Clinton Must Now Win 90 to 10 or Quit

It's reached a point that everyone has known for months it had to reach, the point at which even people paid to do so cannot keep it going with a straight face. On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama picked up approximately 99 new pledged delegates from North Carolina and Indiana, while Senator Hillary Clinton picked up about 85. The final count may move a delegate or two, but these numbers are close enough for the following calculation.

Obama now has 1,592 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,419. There are 217 delegates remaining to be pledged. Of those 217, Clinton would need to win 196 to beat Obama, or a victory of 90 percent to 10 percent. That's about as likely as Dick Cheney hitting 50 percent approval.

Will Clinton finally at long last drop out on Wednesday? Will she wait another week for West Virginia, or yet another week for Kentucky and Oregon? Will she hang in there until June to make sure Puerto Rico doesn't win it for her, or Montana and South Dakota? And will people dumb enough to still watch television have to endure this crap all summer?

I have nothing against West Virginia or Oregon. I wish every state could be involved in the primaries. I'd hold them all on one day in October if it were up to me. But the corporate media has not been keeping Clinton on life-support these many months out of concern for the voters of remaining states. I'm glad to complain with the best of them when pundits hound decent candidates out of the race after Iowa and prior to 49 states. But once the outcome actually has been decided, why should we tolerate our televisions pretending it hasn't been?

The numbers above are based on leaving out Florida and Michigan, which are being left out, and also do not include 19 delegates pledged to John Edwards.

These numbers do not include Super Delegates. Why not? Because this is a democratic republic, and only pledged delegates are awarded by voters. These are the indisputable numbers of delegates assigned to candidates by actual voters and caucus-goers.

Clinton cannot win. Period. She can only hope for an anti-democratic coup by Super Delegates that would destroy the Democratic Party.

So, why does the corporate media behave as if it's still a contest, and why does the independent media obediently fall into line? Presumably those two questions have two different answers.

When has any other candidate been kept on life-support by media corporations in this way? Hasn't the standard for dropping out always been - for every other candidate - the impossibility of winning, not actually having lost?

What can Clinton hope to gain from staying in other than hurting Obama's chances in order to avoid his running as an incumbent in 4 years?

And why is it so difficult for people to think for themselves and let the media and the Super Delegates and the Democratic Party know that WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

Don't believe me? Don't know how to do addition? Don't own a calculator? Here's a video of Chris Matthews admitting the media's role in this farce:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/32937

Here's how you can contact the DNC: 877-336-7200 or
http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

...by "inhuman" margins to even have a chance at the nom.

and let you guys go ahead and screw it up in November. You all seem so hell bent on it, might as well let you go learn your lesson. Too bad the rest of us have to be punished along with you.

What? That a lying sack of shrill would have been a better bet to beat McCain? No thanks. I'm happy we're taking our chances with someone with more integrity.

Clinton meanwhile has stated that she WILL support the nominee so anyone not voting for Obama as some kind of "Lesson" will be doing so without her support.

Republicans voted for Hillary in primaries cause they want her to run against McCain. Can you guess why or do I have to draw you a picture?

I am afraid the answer is yes, you have to...

They're in the same league, makes her easier to beat.

...because I guessed some reasons myself. ;) THAT picture didn't come to mind though but plenty of other reasons...

We get it OzarkDem, you don't like Obama! But what good does it do to whine and complain 24/7 and how does that serve DU or Dems in general?

Since you seem to think the Dems are screwed, why even post here anymore? I assume you do want our candidate to win???

There are still millions of us that think Obama will clean McSame's clock in the GE!

I think we've already been schooled in that lesson in 2000, when Bush stole the General Election. No thanks, we don't need another schooling in that lesson. So we should let Hillary have the nomination by crook?? I'd rather lose with honesty and dignity than win with deceit and dishonesty. The past 7 1/2 years is enough evidence of that.

What lesson could we learn from Hillary? We already know how to lose....

Shahmaat.

Persian for checkmate. Kinda ironic since she wanted to obliterate the Persians.

Shahmaat literally means king (shah) is dead (maat).

Shah, of course, came from the Latin Cesar or the title adopted by the Roman Emperors... which was the last name of the first Roman Emperor, Julius Cesar.

and Wes Clark would then, logically, be Brutus... as in E tu, Brutus? Brutus, of course, became Judas in the Christian stories, just as Julius Cesar became Jesus Christ (JC).

I expect Carville to come forth tomorrow and proclaim Wes Clark as another Judas.

However, it is still Shahmaat.

