NEW YORK OBSERVER: So Much for Barack Obama's 'Lead'

There’s this curious notion being circulated that just because Barack Obama has won “more votes” and “more states” and has earned “more delegates” than Hillary Clinton, he has a more legitimate claim to the Democratic nomination than Hillary Clinton.

But these metrics, as the Clinton campaign reminded reporters this week, are not the only data that can be relied upon to determine which candidate will have earned the Democratic nomination.

For instance, Clinton is breathing down Obama’s neck when it comes to “primary delegates” – that is, delegates, assigned from states that don’t hold caucuses. Right now, she trails by just 16, a gap that could be erased if Clinton can score a decisive win in Pennsylvania’s primary. This is clearly a more meaningful number than the overall delegate count, since—as everyone knows—there are no caucuses in the general election.

“If we are ahead in primary delegates…that's a factor," noted Mark Penn, the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist.

Also, did you know that Clinton actually leads Obama in the category of “electoral votes represented by primary and caucus states won?” That’s right: If you add up all of Clinton’s primary and caucus victories, they account for states with an aggregate 218 electoral votes—a muscular 17-theoretical-electoral-vote advantage over Obama. And as Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign spokesman, pointed out: “Presidential elections are decided on electoral votes.”

SOURCE: http://www.observer.com/2008/so-much-barack-obamas-lead

I must throw all my toys out of my pram (and post obsessively on DU) because she is destroying us all by having the temerity to be an uppity female who believes she has a right to run for president.

Outrageous. She must be stopped at all costs. OMIGOD - she misspoke! Oh No - it is the end of the world! There she goes again. She's trying to win! It's unfair. I hate her now. She is so ugly. was she always so nasty. OMIGOD.look what she is doingnow! Speaking to the press. How dare she.
Look at what she is wearing today. Ewwww! What a nerve. She is a liar. She is evil. She is a republican. I am not going to play with her anymore. Let's all turn our backs her and show her what we really think of her.

That will show her who is boss of this eighth grade.

The big blue states that Hillary won will go for Obama too.

and in fact is a damning indictment that actually states that Hillary is not in the best position (although she may claim it) to win the GE afterall, but that Obama is.

That's why this article should not be used to bolster Clinton's claims, and in fact, to anyone who bothers to read the article posterwill find that the author is actually dripping sarcasm about Hillary's claims, and tearing each one down with a look at past primaries and eventual losers like Dukakis, who he likens to Hillary.

Ask around

CA,MA, and NY are very DEEP blue. Obama is still winning those three states.

Care to try your next "idea" in desperation of keeping Hillary in the primary race?

I predict that Hillary will have to suspend her campaign by April 14th for two reasons 1) SHe's deep in the red and 2) to avoid releasing her taxes.

Seriously, WTF? You think we're all stupid over here?

Hillary's lies has legs. You wouldn't know from MSM but I feel it.

Because he is winning.

now that the pundits are changing the dynamic. They are asking % of people OK with a women President.. and the numbers are something like 58%Y-23%N-9%(undecided) I just heard it on msnbc. If I can find a link, I'll post it here.

::yawn::

the invisible "star" trick!

:rofl:

But none of this has anything to do with the OP so blow smoke up your skirt as you desire.

(inclusive of their definitions..)

n/t

::pfffft::

would like everyone to believe. Also, if it was anyone other than Clinton, she'd be out by now. This is getting ridiculous. Result? Both Clintons are showing their true colors and are not gaining any respect doing so.

And maybe you're confused, but this is what we're in. :)

by not counting these votes or those votes.

Pathetic, Mr. Penn.

LOL!

Mark Penn doesn't count.

OMIGOD. This cannot be allowed.

Is it working yet?

Give me a break, the rules haven't changed unless you are a Clinton campaign strategist. This is a race about total delegates, period.

I can't stand her. She is despicable. And she dresses funny. She is destroying this country that I love so much (or not depending on the sermon of the day). She must be stopped at all costs. She is McCain. She is not even a democrat. She is demented. She is Hitler. Omigod don't let it be. Quick - pray some more.

It's a pretty good piece of snark. Money quote:

Unfortunately for Clinton, history shows that the person who loses rarely wins—even if that person hold delegate leads in crucial-sounding, made-up categories.

:rofl:

Yes, there's a curious notion that the person who is WINNING the primary process by ever measure that has been historically used to measure primary winners, according to the party rules, should actually in fact get the nomination.

That's a "curious notion" indeed. Almost as curious as pretending that pledged delegates don't matter, popular vote doesn't matter, most states won doesn't matter, most money raised doesn't matter and suggesting brand NEW rules that have NEVER governed the Democratic nomination process. Such as suggesting that caucuses, which have been around for ages without serious objection from anyone, are suddenly less important than primaries, by suggesting that the rules should be changed halfway through for Florida and Michigan, trying to challenge Texas rules midway, same in Nevada, and on and on and on.

SOURCE: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0326/p09s02-coop.htm

um ...

but are instead being swayed by the name. It's a very reputable publication.

have been pushing this 'electability' meme hard since Reverend Wright's excerpts ran 24/7 for 2 weeks on the televised media. Sure makes you wonder, no? Do you think the Super Delegates are going to buy this load of bullshit, when they have yet to swallow the other shit?

because some people didn't get it.

I mean, at the end, it says that Duke was a "more worthy" winner than West Virginia because they scored fewer turnovers, even though the final score of the game was in West Virginia's favor--thus, Duke would've been better positioned to win the next round! :rofl:

:)

it would have to be proven that Obama would lose those always blue states in the GE.

If the caucus states don't count in the primary, why should they count in the general election? Her campaign is essentially saying caucus states don't count.

Let me point out a few caucus states she might want to "win" if she is the nominee:

Minnesota
Iowa
Maine
Washington
Hawaii
Colorado

All of those states and more very well SHOULD be won by a Democrat. All of them were caucus states which Obama won, states she has dismissed in the primary again and again. The only caucus state she won and hasn't dismissed is Nevada, that too should go blue.

It's also peeves me to no end to see the Clinton campaign write off all of the states that have gone red the last few elections. States like Montana, Virginia and others where there have been large inroads made. She consistently dismisses them. Where is the 50 state strategy? How about using that instead of the dismiss 40 state strategy?

But that doesn't matter I guess.

flock to TX this weekend? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x127912

Iowans were the dunderheads who "disenfranchised" voters with caucuses, but New Hampshire denizens were sharp, "independent-minded" voters who could discern what's what. Yesterday, New Hampshire became the pushy, elbow-throwing state to blame for poor Florida's woes by holding their primary out of turn. Thanks for saving my bacon guys, now kiss my booty!

Caucuses are inherently undemocratic because they "disenfranchise" voters (she certainly luuurves that word, doesn't she?), but if pledged delegates flip, hey, that's just the rules of the game.

Wisconsin, Maryland, Connecticut, Vermont, Illinois...

you're grasping at straws! The party is not going to let you have the nomination. Its over. Go home. Get some sleep.

...don't believe delegates from states in which caucuses are held are real delegates at all?

That's a pretty embarrassing contradiction.:eyes:

but those aren't metrics by which a nominee are chosen either. Give up this ludicrous claim already. It makes Clinton supporters look like wild-eyed desperodos.

A Democratic tree stump could win in blue states that Hillary won. The Clinton campaign has created this strange logic that all of a sudden every person who voted for her will vote Republican unless she's the nominee.

Why stop there? Read the next two paragraphs as well:

The Clinton campaign is hoping that the remaining uncommitted superdelegates will take all of this into account when the primary season ends, rather than being swayed by the overall results, which can be misleading.

Unfortunately for Clinton, history shows that the person who loses rarely wins—even if that person hold delegate leads in crucial-sounding, made-up categories.

and "splunge apple votes" and "winnebago magnificent votes."

Obama can never catch up on those metrics.

It only adds to the hilarity.

:rofl:

The first time through I was a little concerned...

that's one of the funniest things I've ever read in print journalism. Camp Hillary is now claiming a theoretical win in electoral votes based on some other votes?

At what point is she going to declare that it's "opposite day" from here until the end of the primary and the candidate with the least votes wins?

(I'm also surpised Camp Hillary isn't going berserk over the use of the word muscular, which is, I'm sure, sexist.)

Thanks for the chortle... :rofl:

No, Mark. You aren't.

Electoral votes will become relevant when a nominee runs against McCain. Not before.

Firstly it discounts caucus states completely; secondly it assumes that 'electoral vote' means anything (as though Obama, or any other Democratic nominee, for that matter, would actually LOSE in New York, California, Massachusetts, etc in November).

Anyone who thinks these are valid points is a fucking moron.

:rofl:

It's hard to tell these days, since I see a lot of HRC supporters saying similar things in all earnestness.

Hillary has won in more states in the top-10 per capita consumption of ice cream!

They endorsed Obama.

She's leading among delegates elected in primaries held in states where the professional hockey franchises have a winning percentage of greater than .500 and the starting goaltender has a goals against average in the top five his respective league. Clearly, she should be the nominee.

That's got to be the best attempt at putting lipstick on a pig that I have ever seen!

She's close to Obama in "Primary Delegates"?!??? Oh, that's rich! Didn't realize that was an actual metric in our selection of a nominee!

Good Gawd, the desperation and the goalpost-moving, it's... you know what it is? It's pathetic, that's what it is.

Mostly opinion from Hillary's camp. Olbermann's opinion is that Obama can't lose. Until it's over we don't and won't really know.

read it again in that light... funny, funny stuff. :)

Pathetic.

:rofl:

and it's hilarious. :)

yawn.

Hehehe...

Granted, the awarding of delegates is complicated stuff. So here’s a sports analogy.

Over the weekend, West Virginia men’s basketball team was declared the winner of a second-round NCAA tournament game simply because they scored more points than their opponent, Duke. But the Mountaineers actually committed four more turnovers than the Blue Devils. And as Hall-of-Fame basketball coach Bob Knight once pointed out, “If you limit your turnovers, you win the game.” So, clearly, Duke was a more worthy victor than West Virginia—and would obviously have been better-positioned to win in the next round.

Sometimes, the final score doesn't tell the whole story. But it’s pretty much always final.

Or is it "unsurmountable"? lo. Anyway.

It would be very difficult for Obama to lose the lead he now holds in the primaries. That is to me the bottom line.

Seriously.

Newsflash, Clinton people: Primaries are in NO way an accurate depiction of how a candidate will do in the GE.

If they were, Kerry would have won 48 states in 2004, and we'd be working to re-elect him.

This is what the MSM did to Gore by chanting "Gore wants to count the votes for the third time, he wants to count until he wins." Every time they said it they added on a phony count.

The votes weren't even counted once.



http://makethemaccountable.com/coverup/Part_04.htm

Sound familiar?

This article is a great read.

Not just here on DU - they do it also on cable news.

As if Idaho and California should be counted the same!

:rofl:

She cannot re-write the rules to suit her.. You gotta play by the rules that exist..

SHE SCREWED UP BY NOT PLANNING PAST 2/05...and some blunders are fatal

I didn't catch the sarcasm until halfway through it. I'm seeing too many Clinton people spewing this stuff.....

:rofl:

"Unfortunately for Clinton, history shows that the person who loses rarely wins—even if that person hold delegate leads in crucial-sounding, made-up categories." BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!! :rofl: