hillary might consider sharing the ticket.
As another website put on their headlines today:

Who gets to be on top? Hillary or Obama?

I think his loss in Ohio could be directily attributable to the Canadian/NAFTA BS. Turns out the main Canadian TV network, CBC, is reporting today that the entire story is wrong.:

-The Canadians contacted the Obama and Clinton campaigns, not the other way around. They urgently asked for meetings with representatives of both campaigns.

-The memo got the facts all wrong. Obama's economic advisor merely repeated what they'd both said in the Ohio Presidential Debate. The staffer who wrote the memo admits he got it all wrong.

-There was perhaps an overt effort by the conservative Canadian administration to spread this rumor and help McCain, who they see as far less likely to tweak with NAFTA.

AU

Got a few things to do now but did watch your video. Obama should have answered sooner. Be sure and read my last comment, though.

read this in another article:

Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the memo's introduction said.

"On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

One more comment --

If I WERE RUNNING OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN -- I would turn this story totally around and use it in Obama's favor and word it as follows:

Fellow Americans:

The Canadians -- who want NAFTA, the NAU, and the Bush free trade policies -- had decided that out of the three candidates running for President, Obama was their biggest threat and they wanted to damage his campaign. Notice that the Canadians did NOT think Hillary or McCain were a threat to globalism/corporatism because the Canadians KNEW that a vote for either of them would be a continuation of the disasterous free trade policies of the Bush globlists. So, therefore, this NAFTA episode fabricated by the Canadian government is all the PROOF you need that if you want more U.S. job losses and more of the same economic disaster from outsourcing vote for either McCain or Hillary!

If you want Americans and American jobs to be protected in future treaties and U.S. jobs to stay in the U.S. -- VOTE OBAMA!

(AU - pretty good, huh? hahahaha)

CHRIS

Pretty darn good for sure!!

:-)

As much as Obama is against negative campaigning, I've read his campaign staff have already decided, as a result of the smears from the Clinton camp (including their use of the NAFTA/Canada rumor despite the fact they had been contacted as well) to start examining Hillary's claims of 'experience', her record, etc. into public scrutiny.

This campaign is good for Obama, who's a nice guy who plays by the rules. But, it's not good if a long fight ends up giving McCain the WH - when it's a no brainer his odds of winning a third Bush term are not so good. History and age are not on his side. The only way he'll win is if Hillary energizes the conservative base while independents and those wanting change flock to McCain.

Luckily, there will be 5 weeks after next Tuesday's primary the campaign press pool will have a lot of time on their hands to scrutinize all the remaining candidates in great depth, put a lot of the bunk to rest, and bring the facts about them to light.

If Hillary thinks she's been 'vetted' I say we'll see......

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

* * * *

It seems that math isn't only hard for Clinton, but for Jonathan Alter, the author of the piece. If Hillary picks up another 10, isn't it 10 down, 124 to go?

This helps to explain why nobody even knows how many delegates--pledged or otherwise--each candidate has. Even basic arithmetic is beyond the Dems. I'm just a dumb guy who watches TV, yet I knew that this primary election was breaking all kinds of records in terms of interest. So why didn't election officials in Ohio print off a few extra ballots?

That's what I would've done. Toss Florida and Michigan and the convoluted caucus system into the mix, and there's little reason to trust the government to these people.

That's what I would've done. Toss Florida and Michigan and the convoluted caucus system into the mix, and there's little reason to trust the government to these people.


For the most part I agree. Except for healthcare. I think these people would excel at managing and controlling the entire US healthcare system.

I think these people would excel at managing and controlling the entire US healthcare system.
Posted by JeffJ

Until you address the immigration issue, how can you even think about providing the entire country Health Care? Nothing more than campaign rhetoric, without thinking the issue through. Kinda like both Clinton and Obama's Iraq policies.

Wis,


My comment that you re-printed was intended as sarcasm.

My comment that you re-printed was intended as sarcasm.

Posted by JeffJ

Thank goodness. You were beginning to scare me! :)

You were beginning to scare me!

Well, given that you didn't recognize my comment as sarcasm, I'd be scared if you weren't scared! ;-)

"If Hillary thinks she's been 'vetted' I say we'll see......
Posted by AMERICANUNITY"

She's sure having a hell of a time locating those tax returns. Maybe Bill ate them.

As for the Clinton Library donor list, that's the one the leprechauns buried at the end of the rainbow with their pot of gold.


"You were beginning to scare me! :)
Posted by wisgod"

He's been scaring me for ages! [Insert a smiley face :>) ]

For the most part I agree. Except for healthcare. I think these people would excel at managing and controlling the entire US healthcare system.

Posted by JeffJ
* * *

I thought you had Raoul pegged to run healthcare.

That's fine. It's obvious how many Obama and Hillary staffers, not to mention journalists, proofreaders, and magazine editors, are products of our state education systems. If you can find a bigger incompetent in our hemisphere, the Obama campaign will be in contact with him for the healthcare department.

Overheard at Newsweek, in the vicinity of Jonathan Alter's cubbyhole: "Hmmm . . . 134 minus 10 . . . carry the 7 . . . do I? . . . yes, I need to . . . 134 to go!! That was easy!! Now we need to write a big article on why Boeing should have won the big $40 billion tanker contract! Should win the Pulitzer Prize--I'll just bedazzle the Newsweek readers with my stunning command of aeronautical engineering, calculus, and budget appropriations!"

For the most part I agree. Except for healthcare. I think these people would excel at managing and controlling the entire US healthcare system.

Posted by JeffJ
* * *

I thought you had Raoul pegged to run healthcare.


I seriously hope you recognize my comment was in jest.

She's sure having a hell of a time locating those tax returns.
Posted by Doc_Sarvis

You would think they'd be filed 2 folders behind "Rose Law Firm Confidential Records".

btw, the Clintons have tax returns on public record for the last 20+ years. As a Sen she is required to file public disclosure every year.

Obama has no inkling there is anything wrong with her returns, this is just old fashioned fishing trip politics from the "new politics" crowd.

I seriously hope you recognize my comment was in jest.

Posted by JeffJ
* * * *

I did, of course. But your cabinet seats are filling up. My only problem with Raoul is that there are easily enough Democrats in their senior leadership to populate a disorganized and moronic administration. That is one thing the Dems won't be needing to outsource to Latin America: incompetence.

So do I start calling you WisCork or CorkGod?

So do I start calling you WisCork or CorkGod?

Posted by Jomama

How about you do everyone a favor, and STFU.

"How about you do everyone a favor, and STFU.

Posted by wisgod at 2008-03-06 02:23 PM"

...she says with a tear in her eye.

Hey EVERYONE - Should I do you a favor??

Poor PISSCHRIST, first Brett Favre, now this.

Monte, the only tear in my eye is from watching you defend the dumb fuck.

"As a Sen she is required to file public disclosure every year."

You don't really know very much about the annual Senate financial disclosure reports or the Ethics in Government Act, do you? Or are you just implying that somehow her tax returns are part of her annual "disclosures"?

Not to worry. You're not alone. It appears that Hillary Clinton doesn't think the Ethics in Government Act applies to her, anyway.

"the only tear in my eye is from watching you defend the dumb fuck."

And yet, you are so wise. Why get all worked up over me, Pissy? After all I'm only 12.

Is that why they are trying not to post her tax returns then Doc? That actually makes sense. At least they aren't pulling a Kerry, they actually do have something to hide.

You have to wonder, BigJohn. If there's nothing gnarly in those returns, why not release them? My guess is they require "explanation," and when Hillary was questioned by Russert she didn't want to get bogged down in that since it might have delayed her victory lap. Now, the victory lap very likely gone but having made that statement, she's stuck with it and hasn't got the good sense to do a paper dump and be done with it. Either she's got some problems with the return or she's so damn stubborn and filled with self-righteousness that she's unfit to be President.

DOC

The last tax returns she released under protest contained that 10,000% return on the cattle investment with a contributor (for starters). She's got some 'splainin' to do that she doesn't want to do.

RightisRight,
The math isn't partisan. What part of the math do you really not understand. Maybe this will help you. If Hillary picks up 10. And Obama picks up 11.

Hillary did not gain 10. She lost 1. ok, it's the net brother. Guess you never ran a business.

It's the Bush school of math. The net doesn't matter, just spend, spend, spend.

Obama also got a net 8 delegates in CA when they released the official results this week.