My Letter To A Clinton Insider

XXX:

The latest delegate count is:

Barack Obama
Pledged: 1321
Superdelegates: 199
Total: 1,520

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 1186
Superdelegates: 238
Total: 1,424

The remaining primaries cannot put either one of them over the top to 2,025. Furthermore, Obama's lead in pledged delegates is insurmountable. Of the 4,049 total delegates, about 800 are super delegates. That leaves about 3,250 elected delegates of which 2,500 have already been chosen. That means that there are only 750 delegates up for election in all the remaining primaries including Michigan and Florida if there is a do over.

Obama now leads Hillary in elected delegates by 135. Of the 750 delegates remaining to be elected, she would need to win an average of a 58/42 per cent margin of victory in the remaining primaries. That would mean that she would need a 16 percentage point margin in every remaining primary. And she is not going to win some of the remaining states.

The super delegates are going to put one of them over the top. Therefore, the remaining primaries are realistically a beauty contest as to pledged delegates. I have the following suggestions:

Both candidates acknowledge that the super delegates should make their choice freely and without pressure from either side.

Both candidates agree to have a positive remaining campaign and limit their spending to equal amounts by each candidate so the remaining states can cast their preferences.

Both campaigns will save tens of millions of dollars that could be better spent for the benefit of the November election.

That would reduce the need for major fundraising by either side that right now is Obama's advantage.

I understand that the campaign is in survival mode. But, living to breathe another day is going to cause a backlash as the media and the grass roots turns against Hillary in the next few weeks.

Comments

[zasu]

Hillary's victories Tuesday were tremendously impressive. I have always said that although I prefer Senator Obama, if Hillary were to win the nomination I would gleefully vote for her. I believe she would make a fine president. Well, now after the last coupla days, I am having second thoughts.

I am distressed that Senator Clinton is taking her campaign in such a negative, Republican direction. Mr. Penn referring to Obama as behaving like Ken Starr? What the hell is that all about? And praising John McCain as being more fit to be president than her Democratic opponent? Never, in my political life, have I ever heard such irresponsible comments.

Mr. Obama has been very easy on Ms. Clinton. He has never brought up any of the scandals from the Clinton administration. But now that her campaign has opened the door by comparing him to Ken Starr, of all people, it is fair game for Obama to open fire with all the stuff he has held back on. He said from the beginning he wanted to run a respectful campaign, and for the most part he has done so. But the kind of crap the Clinton campaign is beginning to fling his way is totally disgraceful, and I really and sincerely hope he forgets about holding back.

[JXB]

Another possibility: the superdelegates, recognizing the damage that will be done to their Party and electoral chances in November by 1) a continued protracted and increasingly negative nomination fight between the remaining candidates which will not materially change the candidates' current pledged delegate position and 2) a convention outcome in which the superdelegates overturn the majority will of the primary electorate, exercise their independent judgment for the long term good and protection of the Party and announce that they will support as a block at the convention whichever candidate ends up with the most pledged delegates. This would end the nomination campaigns immediately without necessitating any change of the existing primary rules in the middle of the game and get the Party on to the critical business of unification behind its nominee and a nationwide campaign against its Republican opponent.

[Absintheforall]

Daily it's becoming more apparent that Obama fights like a wuss. Hillary, on the other hand, jumps in and is ready for blood. She likes a good fight!

Who do you want leading us during these perilous times?

[JB2]

"[S]he would need to win an average of a 58/42 per cent margin of victory in the remaining primaries.­"

This seems to imply that Clinton only needs 58% of the remaining primary votes; if so, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of proportional representation. To catch up in pledged delegates, Clinton needs 58% of those that remain, and to win those she'll need a substantially greater percentage of votes than 58 - probably closer to 65.

And since it's clear that this won't happen, she will need virtually every single super-delegate's vote to get the nomination in Denver, which also won't happen.

That's why the race is over. Clinton is apparently going to continue as the Dem's Huckabee, but her supporters had better reconcile with Obama as the nominee in November.

[presto]

Sheldon - I would add two other things. I would ask the superdelegates to wait for at least a few more states to vote before they make their final decision.

Also, since we are assuming campaign funds will be limited, I think we need 2 or 3 more debates, really substantive ones. No silly questions. One entire debate could be devoted to the economy, one to foreign policy, extricating ourselves from Iraq, and wrapping things up in Afghanistan. A third debate could focus on other issues that have not yet been effectively addressed - the environment and global warming, education, fuel independence, etc.

I agree on a moratorium on negative ads but I am frustrated that these other things are not being discussed. The conversation has been very superficial and often irrelevant.

[BlueAsh]

Both Clinton and Obama will draw from the same pool of advisers. Their styles may differ, but not the substance. Debates won't really bring out any real substance. If you think Hillary will stick to the numbers she is throwing on the table right now, you will have to pinch yourself hard and wake up.

The difference is: Obama will be able to add other (maybe even dissenting voices) to that pool and he will have a wider range of options at his disposal.

A recent article on Huff Post, "The Obama I know," is very illuminating.

[presto]

Blueash - not sure what numbers on the table you are talking about. So the pinch will have to wait.

[Countess]

By the time this campaign is finished at least one half of the democratic party will realize that the Clintons are unworthy of being elected to any office nevermind the presidency. This group is growing everyday.

[myname]

I am starting to think Hillary consciously or subconsciously wants a bruised, smeared and weakened Barack Obama to lose to McCain (just like the Clintons did not want Kerry to win in 2004) so that she can try in 2012 as a front runner. It is completely plausible for this to be the case given the Clintons thirst for power at any cost.

[Trace8089]

Oh, please. Kerry ran a shitty campaign. He didn't have the balls to fight back. Here was a man that choose to go to Vietnam. He did so with honor. When his military record was attacked Kerry did little to respond. He should have called these republicans out. Something like "When I was getting shot at "W" and Cheney were chicken-shit draft dodgers. They both supported the Vietnam war but didn't have the courage to fight in it. Kerry allowed chicken-hawks to define him as a coward and didn't respond. Let's not forget when angry voters that waited hours in Ohio that didn't get to vote needed Kerry where was he? I see the same in Obama. I hope I'm wrong but he better grow some balls

[mommadona]

Direct Quote from Leon Pannetta, Clinton's Chief of Staff:

"If there is one thing the Clintons are all about is winning." ~CNN Situation Room

It was not said with respect.

[presto]

myname - that is not at all plausible. Looking for a Machiavellian plot around every corner is not helpful and it just needlessly agitates things. We need to let the candidates see the process through and then let the superdelgates, if necessary, do what they were created to do - cast their votes after considering the popular vote, the pledged delegate vote and their own wisdom as party elders.

[BlueAsh]

This is a direct quote from another thread:

"Remember, if you mud wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy and the pig likes it."

[presto]

Blue ash - and it was just as offensive on the other thread as it is here.

[hopeless277]

It would seem that Hillary does not care if America turns against her. She is busily campaigning for John McCain at the expense of the entire planet. Although your plan would be a good one, Clinton has already shown her distain for rules by requesting the seating of the cancelled candidates from Michigan and Florida. She will stop at nothing. The phrase that keeps coming to mind is 'if I can't have it, no one can'. I am agast as her fear-mongering and personal attacks. This is definately NOT someone I want even NEAR the White House. So although your suggestion would stop the blood-letting, it's not in Hillary's nature to back down from a fight. Even if it means the entire Earth could be collateral damage.

[MzTexas]

Uh, if the legislatures in Michigan and Florida hadn't broken the stupid "party" rules, Ms. Clinton would be kicking Obama's rear . . . why not let the process continue? Obviously, Ms. Clinton still has a very strong following . . . she won 3 of the last 4 primaries. I'm SOOOO sick of political parties, I could vomit. Let the PEOPLE decide not the ridiculous political parties. Madison was so right when he warned that "factions" aka political parties would bring about the undoing of this great country.

For the record, I'm not a Clinton supporter . . . I don't support any of the final three media-created candidates. I'm an AMERICAN supporter.

[blueraven]

Since Obama removed his name from the ballot in Michigan out of respect for the fact the vote was meaningless, your claim about Clinton is completely unfounded in truth. And Clinton only gained four more delegates than Obama did in the last spate of primaries, so how is that winning?

[Trace8089]

Yeah, That's why St. Obama did it. He pulled his name because it looked like Clinton would win.

[presto]

Blueraven,

It is not unfounded. Clinton does have a lot of supporters. She won, without dispute, 3 our of the last 4 primaries based on popular vote. Popular vote means people. Supporters are people.. Obama won based on delegates. That does not translate quite as directly into supporters.

[markusmarkus]

"Uh, if the legislatures in Michigan and Florida hadn't broken the stupid "party" rules,....­. "

The Michigan legislature didn't set the state's dem primary date. The Michigan Dem Party, contrary to the DNC's edict, set the date. Hence, no do over in Michigan. As we used to say at NAVAIR, "Thems the breaks of Naval Aviation."

Personally, I think we all need to start thinking post-convention. As Chuck Todd mentioned last night on KO, this battle does nothing except provide ammo for McBoob and company. So, play nice, like your mother used to tell you.