posted
According to Slate, Clinton needs like 80% of the uncommitted superdelegates. It is not impossible, but it is highly improbable.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mathematically out doesn't mean the same thing as mathematically impossible. In combination with "out", mathematically is a qualifying adverb (like virtually), but with "impossible" it reads, to me at least, as an intensifying adverb (like literally).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, pooka. I should have noted that I never said impossible in the first place.
Mathematically, she is out. The fat lady hasn't sung, but the parts have been assigned and the orchestra has played the reprise.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact she hasn't dropped out yet suggests that either she's just ridiculously selfish, stubborn and possibly willfully blind to what she's doing.
...or she has an ace in the hole. I'm really worried about what that ace might be that she'd risk doing this much damage to both Obama and herself to stay in.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even a moderate scandal could easily send enough uncommitted votes over to Clinton for her to win the nomination.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
She would have to win every single one of the remaining primaries by about 27 points in order to draw even with Obama.
I don't believe that the remaining superdelegates are so pro-Hillary, despite not declaring yet, that they will take the nomination away from someone who won the delegate count and the popular vote. Does anyone think they will? That the superdelegates will look at a charming, charismatic, black candidate that won the majority in the primaries and decide it is in the best interest of everyone to shut him out in favor of Hillary?
So, yes - mathematically, if she wins every primary from here on out by 28 points or more, she could surpass him in the delegate count.
Does anyone think she will? That it's probable? Likely? A possibility? It would take an enormous, major, devastating scandal. If someone catches Obama in an airport bathroom, then Hillary could win it. Short of that, nope.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even a moderate scandal could easily send enough uncommitted votes over to Clinton for her to win the nomination.
She has to win 63% of the total remaining vote to pull ahead. There's only once place she's done that: Arkansas. And even after 'bitter-gate' Obama's only about 10 points down in Penn and is ahead in NC and Indiana.
She (and her supports) really remind me of the Black Knight at this point.
"Look you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!"
quote:She would have to win every single one of the remaining primaries by about 23 points in order to draw even with Obama.
This is precisely my point. There is a scenario, which can be mathematically described, in which she is not out.
quote:Does anyone think she will? That it's probable? Likely? A possibility?
None of which I have argued with at all. I probably disagree about the extent of the scandal necessary, but that's an entirely different point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, don't get all legalistic on me. It is inappropriate for the context and you look hostile. Knock it off.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, I think we are taking objection to your wording not your sentiment.
Realistically, Clinton is no longer in contention. But mathematically, there is still and outside chance she could win.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't just a scenario that can be mathematically described, it is a scenario that happens frequently in politics. There are major scandals that spring up for, I would guesstimate, somewhere between one and five percent of major national political figures. The number is probably even higher for presidents and presidential candidates. Unlikely? Yes, but very possible.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: She's not mathematically out.
Are you saying she's mathematically in the closet?
Well I have heard the accusation, but generally only in the kind of supermarket tabloids that report the birth of quintuplets fathered by alien invaders.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I can see why people were offended... let me be very clear about what I meant. People are going through difficult times. The point I was making is that when people feel like washington is not listening, when they are promised year after year that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion, and feeling this is a place I can find some refuge; something I can count on.
They end up being much more concerned about things like guns where traditions have been passed down from generation to generation, that is something that is incredibly important to them.
And ... wedge issues, hot button issues that are taking prominence in our politics. And ... when those issues are exploited, we never get to the issues that people have to get some relief on whether it's health care, or education or jobs. So this is something that I've said before, it is something I will repeat again. And yest, people are frustrated and angry about it, but with this election, we have an opportunity to break through that frustration. " (sorry for the ellipses, but it's hard to transcribe from a computer media display, I definitely didn't skip anything with an intention to change meaning.)
I think he did an okay job of explaining things here. I would have liked him to get honest that when you've got nothing, it's hard to get excited about sharing it with people different form you.
Hillary cracks me up. She starts out making the argument I've made, but then she turns around and says we need to listen to each other.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that it would be extremely difficult for Sen. Clinton to win the nomination outright through pledged delegates won in the remaining primaries, is beside the point. Sen. Obama is not likely to reach the required minimum number of delegates which would give him the nominaion, either, just based on pledged delegates. He may wind up ahead by a hundred delegates or so. But ahead is not enough to win nomination.
Either the superdelegates will decide the election, or else the nomination will be contested in the national convention and finally decided, perhaps after several votes and lots of behind-the-scenes deal-making, the way it has been done many times in the past.
There is absolutely no sense in Clinton dropping out of the race, just because she is behind by a hundred delegates or so at the time of the convention. The rules say a certain minimum number of delegates must be won, and there is no nominee until that happens. Everyone seems to want to bend the rules, this year.
I thought the debate last night was interesting. Many analysts are saying Clinton did a little better, and succeeded in keeping the heat on Obama for all the negatives that he has not succeeded in explaining away to everyone's satisfaction.
Some analysts are also criticizing ABC for all the commercial breaks, and criticizing the questioners for making the debate not about issues so much as about gaffes. But I thought that since there are really not many actual issues that separate the two candidates, focusing on the gaffes both candidates have made was good and proper. It forced both candidates to deal with their negatives more forthrightly than they have before. It got out of Clinton the begrudged admission that Obama could win the White House, when her campaign spokespersons have been telling superdelegates that Obama cannot win the election.
For the first time, I heard Obama respond directly to the criticisms about his long-time relation with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground terrorist who has publicly admitted he bombed the Pentagon and other government facilities (and got off only because the FBI bungled the prosecution), and never apologized for it, and even on 9-11 said that he wished he had done more as a terrorist. It sounded to me like Obama's defense was very weak and unconvincing. This is something that Sean Hannity on Fox News has been harping on for weeks, indignant that the other news networks were ignoring the issue. Finally ABC acknowledged that the issue exists and brought it up in the debate.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's scaled back her experience to 16 years "of handling what the Republican party dishes out."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The contest between Clinton and Obama is much tighter than the news media makes it appear. The final split of pledged-delegates won't occur until the end of the Nebraska state convention on June22nd.
Though the estimated pledged-delegate split is 1,253&1/2 for Clinton and 1,415&1/2 for Obama, the actual split of bound pledged-delegates is 1,129&1/2 for Clinton and 1,208&1/2 for Obama. Thus Obama's real lead over Clinton is only 79pledged-delegates already bound by primary and caucus results. The Texas, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, and Nebraska state conventions will award 124pledged-delegates, after the last primaries.
And while the elected-delegates to those state conventions are vetted for loyalty to their respective candidates, they are notbound to cast their votes for that candidate at those state conventions.
quote: GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
Obama gave the standard Democrat response of 'fairness' and more or less the evil rich getting richer and that's not 'fair'. But then I was even more stunned when Gibson followed up with
quote: GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
quote:Dag, don't get all legalistic on me. It is inappropriate for the context and you look hostile. Knock it off.
Please. First, you don't get to determine the context. The context was your using Clinton's chances of winning the nomination as a way to speculate on the motives of reporters for their "coddling" of her.
If Clinton were mathematically out it would greatly strengthen your theory.
The only hostility here is the hostility you are exhibiting toward me for discussing what you posted on a discussion board.
Moreover, the next time you feel the need to issue a direct order to me, I suggest you take a deep breath and consider the fact that you don't actually get to make the rules here.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are times and places for legalistic wrangling. This isn't one of them. Doing so is inappropriate.
If you wanted to discuss the possible motives of reporters, then recasting a phrase and rigidly parsing it was a poor way of doing it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The fact she hasn't dropped out yet suggests that either she's just ridiculously selfish, stubborn and possibly willfully blind to what she's doing...or she has an ace in the hole."
Dropping out of the race while she still has a mathematical possibility of winning the pledged-delegate count would be a betrayal of her supporters.
"I'm really worried about what that ace might be that she'd risk doing this much damage to both Obama and herself to stay in."
The far greater risk is damage to the democratic process itself by dropping out before the fat lady sings. Dropping out before obtaining a mathematical certainty that a single candidate has won the majority of pledged-delegates would effectively be telling the voters of Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, NorthCarolina, WestVirgiania, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, Kentucky, Oregon, Alaska, Wyoming, Maine, PuertoRico, Montana, SouthDakota, Texas, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, and Nebraska that their opinions don't matter.
