The Case For Hillary
Here’s an email I just received. Adds a different perspective to things.
From: Jan
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:45 PM
To: Alan
Subject: It’s all in how you count itHey Alan
Let’s talk numbers … It is really too bad that none of te political analysts have pointed out that the majority of the superdelegates that have declared themselves have done so according to the winner of the popular vote of their respective states.
So how can Hillary win? This has to go to the convention. Why….?
Current Pledged Delegate Count to Date:
Clinton: 1337 - Obama: 1490If the contests had been Winner-Takes-All
Pledged Delegates to Date:
Clinton: 1643 - Obama: 1208Current Estimated Declared Superdelegates to Date:
Clinton: 252 - Obama: 224Maximum Possible ALL types of Delegates Votes to Date:
Clinton: 2007 - Obama: 1547There are 9 contests left. Hillary will most likely win Indiana, West Virgina, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.
This works out to a potential of 247 more delegate votes at the convention.
Popular Vote Counting Michigan and Florida:
Foxnews was the first to report this interesting fact this morning.
Clinton: 15,108,270 — Obama: 15,006,639
Difference: Clinton + 101,631Regards,
Jan
It’s over for Hillary…why can’t she just accept it?! She reminds my of the knight in the Monty Python skit who keeps saying he’ll do something as each of his limbs is hacked off. Not that I care as a Canadian…but it is getting sad to watch. In the end it’ll likely be McCain and then Clinton and Obama can get on to blaming each other!!!
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
There is only one problem for Hillary…it’s not “winner takes all”. Hillary’s campaign as all but conceded that she can’t win the pledged delegate count……which is why she is practically “terrifying” the superdelegates. I guess the “game” Hillary is playing now in this “change the rules in the middle of the game” tactic with continually changing the goalpost….seems a bit desperate…and I hope she doesn’t feel her ‘win” in PA gives her a mandate….because it didn’t give her a substantial net gain in the delegate count….and this is all about delegates…..I find it a bit suspect that Hillary and her surrogates are talking about the popular votes, that she has the most votes…here we go with that fuzzy math again…..And when she starts in with the MI and FL crap again….I think the writing on the wall us probably getting more clearer…inevitability is a dangerous conundrum when it has all but gone up in smoke…..
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Go, Jan! Excellent, well thought analysis of the situation! I certainly hope you sent that on to Hillary’s campaign.
Yo, Burt~ Hillary ain’t goin’ anywhere. She and my boy Bill still have the opportunity to make their case at the DNC.
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
You are forgetting one major thing in your calculations. That is a) Barack Obama was not even on the ballot in MI (which Hillary was supposed to follow suit in, but hey, once an opportunist always an opportunist.) and b) FLORIDA BROKE THE SET RULES, IT WAS KNOWN BY ALL THE CANDIDATES IT WOULD NOT COUNT. Just because she’s a female and a Clinton doesn’t mean special rules apply to her.
Get over it people, Clinton lost this thing about 12 weeks ago. Do yourselves a favor and start recognizing that fact, it will make it that much easier when she finally “officially” exits the race, which judging by her rational will be sometime around 2010.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
It seems so typical that Hillary is trying to work the ‘rules’ in any way she can to try and get the nomination. Too bad she voted for the war crimes in Iraq to go forward. Now she’s talking about obliterating Iran so she can come off like a warhawk. Someone should tell her that Iran has never invaded a sovereign country OR used the kinds of weapons she uses to scare up thoughts of 3AM phone calls.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Alan
Why not also further expand on the Clinton’s affiliation with William Fullbright that comes into question?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:24 am
And a new addition, some “fun” with POPULAR VOTE numbers…
Without MI/FL:
Obama: 14,447,566
Clinton: 13,965,192
With FL, but NOT MI:
Obama: 15,016,607
Clinton: 14,822,400
With MI/FL, including “uncommitted” for Obama:
Obama: 15,254,369
Clinton: 15,150,551
With MI/FL, giving Obama 0 in MI and Clinton 328,000-plus (the only metric which gives her a lead):
Clinton: 15,150,551
Obama: 15,016,607
Billary Like to play with numbers to her advantage only…
VIVA OBAMA
——————————————————————————–
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Reggie~ she didn’t vote for any ‘war crimes’.
I’m so sick of people bashing Hill for voting to go to war after 9/11. You have all apparently forgotten how Americans felt after that event. I was a college student in southern VA, with a lot of kids from the north, and my campus was NUMB for days. You guys don’t remember how it impacted you? Well, I DO. I remember how it impacted me, how it impacted students and adults around me, and how thankfully passionate our politicians were about finding out who the hell bombed us and making them pay.
How dare you criticize her for casting that vote, when she voted based on the manipulated evidence she was presented?
How could you forget how much our nation was hurt by the attacks?
April 24th, 2008 at 12:48 am
If it’s ‘over’ for her, then why is she still in this race? She’s not that far behind in popular vote and neither of them can without superdelegates. Why does everyone blame only Hillary? The DNC blew it by punishing Michigan and Florida and the way they set the whole thing up, it’s as if they don’t want anyone to win at this point!
But no, let’s blame Hillary. I just don’t get it.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:12 am
I can’t believe that so many Democrats who were betrayed by the electoral college in 2000 are actually considering doing away with proportional delegation. Sure, Michigan and Florida should have their votes counted. And I also believe that there should be no superdelegates. The decision should be left completely up to the voters, and their votes should not be skewed in any way. Even if its true that Hillary would be leading in delegate count if there was no proportional delegation, Obama would STILL probably be ahead in the popular vote. What makes it ok for Hillary and not OK for Bush?
I also think that its quite dishonest for people to say that Hillary would in fact be winning the popular vote if Michigan and Florida were counted. A Do-over has to happen before anyone can say that, because Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan! I’m not debating that Hillary would probably win both states, but I’m not sure that she would win by enough to totally overtake Obama’s popular vote lead.
IMO, ideally all states would have closed primaries as well, so that Rush dittoheads can’t jump on the Hillary bandwagon just to keep the race going.
Just my two cents on the process.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“How could you forget how much our nation was hurt by the attacks?”
And going into Iraq helped that situation? I realize that she has come around now, but the point is that she should have known better anyway. None of the rest of the world was convinced of the administration’s evidence either and its clear that we needed to give it more time and get more information before making a decision. We all know what rushing into it did for us. Now we’re tied up there while the war where REAL U.S. interests are involved, Afghanistan, is being completely neglected. That’s hurting our security, not helping it.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Michael~ we only know the impact of rushing into Iraq on bs evidence, NOW, in retrospect. Furthermore, “the rest of the world” supported us in the beginning. That didn’t change until all the evidence came forth.
How should she have known better, Michael? Psychic abilities? X-ray vision to see into the Oval Office and into the files Bush was neglecting to read?
(btw, this isn’t an “attack” on you, just a discussion)
April 25th, 2008 at 1:41 am
I’ve been gone, but I’ll answer this all late so no one will ever read my reply. I plan to use some cutting logic and incisive wit. It will be scathing rebuttal of all your political views. Oh how I will destroy your…ah fudge.
Hillary sucks.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Hillary sucks & monica blows where bill fits into this, nobody knows.
April 25th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Cheryl, you’re right in the sense that at the time it seemed like a good idea to many people. But there was a vocal minority, which the state Senator Obama was a part of, that saw the wisdom in waiting until we can get more information before rushing into war.
It also seemed that at the time, many people, including Hillary and McCain thought that this war would be a piece of cake. Here, they had good reason to know better. It was the very reason that the first President Bush would not remove Saddam in the first Gulf War after taking back Kuwait: the region would erupt into a civil war that nobody would be able to control.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm