The Math doesn't favor Hillary

[Nylo]

In the aftermath of Super Tuesday 2, I started adding up numbers of delegates left to see what these powerful wins in Texas, Ohio, and Rode Island could mean for the Obama campaign, of which I make no secret I'm a staunch supporter of. To my surprise, I found out that mathematically, Hillary could continue to win eight straight victories and still come up a far cry short of taking the lead. How the hell?

I scoped out online sources with intense curiosity, and found out that the assholes at Newsweek and Slate were WAY ahead of me; and they actually did their math right, to boot.

NEWSWEEK runs out a hypothetical scenario: She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months. So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

SLATE reports: Clinton needs an average margin of victory of 16 points in every remaining primary to tie Obama's pledged delegate total. According to our delegate calculator, two 10-point wins in Ohio and Texas would inflate her margin-of-victory target to 20 points, which will be a hard margin to achieve once Obama visits Pennsylvania and North Carolina (the two richest states remaining, delegate-wise).

Is a Hillary nomination impossible? No, but if she starts hitting numbers below an average of 16 points, it gets exceedingly improbable.

[Nylo]

At 3/5/08 08:10 AM, KemCab wrote: Funny, Hillary won in Ohio and Texas.

Did you even attempt rubbing two brain cells together to see if something comparable to the function of reading happened?

Hillary can win 16 victories straight and still come up short on Obama.

[homor]

...im sorry?

[morefngdbs]

I read in this mornings paper that the person who has won in Ohio has gone on to be the Presidential nominee in every case in recent History.
The quote was " You know what they say, as Ohio goes , so goes the nation. "
Hillary has won in Ohio
John McCain has won in Ohio

Doesn't mean which Party will win the Presidency, & what has happened befor can be different... but we'll see won't we.

[JayBirdSlim]

It's a tight race in the Democratic party most certainly. The Super delegates will be deciding once they cast their final vote...

[evilXbanana]

Hillary has bought a large number of super delegates. A win for the vag isn't out of the question.

Also for the record Hillary won texas thanks to retards in the desert and Mexicans who think she is going to treat them like Bill did.

[JayBirdSlim]

Yeah the whole Super Delegate thing in the Dem Primary irks me to no end. Posted a littlre more about is in the Electoral thread but this is a good scenario to see how well the "super" delegates work or not.

[Nylo]

At 3/5/08 10:48 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I read in this mornings paper that the person who has won in Ohio has gone on to be the Presidential nominee in every case in recent History.
The quote was " You know what they say, as Ohio goes , so goes the nation. "
Hillary has won in Ohio
John McCain has won in Ohio

Doesn't mean which Party will win the Presidency, & what has happened befor can be different... but we'll see won't we.

Absolutely. That saying is what really shook me. I have no doubt that if anyone can pull it off, the Clinton machine can.

The most unnevering thing about John McCain settling in as the Republican nominee is that they've begun to cross over and vote for Hillary in hopes to bring the anvil down on Obama's momentum, because they fear him over a ticket with Clinton in the lead.

[Ravariel]

At 3/5/08 02:56 PM, Nylo wrote: The most unnevering thing about John McCain settling in as the Republican nominee is that they've begun to cross over and vote for Hillary in hopes to bring the anvil down on Obama's momentum, because they fear him over a ticket with Clinton in the lead.

Wow, that's retarded. They should VERY much want to run against Hillary. An Obama campaign can pull the very base upon which McCain will be counting; the independent/moderate vote. If they want to try to get an Obama nomination, they're welcome to... it'll make our job easier.

Of course, the situation in Michigan and Florida may make the whole point moot... since if we don't get some say in the nomination, it's likely we'll go for McCain because of the DNC's decisions to disenfranchise the dems here.

[Sistine1408]

All I gotta say is praise the fuckin' lord.

[Nylo]

At 3/5/08 03:32 PM, Sistine1408 wrote: All I gotta say is praise the fuckin' lord.