Huckabee should have stayed in until McCain had won that majority in the Republican race for delegates.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are times and places for legalistic wrangling. This isn't one of them. Doing so is inappropriate.
It's not legalistic wrangling.
Nor was what I was doing inappropriate.
if I were to be legalistic, I'd ask you to state the relevant standard of conduct and define how I'm violating it.
I am kind of curious about which one it is, but I'm fine if you choose not to tell me. I'll just continue to think that your last two posts to me were inappropriate.
quote:If you wanted to discuss the possible motives of reporters, then recasting a phrase and rigidly parsing it was a poor way of doing it.
I wanted to correct an erroneous use of "mathematically out" in a context where it mattered to the substance of the discussion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dropping out of the race while she still has a mathematical possibility of winning the pledged-delegate count would be a betrayal of her supporters.
Really? When Mitt Romney dropped out, was that a betrayal? Did Edwards betray his supporters when he dropped out earlier?
Candidates drop out of races all the time when they fall behind. I think "it would betray my supporters" is a convenient excuse only trotted when the candidate has other reasons for not leaving.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The far greater risk is damage to the democratic process itself by dropping out before the fat lady sings. Dropping out before obtaining a mathematical certainty that a candidate has won the majority the pledged-delegates would effectively be telling the voters of Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, NorthCarolina, WestVirgiania, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, Kentucky, Oregon, Alaska, Wyoming, Maine, PuertoRico, Montana, SouthDakota, Texas, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, and Nebraska that their opinions don't matter.
So is it your opinion that all the republican candidates who dropped before McCain had the mathematical magic number of delegates (Romney, Huckabee, Guilliani . . .) were undermining the democratic process and telling voters across the nation that their opinions didn't matter.
Is it your opinion that all the Democratic candidates who have already dropped (Edwards, Dodds, Biden, Richardson . . .) were undermining the democratic process and telling voters across the nation that their opinions didn't matter?
Or does that judgment only apply to Hillary Clinton?
And to be completely fair, it would be possible for Hillary to stay in the race and on the ballots in those states without taking an aggressive approach that is likely to hurt the democratic party. To continue the basketball analogy, a team that is down 10 points with 2 minutes left on the clock doesn't have to either start desperately fouling to stop the clock or walk off the court -- those aren't the only options. They could continue playing a sportsmanlike game until the clock runs out. I don't sense that HRC's team is taking that approach.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The far greater risk is damage to the democratic process itself by dropping out before the fat lady sings. Dropping out before obtaining a mathematical certainty that a single candidate has won the majority of pledged-delegates would effectively be telling the voters of Pennsylvania, Guam, Indiana, NorthCarolina, WestVirgiania, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, Kentucky, Oregon, Alaska, Wyoming, Maine, PuertoRico, Montana, SouthDakota, Texas, Idaho, Iowa, Washington, and Nebraska that their opinions don't matter.
But that's what happens in the vast majority of the primaries. If this is damaging to the democratic process, then the damage has already been done many times over.
quote:Huckabee should have stayed in until McCain had won that majority in the Republican race for delegates.
Isn't that what he did? I thought he stayed in until McCain had the majority needed to secure the nomination. Or was it like the difference between pledged and bound delegates you brought up in the previous post?
posted
Edwards dropped out because he ran out of the money needed to support a campaign. Having signed on to federal matching funds for the primaries, the only campaigning he could have legally financed was buying himself plane tickets and food&lodging, then hoping that press coverage would make up for the lack of advertising and the lack of a professional campaign staff to organize volunteers.
Obama or Huckabee or Paul might have been able to pull it off. Originally, their professional staffs were shoestring operations: most of the managerial strength in their respective organizations were volunteers. Edwards had no such baseline of volunteers running his state&district campaigns to fall back upon when his professional staff was disbanded.
Romney. Yeah, he could have continued running his campaign using his own money. But the lack of sufficient voter support both in financing and in volunteers made it clear that the commitment of most of his own supporters was weak.
Hillary has neither problem: her financial support remains firm, and her volunteers remain firmly committed. PLUS she could still win most of the pledged-delegates andmost of the popular vote.
Personally I prefer Obama, but "Personal is not the same as important." And fully contested elections are IMPORTANT to the continued successful functioning of a representative democracy.
quote:Hillary has neither problem: her financial support remains firm
That is questionable. Her unpaid bills and outstanding debts (to herself and others) exceed her cash on hand. But still I understand your points.
None the less, that still doesn't address my final concern. She could have chosen to stay in the race but to run in a way that would have built support for the democratic party as a whole. As it is she is repeatedly taking sides with McCain over Obama. She could have chosen to stay in the race without turning to underhanded attacks against Obama. She could have chosen to stay in the race but use that as a platform to emphasize the important issues that unite all democrats instead of trying to divide the party.
But she knows she can't make up her deficit without dragging Obama and the democratic party through the mud so shes chosen to do that. If she hadn't done that, I wouldn't have any problem with her staying in the race. She is choosing to do everything she can to win even if that means destroying the democrats chance at the presidency.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hillary has neither problem: her financial support remains firm
That is questionable. Her unpaid bills and outstanding debts (to herself and others) exceed her cash on hand. But still I understand your points.
None the less, that still doesn't address my final concern. She could have chosen to stay in the race but to run in a way that would have built support for the democratic party as a whole. As it is she is repeatedly taking sides with McCain over Obama. She could have chosen to stay in the race without turning to underhanded attacks against Obama. She could have chosen to stay in the race but use that as a platform to emphasize the important issues that unite all democrats instead of trying to divide the party.
But she knows she can't make up her deficit without dragging Obama and the democratic party through the mud so shes chosen to do that. If she hadn't done that, I wouldn't have any problem with her staying in the race. She is choosing to do everything she can to win even if that means destroying the democrats chance at the presidency.
While I agree with you Rabbit I still can't help but notice that at least from her perspective, the only time she successfully dented Obama's almost meteoric rise in the polls was when she attacked his experience in the debates and put out the 3'AM ad. Polling data seems to show that that worked to her advantage, and so it seems she feels the only avenue for victory since she, "never quits" is to continue throwing attacks at Obama until enough sticks.
Fortunately Obama has done a better job than many at parrying her attacks without trying to play her game.
Still one of the largest reasons the Democrats have great difficulty in winning the presidency is that it's party base is extremely broad and convaluted. I think the Republicans are beginning to experience that same problem.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rabbit adressed that with the last line: "She is choosing to do everything she can to win even if that means destroying the democrats chance at the presidency."
She is not building up the Democratic Party with her campaign. She is tearing down a Democratic Party icon, and making herself look petty in the process. Sure she should emphasize their differences and her own ability, but she could do so without rancor or scorn. That would put the party ahead of her needs, and let the best candidate win. She is not, which is why I would love it if she'd drop out.
But I don't think she should. Mathematically she is not out, not yet. Mathematically Obama is not in, not yet. I just wish she'd stop tearing up the field to play the game.
(Katharina - if you stuck with "mathematically she is all but out" or "mathematically she is almost certainly out" there would have been no problem. But as long as there's a chance, no matter how slim - and of course there is - than your flat statement is simply inaccurate. Mathematically.)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. She is out not because she's female, because she is, say, too young, or her campaign is bankrupt, or she is on her deathbed, or is secretly a felon, but because she has lost too many primaries to have a plausible chance of winning a majority of delegates. She is effectively out because of the numbers.
In the context, when clearly there is not an official winner, any statement of "out" is going to not mean literally but practically, effectively. Because of the math, she is effectively out.
You may argue that "out" was the wrong word, but not "mathematically."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. She is out not because she's female, because she is, say, too young, or her campaign is bankrupt, or she is on her deathbed, or is secretly a felon, but because she has lost too many primaries to have a plausible chance of winning a majority of delegates. She is effectively out because of the numbers.
In the context, when clearly there is not an official winner, any statement of "out" is going to not mean literally but practically, effectively. Because of the math, she is effectively out.
You may argue that "out" was the wrong word, but not "mathematically." I would argue that clearly I did not mean literally out unless I was posting from a future dimension, so the "effectively" was understood.
Good enough for a friendly conversation. Not precise enough for a contract, but applying the standards of contracts to a friendly conversation is inappropriate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, I think the better statement (and yes this is me being an engineer) is to say that "statistically" Hillary is out.... mathematically it isn't an impossibility, since the number of delegates currently avaliable equals or exceeds the number she would need to get the nomination.
Statistically, (with good statistics, not bad statistics) the number she is likely to get does not equal or exceed the number she needs to get the nomination.
Functionally and practically, she is likely out of the nomination. But mathematically she isn't. Which still leaves room for her to pull a "nuclear option" at the convention. I wouldn't put it past her to do so either.
While the things she would have to do to gain the nomination would be intolerable to most of the people on this forum, it is also possible that it could be recast to the public in an entirely different light. According to the national polls she's got a fighting chance to win if she was the actual nominee. If the backstabbing that would likely take place at the convention to gain her the nomination could be spun so that Obama simply wasn't agressive enough to be a good leader which is why he didn't get the nomination, I think a lot of the less suspicious members of the general populace would buy into it. .....
I totally understand your "by the numbers" contention, but those numbers are based on practical statistics. With pure addition and subtraction as far as the delegates that remain available you can't say she's out.
....
Also as far as a "friendly conversation" goes remember that we have a larger population of literalists than the average population. What you'd say over lunch inside the Beltway, would be taken entirely differently in that context than it is here.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't even call her statistically out. I don't think its at a 95% confidence at all. Maybe 90%, but barely that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Unless your friends are scientist, engineers and mathematicians.
Why do you keep arguing this Katie, we agree with the substance of your idea but not your words. Why is it so important to you to keep defending the words?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, because people keep bringing it up.
Slate puts her chances at 10.7%, but I suspect they are in part kind of goofing off, because the percentage moves up and down based on subjective evaluations.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am, at this point reminded where Katie now works, and that she may have other data that she is not allowed to directly divulge, nor would I ask her to do so.
And, given where she does work, she probably does have an idea of which way the wind is blowing in D.C. in a way most of us do not.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Obviously, because people keep bringing it up.
You don't have to keep defending your word choice any more than Hillary has to keep attacking Obama. If you simply conceded that mathematically may not have been the best word to express your meaning -- then it would be over. As long as you keep insisting that mathematically means what you choose it to mean, others will continue to argue that this is not the generally accepted definition.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, you're adorable Banna, but I can't really claim anything based on that. Maybe something about the current administration, but that's just rumors. If anyone can help me track down a news story about a female high-level official in the State department being escorted out of the Pentagon this week or last week because of inappropriate attire, I would be very grateful.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you don't have to keep attacking my word choice anymore than Hillary needs to keep pounding at Obama. I get what you're saying - I disagree, and I think I'm right. As long as that drives you crazy, you're going to have to choose whether to let it go or continue the arguing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know!! A friend told me about it, but no details and she was blowing off steam so of course I don't press, but the curiosity is driving me crazy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I wouldn't even call her statistically out. I don't think its at a 95% confidence at all. Maybe 90%, but barely that.
Oh I think its well outside the 95% confidence level. At least for winning the popular vote. She would have to win every remaining contest by a significantly larger margin than she has won any contest to date.
If we presume that she has a 50% chance of winning by that large margin in each state (I believe a very generous assumption), her probability of doing it in all of the remaining contests (assuming independent results) is less than 0.1%, a possibility we can reject not only at the 95% confidence level but even at the 99.9% confidence level.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the usage of absolute descriptions in places where they don't technically apply has become common enough that Kat's usage could be described as idiomatic.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I think the usage of absolute descriptions in places where they don't technically apply has become common enough that Kat's usage could be described as idiomatic.
I was going to say exactly what Threads did earlier, but my browser crashed. The folks piling on katharina here are like the people who have a tantrum when somebody uses the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively": they may be technically correct, but their complaint is so trivial that it doesn't add anything to the conversation and mostly just gets on people's nerves.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
