Clinton thread

Out of context: Reply #238

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 442 Responses
  • ********
    0

    "Tied to another superdelegate endorsement for Barack Obama, the New York Times looks at the delegate math more broadly, and sees what we've known for a while: Hillary Clinton has lost.

    Since February 5, Obama has picked up 69 superdelegates, while Clinton has lost two, even as she held them out as her path to the nomination.

    Trailing by more than 160 pledged delegates — those chosen in state primaries or caucuses — Mrs. Clinton has counted on superdelegates to help her overtake Mr. Obama with a late surge before the party’s convention in August. The party’s rules for proportional allocation make it highly difficult for her to erase Mr. Obama’s pledged delegate lead, even if she sweeps the final 10 contests.

    So her aides have lobbied to persuade those still uncommitted superdelegates to back her — or to continue holding out so her campaign has the chance to demonstrate momentum and superior electability in primaries from Pennsylvania’s on April 22 through Montana’s on June 3.

    Yet Mrs. Clinton’s once formidable lead among superdelegates who have announced preferences has shrunk to 34 by the Obama campaign count. The pool of remaining uncommitted superdelegates for her to draw from has dwindled to around 330, fewer than half the overall total of 795 superdelegates.

    So what's the end game?

    Even if Mrs. Clinton narrows Mr. Obama’s delegate lead to 100, and if no further superdelegates make commitments through the end of the primaries, she’d wake up June 4 needing to win over two-thirds of the still-uncommitted superdelegates.

    In two months, she's lost two superdelegates while Obama has gained 69. But two more months is going to turn the math around for her?

    This thing is over. All that's left is for her to admit that."

    ********
    0Permalink
    UpvoteDownvote
    Flag
    Show [[ numHiddenNotes ]] more notesAdd Note
    SaveCancel

View thread