« On to Pennsylvania... | Main | Dems Say Primary Not Self-Destructive ...Yet »

Clinton Wins, Obama's Still Ahead; What's Next?

Share

March 05, 2008 9:44 AM

ABC News' David Chalian Reports: This is where math and momentum meet. 

On the heels of three victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., turned back a surging Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who came into Tuesday with 11 straight victories and picked up another win in Vermont.

So, what's next?

1. If Clinton and Obama basically tie in the remaining 12 contests, Obama would need 164 superdelegates to come his way to put him over the magic number of 2,024

2.  Assuming no currently committed superdelegates switched and no uncommitted superdelegates jumped off the fence. . .

Clinton would need to win 59% of the delegates in the remaining 12 contests in order to overtake Sen. Obama's delegate lede.

If the upcoming 611 delegates at stake split 59/41 for Clinton -- 360 would go to Clinton and 251 would go to Obama -- netting Sen. Clinton 109 delegates. . . which would be enough to overcome Obama's current 106 delegate lead.

3.  There are 611 delegates up for grabs in the remaining 12 contests.

ABC News' current delegate estimate has Obama at 1,556.

That means he would need to win 77% of all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024 to secure the nomination. That is highly unlikely due to the proportional delegate allocation rules in the Democratic Party.

Clinton would need to win 94% of all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024.  (ABC News currently has her at 1449.)

So, clearly they both are going to be relying on superdelegates to secure the nomination. 

Stay tuned...

For all the latest from the campaign trail, read The Note every morning exclusively on ABCNews.com

March 5, 2008 in Clinton, Hillary, Obama, Barack, Vote 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (231)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/26809224

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Wins, Obama's Still Ahead; What's Next?:

User Comments

Well Dems, you failed to put the stake through Count HillBillary's heart. As a result, the Clintoons are in it to the bitter end and you will have a brokered convention. Can you say 1968? 1972? 1980? Can you say President McCain?

LMAO!!! Somebody, please pass the popcorn, this is going to get really entertaining.

Posted by: Karl Rove | Mar 5, 2008 9:59:14 AM

Down to a backroom deal. This is vintage Clinton. Expect the worst, because that's all these people know.

Posted by: fezziwig9 | Mar 5, 2008 10:03:18 AM

The magic number is 2025, not 2024.

Posted by: Big Mac | Mar 5, 2008 10:03:19 AM

Down to a backroom deal. This is vintage Clinton. Expect the worst, because that's all these people know.

Posted by: fezziwig9 | Mar 5, 2008 10:03:24 AM

Michigan and Florida primaries will provide the necessary delegates for Senator Clinton to secure the nomination.

From this morning:

CNN POLL QUESTION

Should Florida and Michigan Democrats

*Have their votes counted?...58%

*Not be counted?...25%

*Have new primaries or caucuses?...17%

To avoid a brokered convention, which will go to Clinton, Obama needs to withdraw and give his support to Tony Rezko.

Posted by: ken | Mar 5, 2008 10:04:23 AM

Thanks to Hillary, it's President McCain--and four more years of the Bush White House.

Posted by: Robert | Mar 5, 2008 10:07:17 AM

Gee, Jake, we knew that neither was likely to allow the party to avoid superdelegate involvement weeks ago. Recycling news is not news.

If the party is smart, it will mitigate this fracture sooner if they want to keep McCain at bay. The longer it drags on, the more it feeds the hungry (and often biased) media machine and loses the party real supporters who have no taste for the stinking side of politics.

Posted by: SE Croft | Mar 5, 2008 10:11:43 AM

I was just looking at the numbers like she took a BIG lead, NO!!!!! the most was 10 to his 22 in Vermont.She is saying join forces with her at the top.NO WAY I for one would vote REP...People they will do anything to get this White House again...You triple numbers white males you,play right into hers hands she loves you.Us so to say middle people HUH>>>> don't give a crap about us or the people that voted for her in Texas wait until she sends your families back to Mexico,you are stupid and will believe anything this jerk.

Posted by: honest | Mar 5, 2008 10:12:23 AM

What's next?

Consider this:

In a move not anticipated by the press or Obama supporters, the senator from Illinois names Chicago business associate Tony Rezko as his running mate.

The Obama campaign dismissed the federal indictments against the Vice Presidential hopeful as "back room politics" of the Clinton campaign.

Obama supporters initially offered support for Rezko, but the campaign has not yet determined how to incorporate "Rezko" into the Obama mantra.

Posted by: ken | Mar 5, 2008 10:15:03 AM

Voted for Hillary yesterday as a registered long time Rep. Held nose but did it for the Dem. Party to have fun with. YeeHaaa go Hillary and Win all you can! Hope to see ya cry in NOv

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 10:15:33 AM

I am not sure where the author of this article got his/her numbers but, the delegate count programs of two different websites provide a different result. Yes the superdelegates are in play... but no they do not have the impact called for in this article.

Regarding MI and FL, remember the magic number changes if they come back into play. I think it would be something like 2208.

Brokered convention? Back room deals? I think this myth has already been rejected as the DNC has clarified the rules will not change for the SD's, the SD seniors have clarified they are confident there will be a clear nominee, and MI and FL have recourse to get the delegates seated within the rules.

You have underestimated the intelligence of the voters one time too many. Keep trying RNC... We will dispel your myths again and again online and offline. Experienced voters will continue to educate the inexperienced voters. The democratic electorate has become wise to your tactics and the party will unify after the spirited competition is over.

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 10:18:43 AM

The New Messiah's ivory tower is leaning a little bit after yesterday, and we're starting to see some cracks in it. The race and gender cards are worn out from too much use, and for a while it appeared the "charisma card" would trump all others. But maybe it's weakening, too! At SOME point, Hillary and Barack will realize that if they team-up, the combination would be unbeatable, especially by Old Man McCain, who doesn't even have support of all Republicans.

Posted by: rmberryman | Mar 5, 2008 10:21:37 AM

Super delegates should not have jump ship after the Obama's win and pressure from his camp saying their state voted for Obama, now we have Hillary winning and registered Democrats voting and giving her their support.

This race is to select the Democrat nominee not the Republican or Independent nominee, so which super delegate is now going to tell all these registered democrats supporting Hillary nope your support does not count they are now going to vote their conscience.

If Hillary ends up leading in the popular vote among registered democrats is it not the same argument that the Hillary camp can make, the supers did now want to go against their states but they are now willing to go against the popular voted amongst Democrats?

That was the Obama's camp argument so what is the new argument now??

Posted by: SJ | Mar 5, 2008 10:25:31 AM

Put Hillary any place near or on the ticket and WE can surely snuff that foul odor away from the 1600. Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama either way the stench is too ofensive. Should've stuck with the white guy with good hair, just a suggestion. Lookin forward to a good crying

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 10:27:05 AM

Will Betty please stop reposting the same idea.

It's clear that Clinton has lost on delegate math, but what's clearer is Obama has also lost. Ohio and Texas have said no. And we all know you need Florida and Ohio to win this thing in November. I think you also need Texas if I'm not mistaken.

It will be McCain in '08, and a more common sense Republican who is perceived as working with the Dems is much better for the country. I think Obama will be like Bush but from the other side of the aisle. The country needs less of that. And, Clinton is just another rehash of Bill's 8 years. I don't think we need that either.

McCain is really the best person for the job. He has experience, and being a pilot he's probably the only who can assuredly say he can think on his feet when the pressure is on, especially at 3am.

Aaron, OH

Posted by: Aaron | Mar 5, 2008 10:28:32 AM

Now that we know the disgust Obama and his wife have for this country, we need to make sure he never occupies the Oval office.

Posted by: Mary | Mar 5, 2008 10:29:52 AM

I agree with the idea that Clinton and Obama would make a huge difference if they united, I just wonder if it is too late now that she chose to smear him over the last few weeks. They definetly need to do something- the Republicans are just sitting back mocking the DNC right now because we are running in circles. Let's hope that all of us can come together for the common good of the country. The Clinton/Obama ticket seems like it would appeal to every race and gender - Although a merging of the two great minds would not make the media very happy and they seem to have been conducting this from the very beginning.

Posted by: dreamer? | Mar 5, 2008 10:33:48 AM

Will all the crazies who dumped Clinton for Obama, now dump Obama for Clinton? Reality is so much better than anything Hollywood could write.

Posted by: MCCEE | Mar 5, 2008 10:33:51 AM

Additionally, the percentages quoted in this article are misleading. Many of the remaining states have small electorates and some have significant delegates apportioned. Percentages cannot be accurately applied to the remaining popular vote and remaining delegates. It has to be done state by state to be valid.

Remember, the press often relies on press releases by the campaigns and by the parties. The RNC is working hard to keep the Dems fighting since that is the only way they can possibly win in Nov - divide and conquer and hope the disgruntled voters vote for McCain.

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 10:34:13 AM

2009 me thinks Annie was from the Longhorn state and indeed was the funniest thing outta Tx in a long time. Luvin that Maxine too though, such fun those Dems characters...really like the Rangle too

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 10:35:46 AM

Hillary cannot win the general. Her negatives are too high. While McCain is a complete stiff, republicans will turn out in mass to vote against Hillary.

The general is a walk in the park for Obama. I don't think the Super Delegates will allow this to go to the convention. Since Hillary cannot take a lead in pledged deligates, Obama will end up with the nomination and also end up as the US president.

Posted by: Juanita Broderick | Mar 5, 2008 10:37:22 AM

The people have spoken.

Now, Lawyers and Superdelegates will make the real decision.

Posted by: carl | Mar 5, 2008 10:37:29 AM

If Hillary wins I'm leaving the Country!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Joe | Mar 5, 2008 10:38:22 AM

For anyone interested in seeing how the "electability" picture looks between Obama and Clinton, I have been keeping track of which states I predict will be swing states (less than 5% difference in 2004 and/or less than 30% Bush approval rating). I also include the Red and Blue states in my counting based on voter turnout. I am not including McCain numbers since I knew he would get their nom. Here is what the numbers look like so far:

For states that have held primaries/caucuses for both parties so far:

Red States in 2004 with higher Dem turnouts account for 78 electors. 52 Clinton, 26 Obama
Blue States in 2004 with higher Dem turnouts account for 142 electors. 102 Clinton, 40 Obama
Blue Battleground States in 2004 with Higher Dem turnouts account for 74 electors. 36 Clinton, 38 Obama
Red Battleground States in 2004 with Higher Dem turnouts account for 102 electors. 62 Clinton, 40 Obama

Electoral totals so far: 252 Clinton, 144 Obama

Clinton definitely appears more electable considering the fact only 270 electors are needed to win in November and there are only 10 states left in the primary contest. She is onto something here... if she can pull out a win and unify the party with the right ticket... I think she will beat McCain.

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 10:40:25 AM

Hillary will never give up,she ia a b---- I for one again will not vote Dem if she is even on this ticket along with many others who are registered Inp....

Posted by: honest | Mar 5, 2008 10:40:30 AM

Big Mac - The DNC has dropped the number to 2024 due to various moves (death of Lantos, Curtis move to FL).

Betty - Obama stills holds the best cards, don't give up on him, yet. Keep watching and vote your hopes not your fears. The easiest way to swing Evangelicals, Neo-Cons and Indys to McCain is to put the name Clinton on the Dem ticket. And that hurts down-ticket races as well. Plus a McCain victory could swing Lieberman to caucus with the Repubs. That's a lot losses all around.

Posted by: Kevin | Mar 5, 2008 10:42:44 AM

....If there was a real measure of sanity and its qualification was raized by about 20% McCain would end up in a mental asylum. The same is true for his supportets no matter how harsh this sounds. Anybody who cannot see through the reality of this frivolous, unjust , unresonable war that had nothing whatsoever to do with our security except in a negative way ( It has made the issue worse) cannot in truth be sane ,let alone be worthy of holding the highest office of the most powerful country in the world.

Posted by: waris | Mar 5, 2008 10:46:45 AM

With any luck at all, this will wind up fracturing the Democratic party. The Party has been unstable for years....rich liberals providing the money while poor blacks provided the votes. These weren't inherently compatible constituencies. But it got by, with the blacks being tossed the occasional political bone (in fact, the GOP has put more blacks in true positions of power) a fair amount of race-baiting and class-baiting rhetoric, and some welfare bucks. The blacks got these crumbs, the white liberals got 90% of the black vote, while doing nothing to deserve it.

But it's put up or shut up time. The Clintons are quite willing to go for the jugular...even if it totally alienates the blacks from the Democratic Party. The Clintons may believe it will be possible to disrespect Obama...go negative like they have, and still have the black people vote in lockstep with the party in the Fall, but they are wrong.

This could be the death of the Democratic Party as a national majority.

Posted by: George Hanshaw | Mar 5, 2008 10:46:54 AM

HILLARY SURE KNOCKED THE WIND OUT OF
OBAMAS SAIL'S LAST NIGHT,

Posted by: dee | Mar 5, 2008 10:48:19 AM

Betty, I support Obama, and your theory is intersting, yet I would ask you to look to the trend of the entire 20th Century before I would even hazard saying the Dems will hold the White House for 16 years.
And there is a reason for that.
A good reason.

Posted by: JOhnD | Mar 5, 2008 10:49:26 AM

The fact of the matter is Obama after his 11 wins was supposed to close the deal that was the perception his camp was putting out, they were even calling for her to drop out to stop the bleeding with what was to come.

He failed, she came back if she had only won one state or none the news this morning would of been for here to leave and save the party. Now the spin is he has more delegates not that he cant close her out.

He is the front running just like MaCain was McCain closed out Huckabee that was what he was supposed to do, when is Obama going to close out Hillary??

Posted by: SJ | Mar 5, 2008 10:50:33 AM

Let's do this for the party? All you hear from the Democrats is party, party, party. It is now clear that the "party" is more important than all else. How about doing something for this nation, and the taxpayers that are already over taxed?

For quite sometime, I was simply going to stay home in November. However, I have heard enough, I will vote McCain in November!

Posted by: rck | Mar 5, 2008 10:51:36 AM

Its all fun and games for the media and republicans, until the day before the Convention and Obama wakes up in his hotel room in Denver with a horse's head in his bed!!

Posted by: Ryan | Mar 5, 2008 10:51:58 AM

Two Words: Tax Returns

Posted by: M&M | Mar 5, 2008 10:53:21 AM

Crossover Rep vote for Hillary In Ohio really helped the trade backstabbers who essentially buried the party and our businesses in the 90's. Turn about fair play. Go Hillary win this one for the ultimate pay back..cheat lie steal any way you can...just bring it home for us and help us destroy the Dem party forever We love you and your tears

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 10:54:07 AM

Ha ha ha....The massive Republican swing in Ohio to cross over and vote for Clinton, just to throw a massive monkey wrench into the Dem eleciton machine worked to PERFECTION!!!

It's going to be hilarious to now watch Hillary prove herself unelectable with the dirt that she is going to throw at Obama for the next three months, and, if anything sticks, really put doubt into the massive Obama flock, which will render him unelectable.

I'm a registered Republican, and hundreds of thousands of us here in Ohio crossed over, and voted for Hillary. Her "victory" in Ohio is not a true victory, just us Republicans doing our best to throw a wrench into the Dem system, to perfection, I might add.


This gave Hillary the impetus to do the rest of her dirty work, she'll lie, cheat, and steal to go against the agreed upon rules for Mich and Fla, she admitted as much this morning on NBC...

I've got my popcorn, and can't wait to watch.

It's really a shame that Hillary is the way that she is, because a unified Dem ticket behind Obama, right now, would trounce McCain in November...the Dem leaders know this, as do us Republicans, which is why we did waht we did...

Ha!!!

Posted by: Dan | Mar 5, 2008 10:55:39 AM

Then there's McCain. Experience? 26 consecutive years in congress to Clinton's eight. National security? Who do you think all those who were frightened by the "red phone" ad are going to vote for, a former first lady or a Vietnam War veteran who spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war?

Ohio is a bellwether state in choosing a president? Guess who else won the Ohio Primary.

Posted by: Don | Mar 5, 2008 10:55:54 AM

Hillary alluded to a combine ticket on some morning show today but Obama has already dismissed that idea saying its too early for that, so guess he is not interested and wants to fight on for whatever its worth.

Posted by: SJ | Mar 5, 2008 10:57:10 AM

DC Voter - Convoluted thinking. Winning a primary is not the same as winning the General (Electoral). At the moment, the Democratic electorate is energized with an historical choice. If that electorate feels cheated or let down, the numbers may not be there. Clinton will certainly mobilize the "anti" vote of the Evangelicals and Neo-Cons who are staying home now. That vote alone should be able to throw many of your calculations into turmoil. Also, does the term "Reagan Democrats" ring a bell?

Posted by: Kevin | Mar 5, 2008 10:57:23 AM

BYE BYE Obama.... You are kaput... Outspending HIllary doesn't work, uh?? Too bad for you!

Posted by: DMK | Mar 5, 2008 10:57:29 AM

Mitt Romney is a very noble man. He could've jammed things up on the Republican side just like this, but chose not to. Somebody need to pay him back, or at the very least acknowledge that his self-sacrifice keep the Republican party the party of grownups for at least one more election cycle.

Both Hillary and Obama were on the podium last night telling anecdotes of poor people who gave them $10 or $3.01 donations because they wanted so much for them to win, blah blah blah. Now they're going to take the widow's mite and waste it on an intraparty flamewar. Stay classy guys.

Posted by: Protagonist | Mar 5, 2008 10:58:04 AM

Yeah Dan -Election tampering , that's the first idea the Republicans have had in a while that actually worked huh? Really something to be proud of there..if anyone knows how to rig an election it's you guys.

Posted by: ss | Mar 5, 2008 10:59:32 AM

Clinton is no leader compare to Obama. If we compare the two it comes up to, cliton wanting to become president because she thinks it is a family business to run the USA and Obama a leader with humanity in him and will probably stop terrorism emanating from the USA that is directed toward the freedom loving countries of the world.

Posted by: Hot4real | Mar 5, 2008 11:01:24 AM

To Go Hillary: Who do I want sitting across from Putin? Let's also throw in Ahmadinejad, Musharraf, and Chavez.

Easy answer: McCain!

Posted by: Don | Mar 5, 2008 11:02:32 AM

I am a registered Democrat and if Obama is nominated I will vote for him; if Clinton is nominated I will not vote.

Posted by: jdkirkk | Mar 5, 2008 11:02:40 AM

So far, Mr. Obama can only win in small states which majority is liberal White or independent. Are those voters still support him in General Election? I doubt it. Without winning big states and with the rule of winner take all in General Election, I think his political career will end after November 04 if he wins the nomination for DEM right now. He should drop out the race and supports Hillary today if he wants to be US President sometime in the future. Fighting with Hillary can only do more harm to him and Democrat Party at this moment.

Posted by: stock_craft | Mar 5, 2008 11:05:04 AM

LET'S KEEP THIS SIMPLE. MCCAIN WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT. I'M NOT A FAN OF HIS BUT THESE TWO WILL NOT BEAT HIM. TRUST ME.

Posted by: GLENN | Mar 5, 2008 11:07:52 AM

Why do all of these quacks suddenly want to give Hillary the nomination? Because the Republicans gave her Ohio and Texas???

Obama is the ONLY Dem candidate that can win the general election.

Unless, of course, you want 4 more years of scandal, corruption, lies, murders, cover ups, and the like....we've been down this road with the Clintons before, have we not?

Posted by: Dan | Mar 5, 2008 11:08:14 AM

Betty seriously hon we get your point and some of us even agree it is a viable option- but it does make this pretty annoying to read... so maybe come up with something else to post ? Just a suggestion...

Posted by: dreamer? | Mar 5, 2008 11:09:21 AM

Let's see if I have this right. Clinton is behind some 100 or so delegates and she wants to share the ticket with Obama? What unabashed arrogance.

Posted by: Don | Mar 5, 2008 11:09:52 AM

"White Collar" never understood the issues of the "Blue Collars" and that gap is increasing as we see the educated writing for Obama everywhere. Egostic "White Collar" would rather vote for Mc Cain or do not vote for Clintons.

Whenever "Blue Collar" who do not read digital media(blogs, news on the internet) get a chance to cast their vote they always did for someone who is talking of the issue that is important for them "Healthcare" and "Economy".

Posted by: Humm | Mar 5, 2008 11:11:23 AM

A question that has been bothering me that I haven't seen brought up is:

Why did all the other candidates respect the DNC's decision and remove their names from the Michigan ballot...all except Hillary?

Posted by: Really, Really | Mar 5, 2008 11:12:02 AM

Indeed Mac will be president, but what fun we are all having with this dirty Dem fighting aren't we? I say "on to the convention floor" and let ole belly Deany boy give us a carnival we deserve for puttin up with all this fun. Can't wait!

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 11:12:10 AM

Kevin - in case it was not clear, reread the intro paragraph that explains the numbers only apply to: states that have held primaries, states that had more democrats than republican voters, states that had less than 5% difference in party voters last election, and states with lower than 30% approval ratings... the electoral count does not change as the popular vote is cast. It is what it is. The analysis shows exactly what Clinton is looking at, Obama is fearful of, and the SDs are discussing in terms of electability.

Popular votes dont win delegates and it doesnt win elections for President. The Dems have made the mistake of not understanding the electoral picture in the past. Bill Clinton understood it well. Apparently Hillary Clinton does too. Obama might understand it but he has not been able to make a dent in the core voters which are in the battleground states. Many of Obama's wins are in states the Dems will never carry in the GE. That is what the electoral picture shows.

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 11:13:37 AM

How many delegates did Clinton win Texas by? 2, out of 126.

How many delegates did Clinton win Ohio by? 12, out of 130.

There is simply no way that Hillary can win the delegate count. None. All we Republicans did was to give Hillary 3 more months to attempt to lie, cheat, and steal her way into the Dem nomination...and the staunch Hillary supporters are crawling out of the woodwork, just like we thought they would...

Played like a fiddle.

Posted by: Dan | Mar 5, 2008 11:13:51 AM

Go Hillary - yes unfortunately the Obama camp has been misleading the voters by claiming most of his money is from low dollar contributions when in fact only 30% are from the grass roots movement. I am sure much are from the liberal latte but open secrets org website gives the details of campaign fund sources for anyone who really wants the details. What bothers me most about his campaign is the fiction. But I do agree and advocated a Clinton/Obama ticket for some time now because I believe a unity ticket is the winner for the Dems. He needs time to learn more from Clinton and can use his skills as leader of the Senate with her guidance to implement the changes needed.

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 11:20:02 AM

"The people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me" - Hillary

That says it all...our ploy worked to absolute perfection. What unabashed arrogance from this woman, she wins two states based on Republicans crossing over to sully the votes, and she'll forget that she'd lost 12 states in a row previous...

And people really want this lady as President?

Posted by: Dan | Mar 5, 2008 11:20:18 AM

Can you believe it? She's actually calling for the "O" to be her VP.. She really is fooled isn't she?

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 11:22:36 AM

Is there anything more entertaining than watching the Dems eat their own? I love this! Let's see a brokered convention with the balloting going on for days and days.

Posted by: Bob in Ohio | Mar 5, 2008 11:25:24 AM

There is a reason Ohio is a bellweather state and not South Carolina or Vermont

Posted by: geevill | Mar 5, 2008 11:28:15 AM

I am THRILLED for HILLARY...i am from Oklahoma and i am so happy that an EXPERIENCED person is still in the Democratic race..I am sorry but i DONT suffer from OBAMA-MANIA...try again another day BARACK OSAMA

Posted by: TITAN | Mar 5, 2008 11:28:43 AM

16 years. Wow. by then we'll have decimated our military, been invaded by foreign nationals, our taxes will be sky high, depressing the economy. Government will be even more massive than ever, with almost everyone dependant upon it for something including healthcare. Wow. We'll be just like France.

Congratulations Liberals and Democrats, you "Win", America loses.

Posted by: Patriot | Mar 5, 2008 11:31:52 AM

Dan - you seem to really exaggerate your importance. The experts have already looked at the statistical significance of the RNC tactics to rig the Dem primaries. This is not new... its been done for years. The turnout of Dems and participation of Indies is high enough that your so-called vote rigging impact is statistically negligible. Sorry, if your effort is limp. LOL

I am proud to be an American, proud of all the voters who are participating, proud to be an Independent, and proud to support Hillary Clinton for President. Vote Smart for Smart Change!

