Since they only use Penn for polling, I'm not too worried about what their internal polling suggests at this point.

There is a fourth, unspoken hope.

That is,they hope donors and supporters cannot do math.

Starting February more than $3 million in a hole is a bad way to run a campaign.

Hillary needs to win by much more than 5 in each state to have a chance of winning this thing.

Hillary advisers are telling people... that the campaign's internal polling shows her up over five points in her key firewall states of Ohio and Texas.

Hell's bells, the public polls say the same thing. That is not the point. The polls said she was up by over 15 points a week ago. Now it is down to 8 at the optimistic end, with over a week to go. That lead will not hold and I cannot believe that they seriously expect anyone else to suppose that it will.

Look, HRC can't afford (in any sense) a mass stampede to the exits just now.
She will be making a forced landing and is simply attempting to establish a glide path rather than crackup.
No she can't win the nomination and probably not Texas.
But really, that is not what this is about.
Switch from your "HRC is such a dumb ass" mode to you "HRC is such an evil conniving b" mode for a moment.

55-45 or flight?

Even those margins won't net her enough delegates to survive Mississippi and Wyoming much less NC, OR and the following

Indeed, the donor tells me that he's frustrated that the campaign has failed to do more to stop the media from portraying her candidacy as doomed.

Really? Because I think the media has been incredibly generous to her. She's basically done but they're spinning it as a tie with her close behind.

It's hard to blame them if they're hustling to get money for that multi-million-dollar debt that they're carrying.

But if they are deceiving gullible rich folks (and they don't seem to bother with any other kind) who have visions of glittering ambassadorships, that's just wrong.

Bottom line is this:

Texas: 193 delegates
Ohio: 141 delegates

60% of the delegates in those two states to Clinton:
68 more than Obama (Obama with a 91 delegate lead thereafter)

If only 55% of the delegates to her:
34 more than Obama (Obama with a 125 delegate lead thereafter)

Good luck!

Here's my quick back of a napkin math.

Currently there are 981 remaining pledged delegates. Obama has a lead of 156 (CBS tally - not including supers). Therefore, to draw even Clinton must win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates.

After Feb 4, there will be 611 remaining pledged delegates. IF Clinton comes out of Feb 5 winning 55/45 in Texas and Ohio, gaining 44 delegates on Obama (according to earlier post), then she will still have to win about 59% of remaining pledged delegates.

But... if somehow she manages to get to FL & MI delegations seated the margin drops to somewhere around 50 delegates, and she only needs to win 54% of remaining delegates.

54% is starting to sound more reasonable, assuming that you can completely halt, and reverse, the Obama momentum in the process.

That, at least, must be the message being sent to the donors.

No way.

Regardless of what their polls indicate, Clinton winning the primary is next to impossible from a mathematical perspective. She has to achieve 65+% wins in the remaining primaries in order to establish a marginal - not substantial -- lead of delegates over Obama. That's the best case scenario and still is not sufficient to win the primary.

I explained this in another thread:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillarys_closer_a_big_moment_o.php#comment-2612478

MYTH: The media is hurting Clinton

It's simply not true. The ONLY reason Hillary is still "in it" (e.g., "Don't count her out!") is because the media pushes that narrative.

If Obama:

-- had lost 11 races in a row
-- had been outraised at least 2-1 in 2008
-- had been outspent in advertising 3-1
-- was behind in delegates and popular vote (even including a state in which his opponent's name was not on the ballet)
-- had no mathematical way to achieve the nomination without superdelegates overturning the will of the voters, and
-- had lost twice as many states as Clinton

he would be laughed off out of the race. It's not even a close call. She has no more chance of winning than Huckabee (no, a Miracle is Not a Strategy), yet not a single media person will go on record saying as much.

North Carolina's delegate allocation set up is going to be favorable to Obama. 77 of the 115 pledged delegates are given by Congressional district and the districts with some of the higher African-American populations are also given the most delegates.

Obama should win NC 60% - 40% and pick up around 20 delegates. If Hillary does really well she might keep him to a pickup of only 10.

38% of Democratic voters are African American in NC. Unaffiliated voters can also vote in the Democratic primary and they make up 21% of NC's electorate.

MMASONM: Remember, Obama is polling with huge numbers in North Carolina (2/12 SUSA 50/40 for Obama). That's a +13 state for him and is his firewall if Hillary does excellent in Texas and Ohio. That's a huge margin to reverse in a medium to large state. I think if Obama goes +13 delegates there then she's going to need much larger gains in the other states. Something like 56 or 57% which is much more difficult.

I think either someone is bad at delegate math in her campaign or there's dishonesty somewhere. I'd hate to think she's leading people on in order to get her personal loans paid back but I'm not sure I can believe her and her advisers could be this ignorant of the reality. Either way it says something about her and her campaign.

In the end though, you may be right in your final statement, that they are sending that message and just "overlooking" the poll from North Carolina.

It saddens me that so many of you hate Hillary Clinton for no reason or at least that you don't know why you really do. I hope you will at some point confront that deep part of your soul where it gives you pleasure to see a strong woman fail. This is the reason for 90%+ of the anti-Hillary sentiment, whether you know it or believe it or not. Deep down, perhaps under layers of denial, you cannot deal with a woman "telling you what to do." After all, that's daddy's job. And the reason you support Obama is not that he has certain policies or would make an effective president or that he stands for anything political at all. Rather it's because supporting him makes you feel cool--you're one of the cool kids. I understand it's a difficult choice--between reasoned authority and the cool kids in the back of the bus. But America will never choose reason. It will choose fear. It will choose glamour. It will choose sex. It will choose appearance. But it will not choose reason, reflection, argument, etc. In fact, those ideas are "un-American." I was not originally a Hillary supporter, but given only the two of them as choices, it is painfully obvious that the voters have fallen into a gladiator mentality, and so what we will get is a man who stands for nothing real, nothing of substance, nothing concrete, and he will either be destroyed by the republicans who will be able to create his character for him, or he'll get to Washington and will either not get anything done or he will bring people together by pursuing watered down policies that aren't good for our country. A sad state of affairs.

The way she and her campaign staff are spending donor funding, she'll be lucky to afford any more phone calls by March 4th. Oy, imagine her taking the reins of government with such bloated, undisciplined fiscal management.

"It saddens me that so many of you hate Hillary Clinton for no reason or at least that you don't know why you really do. I hope you will at some point confront that deep part of your soul where it gives you pleasure to see a strong woman fail. This is the reason for 90%+ of the anti-Hillary sentiment, whether you know it or believe it or not. "

This. is. BULL.

Let me be clear: I will vote for Hillary over McCain.

I thought this would never even make it to Texas, and we would already be in the general by now. The fact that Obama has not only competed, but beaten Hillary and Bill Clinton speak volumes of his ability to WIN.

And in the end, that's what we want: a Winner. I don't want Hillary to fail. But it's apparent to me she IS.

So, the choice becomes: Do I vote for someone who can't even win the Democratic Nomination? Or do I vote for someone who can win in November?

How does Hillary think proclaiming that she'll try to win by cheating (FL, MI) will make Democrats in future states want to vote for her? Seems like it would make a lot of them mad and/or discourage some of her supporters and depress their turnout.

It's easy to believe what you want to believe (which is also why Clinton supporters here think that only Obama supporters are 'really nasty'). You want to believe that YOUR candidate can win. And if you're a big-time donor, you want to believe that you haven't wasted your money.

So, although it's hard to imagine how her donors can swallow this new Clinton campaign argument, it's not unlikely that many of them will. They will be increasingly worried, of course, that they backed the wrong horse (wealthy donors, in particular, want to be on the winning side), but we can easily fool ourselves about things that we WANT to be true.

And with the continued emphasis on seating Michigan and Florida delegates, I see no sign that Hillary plans to bow out gracefully. If so, why raise such a divisive argument? After all, if her scheme actually worked, it would destroy the Democratic Party. So why do it unless you really, really refuse to accept the writing on the wall? It's bad enough that she'd destroy our party to keep her election hopes alive - do you really think she'd risk this if she planned to bow out?

MMASONM: I'm curious to see how momentum does change once she wins one. I'm pretty convinced she'll win something somewhere. It'll be instructive to see how that win pans out for a candidate who's loosing by a lot but not so much she's completely defeated.

And with the continued emphasis on seating Michigan and Florida delegates, I see no sign that Hillary plans to bow out gracefully. If so, why raise such a divisive argument?

This is sort rephrasing an earlier post, but I think that if Clinton dismisses the possibility of seating FL and MI delegates, then she might as well concede the race now. So, as far as her donors are concerned, she has to take the position that she will work to get those delegates seated.

It is unlikely there will be any resolution to this issue in the near future, and maybe Clinton herself believes that it is unlikely that it will happen. But as long as she can convince donors that it might happen and that she will try to make it happen, there's a reason for them to keep giving money.

leave Ken out of it, cube3u...

if you disagree with what i'm saying, that's fine. my point is that we can try being civil to each other. i think your candidate would agree. he keeps talking about bringing people together, at least that's what i keep hearing him say... or are those just words?

Anyone hear if TPM would be live-blogging the next Patrick Fitzgerald trial?

Greg: i see it. very clearly. ugliness on both sides is divisive and can lead to unwanted results down the road. it's not just a matter of voting dem in the GE, but it's a matter of doing it with enthusiasm. obama supporters, above all, must realize the political advantage to enthusiasm!

SCMadden: i used the line "are those just words" to point out the hypocrisy (not of obama, but of one of his supporters on this board who has been commenting in more than one thread on my comments which have not be critical of obama, btw...)

Oh man, remember when she voted for the Iraq War? That was awesome! What Would Daddy Do?

And, for the record, I think Senator O's a regular square. We don't invite lawyers to our parties in hipsterville.

Obama is at +155 in pledge delegates (PDs), -65 in SDs, +90 overall.

10% win in Ohio means about 15 PDs.

5% win in Texas means about 10 PDs.

Vermont and Rhode Island will cancel each other out.

Then, on Saturday March 8, we have Miss. and Wyoming, 45 delegates overall. I expect Obama to get a 20% win and 10 PDs overall.

So come March 10, Obama will have 155 - 15 - 10 + 10 = 140 PDs more. The disadvantage in SDs has been shrinking all month long and looks likely it'll get to around -50 three weeks from now.

Total advantage: 140 PDs - 50 SDs = 90 SDs.

Hillary campaign estimated they'll get within 25 delegates in March. They won't.

For those who are saddened or trouble by the rhetoric, please don’t. As she said in her own words in the debate- whatever happens in this race she is going to be just fine.

As far as Obama supporters are concerned:

They are elite delusional latte drinking Pirus driving cult from red states, caucus states, small states, black states and boogey land that don’t matter because they’re duped into believing a empty suit plagiarist peddling false hopes.

Let’s get a reality check.

Regular bloggers on TPM don’t engage in smear attacks against a candidate. And in my experience whenever someone crosses the line- there are more than a few who call for restrain. That doesn’t mean we all kneel down, open our arms and HAIL MARY!!!!

Most comments made on this story- though not complimentary- are perfectly reasonable. I'm sorry 8/10 bloggers happen to support Barack- it's not the content it's the lopsided volume of content that's bothering you.

kash79, you may very well be right about the lopsided volume of the content... it's just kinda funny that some Obama supporters are so vitriolic as their candidate seems to be running on the idea that he can defuse some of the extremism that plagues our politics today. it's a bit more than ironic that while they whole-heartedly support the man that they don't embrace what he says. obama's whole argument is that people will demand change and that the old politics of division will no longer be acceptable. a good place to start would be right here. if some of his supporters find Hillary Clinton so unacceptable, then i can't imagine how they think it will be acceptable to work with the republicans...

personally, i don't buy the whole uniter thing. i'm sure that Obama is sincere, i just doubt that it can be done. if the republicans were interested in bipartisanship then they should have started when they were swept in the '06 midterms. in fact, they have become even more partisan since then, sticking together with fewer numbers to thwart whatever the dems put forward. presuming that the dems expand their margins in the House and Senate this november (which looks likely), then why would we want to negotiate with republicans? dems would essentially have a mandate to affect change with Obama in the WH and full majorities in both houses of congress.

ugh... did i say "all"? i'm pretty sure that i said "some"... did i say that Obama has no substance? i'm pretty sure that i have never written anything like that... in fact, i haven't criticized Obama personally or even on his policies. i think that i'm mostly skeptical regarding the "new politics" thing, but maybe you know more about what i think because you can read between the lines of my posts?

i'm not even really trying to sway anyone here, because everyone is dug in too deep... mostly, i'm addressing my concerns for the party and my dismay regarding the over-the-top hillary-bashing and the uncivil attacks on fellow democrats.

why is it that my concerns, reservations or even cynicism regarding Obama's candidacy (not the man)is so offensive to you, cube3u? so much so that you seem to suggest that i should not be posting here ("go pick on, Ken")...

lighten up, buddy. looks like your guy is winning. if you don't like my posts, then don't read them. personally, i think my posts are less offensive than a lot that i have read here, but you only seem to take umbrage with me. why don't you take out some of your anger at some conservative who doesn't agree with you on war, healthcare, tax cuts for the rich, immigration, supreme court justices, OR Barack Obama?

kensdad as well as generalists who feel compelled to apologize for others' behavior or who insist on generic civility.

Will you folks start another thread on this nonsense and scold and apologize to your hearts' content ad nauseum?

It is extraordinarily annoying to have these sorts of junkie posts show up about every third entry. I've been reading this sort of crap for a couple of weeks now and my last nerve has now been stomped on.

If a poster has been rude--then make an entry against that idiot and stop forcing all of us to skim through the same damned sort of whine with every post some of you make. They are lengthy, boring, distracting, and downright annoying.

Give. It. Up.

im no sexist.raised by my strong mom. live in new zealand and proud of our female prime minister and that new zealand was the first country that allowed women to vote. bill clinton was my political hero and i dreamed of the day i could vote hillary into the oval office. now im ashamed of the clintons. they have gone the route of atwater and rove in their quest to get back in the white house. it embarrases me that i argued for bill through all his scandals. ive heard hillary allign herself with bush twice in the last two days directly as an argument to vote for her. when she speaks or debates she rants and yells at the listeners. i wonder why she wants it so bad. if she really loved america she would support obama. i believe she and bill know he is better for this country. they lost my support the day after iowa when they put out the BS abortion mailer, i was shocked at the deceptive tactic. obama won me over the night before. my family sat in the living room listening to his speech trembling with hope-jaws dropped, i was teary. first moment of hope for this country since the supreme court gave bush the presidency. so no-i dont dislike hillary because im a sexist, i dislike her because she forgot her ideals and has tried to steal this nomination with absolute constant deception and tactics that would make rove proud. obama is my guy....b (first post)

Excuse me if someone has said this already (it's hard to be timely here in Australia) but... Doesn't anyone find it offensive that Hillary is now placing at the centre of her strategy the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates? Does that not strike anyone as a touch, um, North Korean? Obama's name was not on the Michigan ballot! Clinton's attempt to change the rules mid-game should be the source of outrage, yet everyone gets hypnotised by the word "disenfranchisement". Sure, you are disenfranchised if your vote does not count but being enfranchised is pretty pointless IF THERE IS ONLY ONE NAME ON THE BALLOT!

Whistling past the graveyard.

Hillary is ready to lead can beat John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. has no Record to run on!

CommentBug.com Free Photo Storage!