Are you Persian? I'd like to be able to speak farsi.

However we must continue to work hard for Obama victory regardless. If Clinton continues to lose states she may abandon any thoughts of taking this to the convention.

And I will be happy to trade this going till June 3 for going all the way to the convention.

It's NEVER been about her need to catch up with pledged delegates. For all the condescending posts about "the math", you guys get it wrong every time.

It's about convincing the superdelegates that she's the better candidate.

That said, I think it's likely over. But there's no reason to keep lying.

The voters decide who's the better candidate. For Hillary, it was about tearing her opponent down and making him seem like a disaster if nominated, then it would have been up to the Supers to save the day.

that's just how it is.

As for voters, it's pretty evenly split between the two. If you take just democratic votes, Clinton may be ahead. If you count ALL voters, she may be ahead. But the fact is, the nominee WILL be decided by superdelegates.

To keep pretending that Clinton is mathematically eliminated because it's difficult to catch up in pledged delegeates is just a false argument. That was never her claim, and it's just not true.

Try impossible! And urging the SD's to overturn the PD's isn't a good idea. Talk about disenfranchisment! If she could persuade the SD's, they would be overturning the caucuses/primaries of the past several months. This means that MILLIONS of dollars had been wasted in favor of back room politics. Hardly a gleaming example of Democracy in action.

The pledged delegate count isn't the end-all and be-all of what's "democratic".

For example, would you deny that more Texas democrats supported Clinton than supported Obama? Yet Obama got more delegates. That's not "democratic".

Some states have open primaries that let independents and republicans vote. Clinton does better among registered Democrats than Obama. It's certainly reasonable to consider the will the of DEMOCRATIC voters when deciding the DEMOCRATIC nominee.

But in the end, there's no rule saying the SD's have to go with the pledged delegate leader - and for good reason.

My point is simply that those of you who keep insisting that this is about pledged delegates are wrong. Clinton's campaign never claimed they were going to overtake Obama in pledged delegates, and for you guys to keep pretending that's what she was trying to do are wrong.

but that doesn't make it right. A bunch of power broker's deciding in a smoke-filled back room is not conducive to Democracy, is not good for the Party, and (if they go against the PD's) bad for Sen Clinton.

No doubt the system is flawed. But to buck the results of the 40+ primaries and caucuses WILL cost the GE; because it would show a flagrant disregard for the voter's. It would slam home, like nothing else, that the individual voter doesn't count! The record number's we've seen this primary season would melt away.

that Clinton won the popular vote, then it would be "democratic" for the SD's to choose her.

I'm simply saying that being ahead in the pledged delegates is not the only reasonable measure of "the will of the people".

Barack has the popular vote, as well as the delegates.

on the other hand, some of us do

differing with her on this does not acually constitute lying

but it is interesting how insisting on a democratic position in the face of corporate "news" is now labeled dishonest

is limited to that which benefits your candidate.

Fighting on to the convention would add considerable drama (bigger headlines) to the unveiling of a unity ticket.

I just heard that Clinton will probably get 800,000 to 900,000 more votes then Obama in Puerto Rico. She is going to win the popular vote.

I should have said, "In the worst case..."

Certainly, there's no point in arguing with the numbers. But allow me to point out that Hillary does not have to quit. She can simply... lose.

The upshot for her candidacy is the same, either way. The difference is the impact her decision will have on the party and on the Clinton brand.

It's up to her. Over the next few days, we'll see what she's all about.

In GOP Primaries since he was the presumptive nominee. There is no way Clinton can win 90%, EVEN IF OBAMA DROPPED OUT.

I didn't read the rest.

Anyway, she has one other option and that is to try to talk the supers into swinging it over to her. So the choices you state are not strickly speaking the only ones available. I'm not saying that will actually happen, but rules do allow it. You know, the ones everyone agreed to ahead of time but now Obama wants to disregard. Speaking of which, we only get to this position if we deny FL and MI a chance to vote. So whatever the reasons for excluding them (not good reasons in my view), the result is necessarily undemocratic.

What I have "had enough" of is defeat. Hence my opposition to Obama.

do all the math you want, the superdelegates can vote for whomever they please.

All she's doing now is hurting the Democratic party. But she seems to be happy with doing that.

we'll have to look to see what they do in the next week or so. They could grind this to a halt in a hurry if they rush to decide. If not, it'll just be a few weeks. They'll certainly decide when the voting is done. Hillary Clinton doesn't have the clout to drag the primary further than the actual contests. And, it could get late early in a hurry.