Totally off topic, but I read that with a crystal-clear thought of someone saying that in church after an applause died down and it sent me rolling with laughter.

[Al6200]

At 3/5/08 10:48 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I read in this mornings paper that the person who has won in Ohio has gone on to be the Presidential nominee in every case in recent History.
The quote was " You know what they say, as Ohio goes , so goes the nation. "
Hillary has won in Ohio
John McCain has won in Ohio

Doesn't mean which Party will win the Presidency, & what has happened befor can be different... but we'll see won't we.

That's horrible logic. The only reason why Ohio tends to go with the nominee is because they have a nominating contest that is NEAR THE END of the end of the primaries. Usually, by the point of March, the nomination has already been decided. It happened for the Republicans, it happened last year, guess what, it happens pretty much every year...

[Nylo]

At 3/5/08 04:21 PM, Al6200 wrote: That's horrible logic. The only reason why Ohio tends to go with the nominee is because they have a nominating contest that is NEAR THE END of the end of the primaries.

So does Texas, Vermont, and Rode Island, though.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you. This turn of events just seems to raise the bar of not being able to rely much on the past to predict the future this time around. Hence, my use of math to gain some clarity.

[ForcedDj]

I did all 60% Clinton, 40% Obama, and still, Clinton would still be in last place in delegates. I checked, seems like if Clinton wins 5 states with 63% or more, she gets ahead in the race. However, if she wins every state with 62%, she will be in the lead as well.

[TheMason]

At 3/5/08 03:03 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 3/5/08 02:56 PM, Nylo wrote: The most unnevering thing about John McCain settling in as the Republican nominee is that they've begun to cross over and vote for Hillary in hopes to bring the anvil down on Obama's momentum, because they fear him over a ticket with Clinton in the lead.

Wow, that's retarded. They should VERY much want to run against Hillary. An Obama campaign can pull the very base upon which McCain will be counting; the independent/moderate vote. If they want to try to get an Obama nomination, they're welcome to... it'll make our job easier.

Isn't that what Nylo is saying? He's saying things like: "...hopes to bring the anvil down on Obama's momentum..." and "...fear him over a ticket with Clinton...". They're voting for Hillary so that 1) Hillary is the preferred opposition candidate and 2) if Obama wins, a long protracted primary campaign wears down Obama's financial resources.

Furthermore, when they debate (Clinton & Obama) they talk about how close on issues they are. This makes it easy (and cheaper) for McCain to snipe at the BOTH at the same time.

Of course, the situation in Michigan and Florida may make the whole point moot... since if we don't get some say in the nomination, it's likely we'll go for McCain because of the DNC's decisions to disenfranchise the dems here.

You know, sometimes it seems like the Democrats are striving to blow presidential elections with the amatuer mistakes they make.

[Al6200]

At 3/5/08 05:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

You know, sometimes it seems like the Democrats are striving to blow presidential elections with the :amatuer mistakes they make.

I've noticed this too. Like in 2004. How did they manage to blow that one?

[Musician]

Wow. I knew Hillary was behind, but I never realized just how badly she was lagging. It seems pretty clear to me now that the chances of her winning the nomination are pretty much shot. Now it's just a debate of whether or not she'll get the vice presidential ticket.

Interesting read Nylo. Good work.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 3/5/08 02:56 PM, Nylo wrote: The most unnevering thing about John McCain settling in as the Republican nominee is that they've begun to cross over and vote for Hillary in hopes to bring the anvil down on Obama's momentum, because they fear him over a ticket with Clinton in the lead.

Actually the hope is to get her to stay in the race as long as possible. To get the attacks going back and forth and for both candidates to be throwing money at eachother while the republicans stay on page 2 and slowly and quietly bring in contributions for the campaign against whatever democrat wins. We want them to fight, we want hillary to fight to have michigan and florida seated, we want them to pay to have re elections in both states. And most of all we want obama to get the popular vote only to have it stolen by super delegates and given to hillary. Simply we see the bull headed nature of clinton and we're more than happy to let her destroy the democrats before the republicans run their first presidential ads.
It's funny to watch it happen and serves democrats right for crossing over and leaving us McCain for a candidate.