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 11:32:04 AM

This blog is loaded with the disenfranchised ex-Huckabee supporters, with nothing but time on their hands, and nothing better to do than to come out and attack Hillary Clinton. You can recognize them by the emotionally-laden language, facts and logical statements are few and far between. Also, please note that it is the same few people logging comments under multiple names. That being said, I'm all for what Betty says because she's about the only one on here who is not one of them, and she makes good logical sense. Bye bye.

Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Mar 5, 2008 11:32:31 AM

Isn't the real question for Hillary, can she catch Obama not if she can get the amount to secure the nomination. It's highly unlikely the either of them can accomplish that.

The big question is what will be done about Florida and Michigan?

Posted by: Mark from STL | Mar 5, 2008 11:33:41 AM

Wait until the numbers come out for this election in Ohio, and see how many Republicans switched over yesterday....then, come back and apologize....

There are 36 people that work in my place of business, and 20 of us switched parties for the day yesterday.

I know that we weren't the only ones...

Posted by: Dan | Mar 5, 2008 11:37:17 AM

Gee, The Dems played the race card against their own. Obama lied about NAFTA, except to the Canadians. Trust me he WON'T bring the troops home either. They are fighting about the voting process in EVERY state. Hillary's flunkies alter Obama's picture to make him look darker. Karl Rove is to blame for all the in fighting between the Dems. You guys can't run a primary, hence Michigan and Florida DON'T count. WOW, and your the nice guys. No way will Obama become president. The Clintons will backstab him if he gets the nomination. Of course you Dems will blame the GOP. You see if he wins then the Clintons are no longer the head of your party. They won't let that happen. Reap what you sewed in the 90's. Ya, you're the good guys alright.

Posted by: RichP | Mar 5, 2008 11:37:53 AM

Well, Betty (and WCM by default), we'll just have to see if your prediction is accurate. if true, it is a sad commentary on our country!

From my perspective, either candidate can beat John McCain. He is vulnerable on a number of points. However, if Clinton and Obama are reduced to having to beat one another up over the next month, that will weaken our effort in the general election, no matter which candidate prevails. Hillary has certainly shown what she's capable of, against a candidate who has tried to take the high road. But Barack cannot let her attacks go on for another month without beginning to respond in kind. Hope she's ready for the fallout!

Posted by: Jackt51 | Mar 5, 2008 11:39:01 AM

Mark - either candidate can get the nomination outright with a portion of the SD votes. The difference now is, Clinton proved the so called experts wrong... not only did she win 3 of 4 they said she would not win... she won them by a larger margin. The delegate count is now approaching 1% difference and the electoral picture is very strong for Clinton. The SD vote and changes from pledged delegates at the convention will determine the winnner but the remaining voters in 12 contests will have an impact. MI and FL have recourse to get delegates seated but remember that changes the magic number needed and actually favors Clinton.

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 11:40:26 AM

DC this is not normal years and YES WE CAN keep your Hillary in if we WANT TO and did! Get off your Whitewater Condo Roof.. it never existed.

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 11:41:53 AM

Without winning big states and with the rule of winner take all, I don't see Mr. Obama can beat Senator John McCain in November 04. Don’t expect all the Democrat registered voters who vote for Hillary will vote for Mr. Obama blindly in the General Election. In similarly, all the black voters who vote for Mr. Obama may be stay home in November 04 if their candidate not on the ballot. I will stay home or vote for John McCain if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, even if he pick Senator Hillary as his running mate.

Posted by: stock_craft | Mar 5, 2008 11:42:21 AM

Logger - the RNC tactic of divide and conquer to pull disgruntled Dems into the GE for McCain may work if the Dems do not unite behind their nominee. Pathetic that the RNC cannot actually nominate a candidate and have him/her compete based on qualificatiions and a legitimate poitical platform. LOL

But the topic is about the cross over voting impacts. Statistically this has been analyzed and deemed insignificant because the real electorate turnout negated it.

Posted by: DCVoter | Mar 5, 2008 11:49:41 AM

One of her cheap tricks ,they are going to fight for Fl and Mi.That would put her over the top.They knew this all along.Like I said, don't count THEM out yet.Billy boy can't wait to get back in the White House he will go after new little gals while Hillary sleeps in a different room like she always does.No love there>>>>>

Posted by: honest | Mar 5, 2008 11:52:51 AM

DC, Mac and Nov aren't the issues now are they? We just couldn't let poor Hillary struggle with the obvious Delagate Count anymore...We had to point it out to her and apparently to you for you can't understand it can you? We were facing a kool aid kid with massive momentum, who could convince the Upper Arlington liberals to vote em in. We gave her a free pass to go on and continue to be imperialistic. Wake up and see the struggle move on

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 12:00:49 PM


I reely beleeve dat no person of color can be elected in dis nation dis day, so why don't misster Obamma qwit rite now annd beecome Hilary's veepee.

I'm not a Hilary zombie I sware.

Pleeze misster Obamma, stop hurting amrica and joign forsses whis Hilary.

I'm not a Hilary zombie I sware.

Pleeze misster Obamma, stop huriting america and joign forsses whis Hilary.

I'm not a Hilary zombie I sware.

Posted by: petty | Mar 5, 2008 12:01:46 PM

I reely beleeve dat no person of color can be elected in dis nation dis day, so why don't misster Obamma qwit rite now annd beecome Hilary's veepee.

I'm not a Hilary zombie I sware.

Pleeze misster Obamma, stop hurting amrica and joign forsses whis Hilary.

I'm not a Hilary zombie I sware.

Pleeze misster Obamma, stop huriting america and joign forsses whis Hilary.

I'm not a Hilary zombie I sware.

Posted by: petty | Mar 5, 2008 12:02:49 PM

It makes me laugh on how the HRC supporters actually think Obama is on a big slide. There is no way for Hillary to win this nomination. Hillary was Obama's toughest opponent -McCain will be a cake walk.

Posted by: Ken | Mar 5, 2008 12:03:43 PM

My first order of business this morning was to contribute (again) to the Obama camp and I did.

The DNC elders know that Hillary is poison and they will not allow her to win. Obama will still be ahead (all the pundits think so) come convention time and they will cast for him. I also suspect that Edwards will cast his 26 to Obama as a sign he is interested in being the Veep. There is too much bad blood for a Obama/Clinton ticket or vice versa. I suspect tomorrow or the day after, Obama will announce how much they raised in Feb and maybe announce the 50 super delegates that Tom Brokaw talked about to kill her victory parties. I also suspect that the press will start unleashing on her again after a day or two.

The entire world is rooting for Obama as evidenced by calls and emails I got from friends and family in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. People around the world are yearning for peace and they know McCain and Clinton will not bring that about.

Posted by: maigoro | Mar 5, 2008 12:04:27 PM

If Hillary is ready to go "toe-to-toe" with McCain on who would make the better commander-in-chief, she better break out that rawhide pantsuit.

Posted by: Don | Mar 5, 2008 12:11:30 PM

Nancy has weighed in and she can't borrow hers.

Posted by: Logger in OH | Mar 5, 2008 12:12:59 PM

Whooooopsie.....

Obama is going to wind up winning the most delegates from Texas after all! Once the remaining caucus votes are tallied, he will win Texas by 3-4 delegates.....

How will the Clinton's spin this one?

Posted by: Dan | Mar 5, 2008 12:17:31 PM

The DNP could take away the numbers from Michigan and Florida to lower the bar from 2025 to whatever it would be without them. I am surprised no-one has suggested this, because if they are no longer in the count, that count should have changed.

If Obama were to be declared the winner many of those saying they would never vote for him will go ahead as long as Hillary can exit without rancor. Since she is the one who has been negative and aggressive, she can do it. It gets increasingly harder for Obama's people, however, to embrace Hillary if she wins because she has been using unpleasant, insulting tactics to erode his standing.

I don't think either of them are necessarily the best Presidential material. That said, she has no class at all and he is very classy, so from that point of view he would make a better leader. She is a manager not a leader. I think she would make a fantastic VP, actually, but cannot see that happening if he were to come out ahead. Still, you never know.

One thing seem quite possible: if he were to win, she would not exit gracefully (maybe in public but not behind the scenes) and perhaps the Democratic Party would then use the next few years to return more to the left in which case his candidacy, even if he is too damaged to win in November which looks increasingly likely if Clinton keeps up the attacks this way, will have served an admirable purpose.

It is very different when you are getting attacked in a mean way by people in your own party than by the othe