Can you look into this and report on it? It looks as though Hillary is trying to do a repeat of the caucus takeovers we saw in Nevada:

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27762247

The winner in Tuesday's primary will be the one who motivates supporters to get up off the couch and cast a vote. And enthusiasm and the belief that one's candidate "has" to win will drive the election this year.

The polls are simply not reflecting such nebuluous things as enthusiasm and the sense that one "has" to get their candidate elected. Instead, these polls are relying on past methods of measuring the likelihood of voting--like "have you voted in a past primary". These traditions have failed us in this election.

And I think this is the reason the polls show a close race and then Obama blows the election away by 17 points. Clinton has certainly focused on urging folks to vote for her in next Tuesday's states--and I don't think she was as "you HAVE to get out and vote for me" in the past elections.

Will it be enough? I think it will be.

My two cents.

Hillary should drop out now.

She is hurting the party.

It is a choice of her ego versus the good of the party.

For the good of the party, she needs to quit on March 4th.

If she hangs in after that, she will be blamed if the Democrats lose in November. Does she want to go down as the person who ruined the Democrats best chance in a generation?

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Columbus Post Dispatch
2/21-29/08

Barackobama.com set a goal of 1,000,000 phone calls from the website phone bank before 3/4

Yesterday they reached that goal

New goal - 1.5 million

The Million Obaman Army is a GOP nightmare waiting to happen....

Time for Mrs. Clinton to hang it up

George Will gets it

On Stephanopoulos

The real question is what happens on Wednesday? What does Obama have ready to roll out to force Clinton out of the race

I know someone canvassing in a very poor section of East Cleveland this weekend, and these voters are motivated.

I think Hilary's problem has to do with this inevitability strategy. Obama's supporters are all people who have made up their mind to support him. While some of Hillary's supporters are incredibly motivated, a portion of her vote were people voting on her name, and her status as the presumptive nominee. That's not something that's going to necessarily get you to the polls, and I think it's one reason her support has been diminishing over time, and one reason Obama has been outperforming his polls in the last couple of weeks.

That said, I agree that I think this is changing.

And Zell, yes. Also, toothpaste companies showing people putting that giant glob on their brushes. Insidious, I tell you!

anneeliz,
I experienced an 'ouch' when you mentioned east Cleveland. I spent three days in Nov of 04 there canvassing for Kerry/Edwards. Those folks were pumped and ready to vote for the Democrats and in those three days, I saw only one Bush sign.
Mysteriously, it turned out that a significant % of those folks supposedly voted 3rd party! [Not that any of them even knew the names of the 3rd party candidates, mind you] But you can believe I later read anything I could read after that on the Ohio Sec'y of State Blackwell &Co and/or Diebold topics.
Just remembering what happened in east Cleveland in '04 and putting that into the same picture as Ohio governor Strickland having put his 'machine' at Hillary's disposal.......gives me some real uneasiness. I hope I am wrong to consider that the new Dem governor of Ohio might have inherited and decided to leave intact certain perks of power. That happened in my state when democrats finally swept out crooked republicans, but then started using some of the same unfair practices.

So...poor Hilary supporters are low income, female Hilary supporters are not women but female voters (how sophisticated) and male Obama suppoters are just men, and african american Obama supporters are blacks.

The bias continues.

But wait, according to the voters, the media is pro Hilary.

But, can we trust any poll reported on this site? Remember Hilary's inevitable leads in the polls? Or her victory in New York State and New Hampshire later tarnished by Mayor Bloomberg and congressman Kucinich who both suggested voter fraud?

Remember, if Obama is assasinated, the Rockefellers did it.

yeah Donna Brazile really has been an asset to Democratic campaigns. like in 2000....

and just because you fundamentally disagree with someone (like George Will) doesn't mean that they are incapable of a prescient comment or good analysis on purely political issues. and this is far more likely when the person in question is actually intelligent (like George Will), rather than a total buffoon (like Bill Kristol or Jonah Goldberg).

i'd take the POLITICAL analysis of George Will or the late Bill Buckley over, say, Donna Brazile or James Carville.

Kensdad is right - it would be ridiculously premature for Clinton to drop out before Tuesday. She long ago set this up as her firewall, and it would be silly for her to drop out now. Not to mention unfair to all her supporters.

The problem is that there are no clear markers for how to evaluate what is the state of the race after Tuesday. I think if Obama wins either TX or OH, then it's race over, the superdelegates flood to him, and Hillary is effectively forced out.

But what if she wins both states by single digits? Then it becomes more complicated and what a mess we'll have if this is how it turns out. We'd almost certainly be going all the way to August to decide the nominee - something McCain would love!

Bill Richardson just said today that the leader in pledged delegates after today should be the party nominee - which is effectively an endorsement of Obama, as there's no way Clinton catches up Tuesday - it's almost mathematically impossible. I doubt the Clinton team sees it that way. And her supporters would probably feel wronged if she did get out under those circumstances after narrow wins in TX and OH.

I'm increasingly dreading a hung jury taking us through the summer. On an emotional level it feels like the 2000 Gore/Bush election, with the potential for one or the other side to feel really embittered.

For me, Wednesday is the day that really decides Hillary Clinton's legacy. For that is the day that she will either decide to put her personal ambition upfront and center and critically wound the party for years to come and hand McCain the election by staying in the race OR she'll drop out for the good of the country and Democratic party.

I'll be interested to see if Hillary is able to listen past her political tone-deafness to hear the opportunity to be Barack's ally in the Senate as Senator Robert Wagner was for FDR. Given how she's run her campaign, I'll be surprised but it may be that she's been giving Penn's negative strategy a spin up till March 5th, and afterwards she'll listen to the likes of Mandy Grunwald. It would mean redirecting her ambition away from the Whitehouse, but she doesn't necessarily have to hang up her political spurs or her relevance.

No, Kensdad, it's not a scenario I want to consider. And yes, I'm an Obama partisan. But what do you think will be the effect on the Democrats chances for the White House if it goes all the way to the convention and is not decided until late August, at which point a large percentage of Democrats will be angry and disillusioned? The last two times we had anything remotely similar (Ford/Reagan in 76 and Carter/Kennedy in 80), the "winner" came out damaged goods for the general election.

I don't fault Hillary for continuing to campaign as long as there's a legitimate chance of winning - in fact, I think she can do nothing else. But I do think that the rest of the superdelegates, especially those in Congress, need to take a good look at where things stand after Tuesday and take a clear stand for one or the other - at least that way, there are fewer unknowns, and it's less likely to go so late.

Lastly, I'm worried about the Florida/Michigan situation. Both sides have legimate points of view which are strongly tinged by self-interest. If the race would be decided differently based solely on a decision about those delegates, then this will get very ugly.

Only Democrats could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in what should be a Democratic year.

It's easy for me to say I think it should end Wednesday, cause I'm an Obama supporter and that's the only way it could END Wednesday. But I am curious about your perspective, as a Clinton supporter, about these questions.

I promise not to be snarky with your reply:))

instead, you saying that winning key general election states in the primaries have no bearing how they will turn out in the GE? that seems to be a fairly specious argument on your part.

Please explain how Hillary winning CA means that Barack won't. Has Hillary won any states that aren't automatic wins for Dem candidates in the GE?

i appreciate your belittling words about my ability to have a conversation, but i don't see your unwillingness to consider the 50/50 chance that Hillary takes both OH and TX to be very on encouraging on that score either.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention, but previously I had already allowed that should Hillary win either OH or TX she would stay in the race. So things would continue.

The question of what should happen should Hillary be further behind the delegate count come March 5th seems much more reasonable (i.e. probable) than the scenario you've put together which is quite a ways off in terms of time and contingencies. Were my candidate in your's position, I'd have certainly thought about the question, but I appear to have misjudged your emational investment in this.

But as to the Hillary "running-the-table" option, what are the delegate counts and popular vote counts you're assuming under such scenario? Did she eke out a bunch of 50+1 wins that leave her and Barack essentially tied? Or has her campaign turned the tide and won the rest of the election by the kind of margins that Barack has put up so far?

"Has Hillary won any states that aren't automatic wins for Dem candidates in the GE?"

NM, NV, AZ, TN, AR, OK

and that goes to my point about OH, PA, FL, MI. those are must-win states in november. if one switches from dem to repub or vice versa, then it will be exceedingly difficult to win the election. i think a lot of dems should be very concerned if obama wins the nomination without winning any of those swing states.

i'm not suggesting, nor have i ever suggested that Obama will not win a state like CA or MA, nor that Hillary would win a state like TX.

there are interesting questions about some states for Hillary in AR, TN, NV, NM... whereas Obama has shown strength in states like VA, CO, IA...

kensdad,

Final point on why answering your series of "what-ifs" isn't possible without you providing more detail: if Hillary manages a 3:2 (60% to 40%) delegate advantage over Barack for the remainder of the primary season (including Mar 4th), she gets to the convention with an approximate 2% overall lead in the delegate count. So if she can manage 20% margin of victor in delegates from here on out, she will just barely have edged Barack after PR votes.

If I recall from one of your postings upthread, you find an Obama lead in delegates by ~2% unconvincing of who should drop out so that'll be one fun convention. On the otherhand if you're envisioning Hillary winning by something like 70% to 30%, then she would have a double digit lead after PR votes.

Final point on why answering your series of "what-ifs" isn't possible without you providing more detail: if Hillary manages a 3:2 (60% to 40%) delegate advantage over Barack for the remainder of the primary season (including Mar 4th), she gets to the convention with an approximate 2% overall lead in the delegate count.

sorry bad math: a 60%-40% margin of victory in delegates from here on out would net her an 11% lead going into the convention (clearly she's the nominee under this scenario).

Currently she's losing the pledged delegate count ~46.5% to 53.5%. If she gets up to 51% to 49% scenario from here on out, she's still down ~5% at the convention. 55% to 45% (a sustained 9% swing) gets her to the 2% margin of victory after PR votes.

So not only does she have to win everything from here on out, but she has to win by a not inconsiderable amount.

When Bill said she had to win TX and OH, we wasn't kidding.

All bets are off. Florida's Republican governor announced support for a redo of Dem primary.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a_Z1B1gCt_nM&refer=home

1,627 is fifty percent plus one of the 3,253 democratically selected delegates to the Democratic nominating convention.

Once a candidate has 1,627 of these "pledged" delegates, he or she will win the nomination -- unless the judgment of voters is overturned by the 796 superdelegates. That's why 1,627 is the real magic number. With 1,627 delegates, a candidate is guaranteed a democratic majority, and the only way his or her opponent can win is by subverting democracy.

This presents a big challenge for Hillary Clinton. We're already seventy percent through the primary and caucus calendar, and she would have to win at least 58% of the remaining delegates to hit 1,627. Meanwhile, even though Barack Obama only needs to win 44%, he's winning contest after contest with huge 60+% majorities.

plagarizing myself from another site, 'cause it's Sunday night and I want to turn this thing off for a while. I hope this doesn't come back to haunt me if I ever run for president....:

I have a question for Hillary supporters. Maybe two.

I realize that we're in the heat of battle here, and that we all want our candidate to win.

But let's step back from the flying spittle for a moment and look at some facts.

One is that it is extremely unlikely that Hillary will win on the up and up. She'd have to cheat somehow to pull it off, in fact.

Hillary will have to win ALL remaining contests by a huge margin, something like 75-25%, to get a lead in pledged delegates. She'll have to win Ohio by 15-20 points, Texas by a similar margin, when all of the polls show she's either tied or slightly behind.

Remember Wisconsin? Some polls had the race very tight, a couple had her very slightly ahead, and others had him up a few points. But he won by 17 POINTS, because the polling was modeled, in part, on previous contests that had nothing like the turnout we're seeing EVERYWHERE this year. You'd better get ready for another blowout in Texas, and maybe even a loss in Ohio. The polls are not Hillary's friend. The voters, in state after state since Super Tuesday, are repudiating her claim on the office.

Another is that her campaign is giving off the aroma of desperation. Lots of negativity, nastiness and nullification. The message miesters seem to be out of ideas, and are trying to damage Obama more than win on merit themselves. Is this really OK with you all? Is the candidate really more important than winning back the White House in November? Really?

So, to my question. Two questions, really.

What are you going to do, especially those of you who are haunting all these boards and spewing venom? (I'm not talking to the GOP sock puppets now, just ardent supporters of Clinton) Are you really Democrats who will support him in the general? I'd like to hear more from you on this, because the Republicans are just loving the little knife fight we're having at the moment, believe me. Are you really going to let them win, or get up off the mat and have a shot at winning?

Another question, about this whole grrrl power vibe I'm getting from many of Hillary's supporters, and from her ownself. What makes Hillary better just because she's a woman? I just don't see it. There's really nothing intrinsicly better about a woman's leadership, so do us all a favor and drop the propaganda bullshit. Equally good, sure. Automatically better? No. I've worked for women, and there are several women in management where I work. Just like men, some are good, and some are awful. This argument about women's superiority won't wash.

I can see a woman president, by the way, but what's with pushing Hillary so hard, when she obviously has not closed the deal with half the country or more? Her negatives are a huge liability for us, don't you see that? Or is some of the more rabid support simply "I won't vote for a black guy but I don't have to face that if I claim to support a woman".

I realize this gender/race thing is a tough one to parse out, and we've never had to face this before, but I would like to ask Hillary supporters if they'll make a pledge to work for Obama if he wins the nomination, as he's likely to do.

It's time to start facing reality.

the reason why you got ad hominem responses is because your first post was over-the-top ridiculous and offensive.

i can't speak for anyone else, but i will certainly be voting for the democratic nominee for president.

These comments make Baby Jebus cry.