[ForcedDj]

At 3/6/08 12:29 AM, Musician wrote: Wow. I knew Hillary was behind, but I never realized just how badly she was lagging. It seems pretty clear to me now that the chances of her winning the nomination are pretty much shot. Now it's just a debate of whether or not she'll get the vice presidential ticket.

Interesting read Nylo. Good work.

Thats if Obama wants Clinton to be the VP. Most likely, the dream ticket is shot, killed, and raped. I mean, Clinton wants to be president and so does Obama. Maybe Clinton just wants her husband to be VP then she can be VP until the next election, in which she does it again(dunno if that can happen). If she tries that, and the Supreme Court/Congress say No because B. Clinton was president twice already, I will laugh.

[TheMason]

At 3/5/08 06:40 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 3/5/08 05:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

You know, sometimes it seems like the Democrats are striving to blow presidential elections with the :amatuer mistakes they make.

I've noticed this too. Like in 2004. How did they manage to blow that one?

I heard the Democratic party is looking to buy the Buffalo Bills football team but their going to change their name to the Buffalo Bille (read: Billy) or: Boy I Love Loosing Elections!

(In the early 1990s the Bills had a streak of making it to the Superbowl only to loose each time so the joke was: What does Bills stand for? Boy I Love Loosing Superbowls!)

[TheMason]

At 3/6/08 04:32 PM, ForcedDj wrote:

At 3/6/08 12:29 AM, Musician wrote:

Maybe Clinton just wants her husband to be VP then she can be VP until the next election, in which she does it again(dunno if that can happen). If she tries that, and the Supreme Court/Congress say No because B. Clinton was president twice already...

Not possible at all. The most any person can be President is 10 years. Say Clinton would have been (speaking hypothetically) removed from office when he was impeached. Gore would've become President. Now Clinton had less than two years left in his term. Gore could have run two more times. However if Clinton would have been been removed and anymore than two years had been left in his term then Gore could have only ran once.

[n64kid]

At 3/6/08 07:18 PM, TheMason wrote:

Not possible at all. The most any person can be President is 10 years. Say Clinton would have been (speaking hypothetically) removed from office when he was impeached. Gore would've become President. Now Clinton had less than two years left in his term. Gore could have run two more times. However if Clinton would have been been removed and anymore than two years had been left in his term then Gore could have only ran once.

What if Bill was the VP, there were two years left for Hill-dawg, and she left office due to an embarrassing scandal where she cheats on Bill? He wouldn't be elected, but could he take over? Or would the speaker of the house (lol pelosi president) then take over?

[n64kid]

At 3/6/08 10:55 PM, n64kid wrote:

stuff

Same situation, but there being more than 2 years left on the term, could Bill take over or not?

[TheMason]

At 3/6/08 10:56 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/6/08 10:55 PM, n64kid wrote:

stuff

Same situation, but there being more than 2 years left on the term, could Bill take over or not?

I would say no it's not possible. Theoretically a president who has served his two eight year terms could run as VP. However what I see happening is the following:

1) Not even the Democrats [j/k :P ] would be so foolish to tempt such a constitutional crisis. What if the President died shortly after taking the oath of office (which as happened before). The best case would be that Bill would serve for two years and then his VP (who would never have been elected to that position; ie: Gerald Ford) would take over. Worst case SCOTUS would rule that because Clinton could not fill out that term, he could not serve as president and then an unelected VP would take over.

2) There would be a legal challenge before SCOTUS that would drain some of the campaign and party's warchest. This would probably hobble the campaign so much that they would loose the general election.

3) The party would not allow it.

4) The electorate would see it as undemocratic and so they would loose the general election.

All and all, if it looks like the presumptive Democratic nominee is going to win at the time of the convention I can see them pulling out this play to ensure a crushing defeat in November!