[e_blazer1]

It sounds like Obama's camp plans to make a projected win in Oregon on May 20th his date for declaring victory, which should give him a majority of pledged delegates.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05...or-high-water/

Who'd have thought going in that Oregon's late election would be relevant? Of course, according to Hillary's camp, we're a lot less relevant than Obama thinks.

[maxiep]

I think the endgame on this nomination is going to be fascinating. First, I'm thrilled that Oregon is going to get so much attention--we're historically a political afterthought.

The problem is that there's no carrot the Democratic Party can offer Sen. Clinton. I really can't see her wanting to be Vice President. Harry Reid isn't going to step aside and let her be Majority Leader, and Nancy Pelosi is going to do everything she can to stop it as well because she wants to be the most powerful woman in the Democratic Party. Being Governor of the State of New York is a demotion--Albany is a backwater.

That leaves Sen. Clinton with two options. First, she can take this fight to the convention. There's precedent to back it up; Sen. Kennedy took his fight to the convention, even though he was 700 delegates behind President Carter. She'll be close enough to have a legitimate point as to who is more electable. If something else about Sen. Obama pops up between now and August, she'll be able to make a stronger argument.

IMO, she pursues this strategy if she thinks that this is her last shot.

Her second option is to receive some sort of guarantee from the Party; that if Sen. Obama loses, that the Party will back her completely for the 2012 campaign. The problem with this strategy for the Democratic Party is that Sen. Clinton and the Clinton power base within the party will be running AGAINST Sen. Obama in the general election, at least passively.

The racial breakdown of this election is striking. Sen. Obama is getting 90%+ of the black vote. If Sen. Clinton somehow gets the nomination, then that base probably won't vote for McCain, but will likely stay home. On the flip side, the numbers of Clinton supporters that would vote for McCain instead of Obama are running between 35%-40%, which is a stunning number. It's hard to conceive of a strategy where Sen. Clinton remains on the inside of the tent uninating out rather than outside the tent urinating in.

This election is the most favorable to the Democratic Party in my lifetime. To think that because they couldn't manage the primary process better they may lose it to a lukewarm candidate like Sen. McCain is stunning.

[maxiep]

I'll be interested to see the county breakdown between the two candidates. To win the Democratic vote in Oregon, all you need is Multnomah and Lane counties. It's my supposition those two counties are the core of the Obama support in the state. The Clackamas, Washington and Marion county tallies will be interesting to me, as I could see those voting blocs possibly swinging to McCain if he pulls more to the center.

[stockfire]

Originally Posted by maxiep

On the flip side, the numbers of Clinton supporters that would vote for McCain instead of Obama are running between 35%-40%, which is a stunning number.

Not one part of me believe that number will hold. Supporters want to create "dire circumstances" as another point for their candidate to claim. It's just more kitchen sink stuff. Expect that number to crash in November.

[HB]

I figure thats about time he will have enough super delegates to get him to 2025.

Not one part of me believe that number will hold. Supporters want to create "dire circumstances" as another point for their candidate to claim. It's just more kitchen sink stuff. Expect that number to crash in November.

What those numbers also show is that a lot of Republicans were voting in the Indiana and NC elections. Which is why they are going to vote for their guy at the end of the day? HRC voters arent dumb, they understand what it means to vote Repub come the general election and what impact that will have on the country.

[e_blazer1]

Her insistance on staying in the race seems to me to be only attributable to four scenarios:

1. She's hoping that Obama will make another blunder that will bolster her argument to the superdelegates that she's more electable than he.

2. She honestly believes that if she can run the table in the remaining primaries, she can make the same argument about electability even without an Obama scandal. It seems highly unlikely that she thinks she can run the table.

3. She's holding out for some concession from the Party. As you said, I can't really think what there would be that she would want unless it's the VP slot. Given her age and the fact that she will have already run a losing presidential candidacy, that wouldn't make much sense, IMO.

4. She has some dirt on Obama and plans on using it to leverage her way to the nomination.

Maybe I'm getting a little paranoid, but 4. wouldn't surprise me.

[STOMP]

Originally Posted by e_blazer1

Her insistance on staying in the race seems to me to be only attributable to four scenarios:

1. She's hoping that Obama will make another blunder that will bolster her argument to the superdelegates that she's more electable than he.

2. She honestly believes that if she can run the table in the remaining primaries, she can make the same argument about electability even without an Obama scandal. It seems highly unlikely that she thinks she can run the table.

3. She's holding out for some concession from the Party. As you said, I can't really think what there would be that she would want unless it's the VP slot. Given her age and the fact that she will have already run a losing presidential candidacy, that wouldn't make much sense, IMO.

4. She has some dirt on Obama and plans on using it to leverage her way to the nomination.

Maybe I'm getting a little paranoid, but 4. wouldn't surprise me.

It could also be...

1. that the Dems continue to register a lot of voters largely because of her race with BO. That she doesn't seem to be taking the high road in her campaigning and focus her attacks on McCain stretches this theory somewhat, but I don't believe she's hurting the party much (if at all) by staying in.

2. that she wants to raise some more cash to repay the millions that her campaign recently borrowed. That she's polling ahead in the next couple of state contests (W.Virginia & Kentuky) would help this effort.

I don't agree that she has additional dirt on Obama that she's not using... she's obviously willing to use most anything she can against him. But like you I don't believe that she can possibly believe that she can really win.

STOMP

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by stockfire

Not one part of me believe that number will hold. Supporters want to create "dire circumstances" as another point for their candidate to claim. It's just more kitchen sink stuff. Expect that number to crash in November.

I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure I agree this time. There is a lot of bitterness on both sides, even though their policies are roughly similar. Sen. Clinton's coalition includes a lot of "Reagan Democrats", and like it or not, McCain really speaks to them, perhaps more than any other Republican.

[HB]

Also, it doesnt do Obama any good if Clinton drops out so soon. The bitterness will not go anywhere, on the other hand she can stay in and make things easy for her supporters by going out on a high note.

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by HB

Also, it doesnt do Obama any good if Clinton drops out so soon. The bitterness will not go anywhere, on the other hand she can stay in and make things easy for her supporters by going out on a high note.

That's an interesting proposition. Can you elaborate? By the way, I'm not being sarcastic.

The way I'm looking at it is that the sooner she drops out and starts campaigning for Sen. Obama the better it's going to be for the Democratic Party. In my view, if she wins Kentucky and WV overwhelmingly and then drops out, it's just going to embitter two more states after she drops out.

If she spent this week saying that those two states needed to support Sen. Obama because he shares her values, it would make his ability to get those votes in the general that much easier.

[stockfire]

Originally Posted by maxiep

I see where you're coming from but I'm not sure I agree this time. There is a lot of bitterness on both sides, even though their policies are roughly similar. Sen. Clinton's coalition includes a lot of "Reagan Democrats", and like it or not, McCain really speaks to them, perhaps more than any other Republican.

We'll see I guess. I know i'm guilty of claiming the opposite in a fit of campaign induced rage.

[HB]

Originally Posted by maxiep

That's an interesting proposition. Can you elaborate? By the way, I'm not being sarcastic.

The way I'm looking at it is that the sooner she drops out and starts campaigning for Sen. Obama the better it's going to be for the Democratic Party. In my view, if she wins Kentucky and WV overwhelmingly and then drops out, it's just going to embitter two more states after she drops out.

If she spent this week saying that those two states needed to support Sen. Obama because he shares her values, it would make his ability to get those votes in the general that much easier.

The attacks against Obama will stop, and I figure now she will be saying more of 'whoever the nominee is, I will do my best to support'. I think she is going to start pointing out Bush and Mccains' negatives, letting her voters know that you have to vote democrat November.

Now I was thinking this would be the most logical thing for her to do, and Lawrence O'Donell who is close to the campaign said the same thing yesterday BUT it seems the woman is hell bent on staying in this race. Today she sent out a letter to the DNC saying Florida and Michigan must be recognized, then again maybe she is just letting the DNC know that its important that the people in those states be given a voice.

Here's the letter by the way

May 8, 2008


Senator Barack Obama

Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

Dear Senator Obama,

This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.

One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.

I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken [sic] by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party's rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically [sic] opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.

Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.

I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party's nominee.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton