« Will Obama Campaign Start Hitting Hillary Over Whitewater And Cattle Futures? | Home | Plouffe Rules Out Use Of Whitewater Or Cattle Futures Against Hillary »
Obama Campaign: "We Are Less Than 300 Delegates From Securing Nomination"
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, on a conference call with reporters just now, shares the campaign's official delegate count in the wake of last night's results.
The campaign estimates that her net will be either 10 or 12 pledged dels.
Granting her 12, Plouffe says, Obama's delegate lead has dropped from 171 to 159.
There are 408 pledged dels remaining to be allocated in upcoming contests -- which means that time is running out, to put it mildly, for Hillary to make up her delegate deficit.
Bottom line: Factoring in super dels and pledged dels, Plouffe maintains, "we are less than 300 delegates from securing the nomination."
Advertisement
Are you going to miss the dueling conference calls, once this is over?
April 23, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well, he'd have secured it by now if Hillary would just stop this.
We could be working on the Republicans, but no - Hillary has to turn into one herself and hang this whole fucking thing up.
April 23, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama could have won New Hampshire, this would be over.
If Obama could have come close in California, this would be over.
If Obama could have come close in Ohio, this would have been over.
If Obama could have won Texas, this would have beeen over.
If Obama could have come close yesterday, this would be over.
Shame on Clinton for not recognizing that Obama is entitled to this nomination. After all, the Repugs will quickly recognize that he is entitled to the Presidency and they won't be nasty about it. (If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you).
You would really think that someone who came up in politics out of the Chicago machine and his supporters would understand that this politics is a rough game, and nobody gets anything handed to them. If they did, Clinton would have had the nomination handed to her. Instead, we are left with this mess.
I have not given a penny to either candidate. I will enthusiastically contribute to whoever the winner is because I believe that it is absolutely imperative that a Democrat win this election because there will be at least two Supreme Court Vacancies in the next four years. What I just don't understand is why when she gets down in the mud, he has to get down there with her. When he responds they way he has, it really makes me think that there isn't all that much of a difference. (He is product of Chicago machine politics, and she's a Clinton).
April 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
blah blah blah
Obama is just an empty suit,
blah blah blah
I'm too smart to support any candidate, blah blah blah
I have lots of disdain for the process blah blah blah
but Democrat has to win.
So you better send Obama some money cause he's the only goddamn Democrat running.
Hillary is the Richard Mellon Scaife candidate in this election.
April 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Tena, he IS from NYC ... ;)
April 23, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry, but that is exactly the attitude that got us the last four years of the Decider. When you tell people in Ohio or Pennsylvania that they are idiots if they don't KNOW that the only thing to do is vote for John Kerry (or Barack Obama) they stop paying attention to you. I have never voted for a Republican, but I just don't understand how this party can be so thick.
April 23, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but John Kerry lost in large part (and that's debatable because he most likely won Ohio based on the investigations into election tampering) because he did NOT fight back hard against the swiftboaters and the idiotic claims of elitism by good ol' boy GW (which to any sane person is laugable). Which is exactly my point about Obama - he will fight back. Hillary is always talking about "being a fighter" but when Obama does it, it's wrong ... talk about double standards. I don't see your point - I really don't.
April 23, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever.
April 23, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, cogent reply. Does that mean you agree? ;)
April 23, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, amen to that. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If he fights back, he's a hypocrite for not sticking to the new politics; if he doesn't fight back, he's a wimp who will be swiftboated by the Evil Republicans. It's all media spin and the corporate media is more than happy to parrot Clinton's talking points because they get to hear themselves talk, and they go for the ratings that come with being nasty. Sad. Sad for this country.
April 23, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marc, you're being a bit obtuse. Is he not supposed to defend himself against specious attacks? Is he not supposed to call her out on her hypocrisy? Obama has NEVER called for her to concede (his supporters have, but he hasn't). Have you listened to none of his speeches? He knows it's a tough battle and he's fighting every step of the way against a tough opponent (his words). Come on, now.
You think he's gotten down in the mud with her? Really??? Has he brought up Whitewater, her cattle deal, her brothers receiving money after her husband's pardons, Norman Hsu, Monica, or the countless other scandals (real or alleged)? He has hammered her on the issues, on her flip-flops, and has defended himself when she accuses him of something that is not true. If he didn't do that, you'd probably be the first one to call him a wimp and say that he's not ready to face the Republican attack machine. You can't have it both ways.
April 23, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
At this point, it is virtually impossible for her to catch him, unless he does something that makes her appear more viable. He has demonstrated, for the most part, that he is a more effective campaigner, his strategy for accumulating delegates and votes by smartly contesting every state has was vastly superior to her approach of announcing herself as the anointed one.
How about focusing on McCain and reminding us who we are fighting and why those people have to be booted out oh their asses? She can't catch him, so why dignify her attacks if they really are out of line?
April 23, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because obviously these idiotic non-issues have traction (mostly because the media loves this kind of shit - God forbid they should actually focus on issues). Do we want another Kerry, for Christ's sake? He tried to ignore the swiftboaters and look where it got him. Obama did a good job in his speech last night going after McCain, and he will (I believe) continue to do so. But to say that he should ignore whatever she throws at him is at best naive. Defending yourself against attacks and hitting her on issues is vastly different than getting down in the "mud" with her - can you not see that?
April 23, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was the point I just made in another post -- if Obama doesn't dignify her attacks, she and the media go all wild on him for being "soft" and an easy target for the Evil Republicans. If he defends himself, he's "taking her bait," as the NY Times put it this morning in calling him "not blameless" for the dirty campaigning. He's in a lose-lose situation as far as the spin goes, and until he can take control of the spin, they'll keep going after him with this double standard.
April 23, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama DID win Texas.
The whole race was Hillary's to lose and her poor leadership abilities have all but lost it for her.
If she had held on to her 20+ point lead in PA instead of losing it over time, she might have been able to actually change the course. But her poor leadership has lost it for her.
April 23, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're absolutely correct. And I remember the Clinton goalposts at that time were "we have to win both Ohio and Texas" - then when they didn't do that, the goalposts were moved again - and now, after PA, they've been moved yet again. Those damned goalposts have gotten quite the workout over the past few months, haven't they???
April 23, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as I know, the Clinton campaign has never given up claiming that they won Texas.
They're main complaint has shifted now to MoveOn and Democratic activists in Texas who supposedly strong-armed an Obama win.
She projects like the multi-screen movie theater she is - if anyone used strong arm tactics in Texas, it was her campaign when it came time for the conventions.
Be that as it may - Obama won Texas.
April 23, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last night Mcaullife said they won TX and MI! He's claiming MICHIGAN! What a hack!
April 23, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did win Texas, and this thing is over. Over in any meaningful sense.
April 23, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should'nt we now focus on McCain instead of that trifling has-been Hillary? Coz this is over ladies and gents.
April 23, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
But, for a lot of folks who post here, it seems that it is not enough to focus on Grandpa. Beating Clinton is not sufficient, she MUST be obliterated.
April 23, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm.... he did "win" Texas:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/11/caucus-win-gives-obama-more-texas-delegates-than-clinton/
April 23, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did win TX. What I don't understand is why that one keeps getting put in Hillary's bucket. According to the TX system, Obama won. End of story.
April 23, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is still leading the pledged del count, 171-159."
That makes it sound like Obama has 171, Hillary has 159.
It should say Obama is leading Hillary by 159-171 delegates.
April 23, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doh!
I'm an idiot. I see, in PA alone Hillary won 171 - 159.
Sorry!
April 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, never mind. Greg re-wrote the sentence to make it clearer:
"Granting her 12, Plouffe says, Obama's lead among pledged dels is down from 171 to 159."
Woot! Hillary only needs 159 more! Go Supers!
April 23, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's an incredibly awkward sentence. I had to re-read it a couple of times.
April 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nevermind, I see it's been fixed.
April 23, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I bet reality stings for many Clinton supporters.
vacuous, desperate and mean as Clinton is, that sting muct be ignorable, or something. How do they continue? I don't know.
April 23, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Total spin.
The truth is they both need supers to win and the rest is noise.
She leads in the popular and electoral votes.
Spin that.
April 23, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, she doesn't.
But thanks for playing. I think there are some lovely parting gifts.
April 23, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing true you said is they both need Supers to win.
Of course, Hillary needs about 159 more Supers than Obama....
April 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, to make this real simple:
Obama needs 300 more delegates.
Hillary needs 459 more.
April 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thus hillary needs 53% more delegates than Obama.
Or Obama needs 65% less!
Either way.... Obama needs fewer and she needs more!
April 23, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Electoral votes? Bwahhhahahahahahaha! What in the hell are you talking about? Electoral votes is NOT a metric in a Democratic primary. You are out of your mind. We are truly in la la land with Clinton supporters.
And she does NOT lead in popular vote, which in any case is not a valid metric either because it does not take into account any of the caucus primaries (are you going to sit there and tell me that the millions of people who caucused, both for Obama and FOR YOUR CANDIDATE, didn't count?)
You're going to have to come up with better rejoinders than this, really!
She needs 85.2% of all remaining delegates to overtake his lead - ain't gonna happen!
April 23, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually very simple, so simple I had to create an account to post. Aside from your factual errors, there's another important point: both candidates agreed to follow the democratic primary and caucus rules. If they didn't like those rules, they probably shouldn't have run for president as democrats. Under those rules, the following things are true:
-Caucuses count
-Obama's got a practically insurmountable lead
-Florida and Michigan don't count
-did I mention Obama's got an insurmountable lead?
-the popular vote isn't the issue (even though he's got a practically insurmountable lead there as well), the important number is the delegates. BTW, he has a practically insurmountable lead there.
April 23, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another metric that doesn't count is "winner-take-all" in a Democratic primary> Unlike the President's complaint ("If this was the GOP, Hillary would be ahead...".
Clinton logic... if my lips are moving, what comes out is truth.
April 23, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're tied at 0 for electoral votes, actually. Unless you're counting Bill's from 1992 and 1996, which is what I'd expect from their campaign at this point.
April 23, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No she doesn't lead. And it's looking more likely that EVEN INCLUDING Florida, she won't lead in even the popular vote.
April 23, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
crickets ... GotaLife, what of it? Nothing to say in the face of so many facts?
85.2% - not gonna happen!
April 23, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah and she is going to need to win nearly 80% of the remaining Supers while Obama only needs less than 30%!
I wish her luck on picking up 80% support after dividing the party!
April 23, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how Hillary sleeps at night, after every strategy to steal the nomination falls flat from the get-go; how does she react when Obama comes on teevee? Does she go..."OH BUMMER! "?
April 24, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad neither of those count.
April 23, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spin what? You've already done all the spinning.
The popular vote and electoral vote argument is silly. It's like saying the Patriots should've beaten the Giants in the Super Bowl because they had more fans at the game and they had more passing yards. At the end of the day, the score's only kept one way. Pledged delegates.
April 23, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
thick as a brick.
NO she doesn't. He does.
Goddamn!
April 23, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could say I knew what gotalife's motive was, but for the most part its unintelligible based on the comments. Pithy, glib, and factually nonsensical. Any response to gotalife only perpetuates these pithy, glib, nonfactual nonsense. It's like watching a random number generator spit out an answer- it has no meaning, no reasons or standards by which to assess the validity of their claims.
If you would like gotalife to go away or join the coversation, ignore the person. Either they'll change their interaction to participate in good faith or they'll get bored and harass some other corner of the internet.
I feel your pain, TenaX. I just hate to see so many feathers ruffled for what amounts to nonsense.
April 23, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, just win the remaining contests by 71%, it's that simple. No whining about MI and FL, no whining about caucuses, just beat him by the rules you agreed to at the beginning of the contest. Close the deal.
April 23, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
She leads in the popular and electoral votes.
Spin that.
Wrong. Besides what do electoral have to do with anything? This is not the general election.
April 23, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!
What did I say? Thick as a brick.
The "electoral" vote has as much to do with it as the so-called but wholly fictitious "popular" vote.
April 23, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read somewhere last night that there are about 170 remaining unpledged superdelegates. Anyone know if that is correct?
April 23, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, there are something like 300.
April 23, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another question then, does that 300 include the add-ons or just standalone supers?
Thanks for the response, by the way, I'm going to now go and count the remaining electoral votes of the final contests... I predict some great news on that crucial campaign front!!
April 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
307 per DemConWatch
April 23, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is something funky going on with the Pennsylvania totals?
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/
The percentage of precincts reporting has gone up to 99.44% (as pure as Ivory soap) but Obama's total has gone down when compared to the number Josh has on the TPM main page (in the Decimalist Backlash topic).
April 23, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still trying to figure out how they are getting 10 when I get a little over 8.
April 23, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Face it, a win for her is IMPOSSIBLE, period:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/04/pennsylvania-results.html
April 23, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's logical to assume that a majority of supers just wants to guard against a complete Obama meltdown, such as getting killed in PA (didn't happen) or IN, and/or losing states he should win like NC and OR.
I can guaran-damn-tee you that Obama won't lose my state, no matter what. In fact, I'd be shocked if his margin was less than 15 points (likely range is 15-25). There is a hotly contested Gubernatorial primary here, and both candidates are tripping over themselves to prove how pro-Obama they are. There is very little institutional support for Clinton - the closest thing we have to a political machine here is the old Hunt machine (haven't herd anything) and the powerful state legislators (pro-Obama). Governor Easley doesn't have a machine whatsoever - he kind of hates politics. Obama will nab undecided NC supers after the win - almost all of them.
The Clintons' arguments might work with a sizeable portion of the undecided supers. But nothing close to a majority - and she needs much more than that.
April 23, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I'm so happy this morning. Less than 300 to go. Which means 100 supers could seal the deal!
April 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah me too.
I'm really glad Pa is over with.
April 23, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
VERY HAPPY, THANKS!!!
April 23, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Obama can't win the big states, and he can't win the critical swing states, and Michigan and Florida haven't been counted. The picture for Obama isn't as rosy as he wants it to look.
April 23, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Primary [does not equal] The General Election.
April 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rules is rules. Quit whining.
April 23, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come off it, Otto.
Obama will win NY, CA, and PA in the General.
What's more, he'll even make McCain have to compete in Red strongholds like Texas.
Obama is win-win for Democrats.
April 23, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for Hillary, the narrative still doesn't override the math.
Just going off of current poll projections to predict a likely forecast....
If Obama wins Oregon-NC-Indiana by a combined 55%-45% split, that would rack him around 155 more delegates.
If he lost WV and KY by a 20 point margin (and Hillary has only beaten Obama by that margin once ... Arkansas), that would still rack him up around another 40 allocated delegates.
So between Montana(16), Puerto Rico(55), Guam(3), South Dakota(13) and 300+ remaining Super Delegates ... Obama only needs a coalition of around 100 delegates to secure the needed 2024 to secure the nomination and prevent a brokered convention (which is Hillary's only shot). And I suspect as the inevitability becomes more and more apparent the remaining Super Delegates will shift more and more towards Obama to unify the party and put the primary behind us.
I would be highly surprised if this even makes it to June 3rd.
April 23, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why the Obama campaign allows the MSM to echo any and all Clinton talking points. People tuning in have no idea that FL and MI are disqualified. And for the media to exacerbate and worse, exaggerate the racial divide is negligent. The media still forms public opinion. The ABC bias was undeniable. The Fox bias is undeniable. For two weeks, all I've been hearing from the cable news stations is:
He can't close the deal. White people will never vote for him. Both of which are untrue. I don't mind an objective analysis of all points of view, but right now, only one is being repeated over and over again on every station and every newspaper across the country.
Put together a cable news compilation reel, including joe scarborough, Pat Buchanaan, and Fox. You can't tell me
the media hasn't been duplicitous.
April 23, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Dukakis won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, California, and Massachusetts in the 1988 primary. How did THAT work out for him?
April 23, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Hillary Clinton will not be the 44th President of the United States because she cannot beat John McCain and she won't be elected. Here's Hillary's problem in a nutshell:
"The most unelectable candidate in the general is the one who isn't going to be on the ballot."
-TPM Reader BDH
April 23, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can somone with better Math skills than myself check out the following scenario?
The problem: How can Hillary can win without losing or gaining any net delegates from the remaining Primaries.
I figure she has to win over 236 of the 311 remaining unpledged superdelegates (the 311 number is from CNN, it could be less or more).
So, if Obama can pick up more than (about) 76 Supers, Hillary is in big, big, trouble.
April 23, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember people.
More people have voted for Hillary than Obama.
No one is going to get enough delagates so popular vote is the only fair way for Superdelagates to decide.
Quotation of the Day
"Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either."
SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, after her victory in the Pennsylvania primary.
Wahoo!!!
April 23, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you count two invalid primaries, one of which didn't even have Obama on the ballot.
I'm OK with that. All Hillary has to do is convince 75% of the uncommitted supers to go for her.
April 23, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Remember people. More people have voted for Hillary than Obama."
Simply false.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
In addition, superdelegates can chose based on whatever criteria they want. They can consider who has won the most pledged delegates (Obama); the most contests (Obama); who has the better campaign organization (Obama); or who has raised money the best (again, Obama). When you consider all the possible criteria and even factor in who does best against McCain, there is only one choice: Obama.
Which is why the Gov. from Oklahoma just came out for Obama. That is why he is picking up three or four superdelegates to her one. He has run a 50 state campaign creating grass roots across the country. Which is why Red State Dem supers have pretty much all come out for him.
Lastly, and most telling, look at the former F.o.B. -- many now support Obama. And the members of the Senate -- he has the majority support among the people who have known and worked with them both.
April 23, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I hear another IDIOT claim that MI and FL votes for Clinton, I will be completely convinced that it is entirely possible that half of the D electorate is brain-dead. I truly find it hard to imagine how these people are able to log-in to this site, let alone type.
FOR THE LAST TIME: Your CANDIDATE, >HRC
Questions??
April 23, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey... my post got cut-off midsentence on 1 line...wtf?
here it is again:
If I hear another IDIOT claim that MI and FL votes for Clinton, I will be completely convinced that it is entirely possible that half of the D electorate is brain-dead. I truly find it hard to imagine how these people are able to log-in to this site, let alone type.
FOR THE LAST TIME: Your CANDIDATE, >HRC, AGREED TO THE MUTHA_F"IN RULES! SHUT THE HOLE AND TUNE_IN TO REALITY!
Questions??
April 23, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way Clinton could have more people voting for her is by not counting any of the people who voted in the caucuses.
Funny video on Andrew Sullivan today:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/how-clinton-can.html
April 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised we haven't seen more super-delegates moving already today.
April 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
messiah Obama is so unAmerican it disgusts me. He does not have the most votes in America. Hillary Clinton does. He doesn't have the most delegates. Hillary Clinton does. Florida and Michigan should go to the courts to make the Obama pubahs in the Democratic Party count Florida and Michigan. Dean should resign for stopping the Indiana debate. Obama should go back to the Senate and ACTUALLY do something he can boast about and not just brag for bragging sake.
April 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Counting Florida and Michigan, Obama is still in lead both with pledged delegates and popular vote.
April 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words... doesn't Obama and Dean know that it's Hillary Clinton's turn to be President?
How dare they not get out of her way and hand it to her!
April 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does messiah Obama have against old people?
April 23, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Campbell Brown seemed to think Hillary "won" Michigan - she said so when talking to Donna Brazille during the returns last night on CNBC. Th' hell is up with that little idiocy? Anyone else catch it, because Brazille sure didn't, so devoted was she to her canned comments?
April 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink