Clinton claims she leads in the popular vote

[bascule]

...if you count Florida and Michigan. From her "Fact Hub":

 

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7265

 

Yes, if you count the states who did rogue primaries, including Michigan where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, Hillary leads the popular vote!

 

If you don't count them, Obama is a half million votes ahead.

[doG]

I still don't understand why anyone would believe anything she says...

[John Cuthber]

"I still don't understand why anyone would believe anything she says..."

Because the other guy is a politician too?

Incidentally, is half a million votes ahead important with a population of 300 million?

( I realise they can't all vote but...)

[doG]

That doesn't make her statements any more believable. Of course, I don't believe him either...

[john5746]

Of course Hillary is full of it in regards to Michigan and Florida. She probably would have won those states, but the margins would have been closer. Closer to the truth is if they ran the primaries like a general election, she may have won - but that wasn't the rules.

 

I think a superdelegate should only go against their voters if Obama had a serious problem - he breaks the law, etc. Listening to Clinton with her crystal ball is not one of them.

[Pangloss]

She's not full of it with regard to Florida, IMO, but certainly you can't look seriously at the Michigan numbers and talk about popular vote. That's silly.

 

But she has every right to claim that Floridians voted for her over Obama. Absolutely. Doesn't mean a thing, of course, but it's absolutely true.

[bascule]

I imagine a hypothetical future where Hillary beats Obama but loses to McCain, and drags the country through bitter agony in the middle of a recession.

[Pangloss]

I think the "recession" will be over before the next president takes office. It may even be over before the election. And my secret housing market indicator (sorry, cannot divulge) is whispering in my ear that the market may already be coming out of its slump.

[Realitycheck]

Without Michigan and Florida, I don't see how she has a chance. There are just not that many voters left to squeeze out another 150 in gains. The landslide rule is in effect and momentum just isn't going to cut it. I highly doubt that superdelegates are going to do a backroom deal and circumvent the will of the people. That would be blasphemy to the democratic way. In order to win the popular vote, she has to make double digit wins in every remaining state, which is highly unlikely. I just don't imagine the democratic party making such accommodations for speculation of any type.

[bascule]

I think the "recession" will be over before the next president takes office.

 

I think you can drop the quotes now:

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/stocksAndSharesNews/idUKNOA34777120080423

 

Asked if the United States was already in a recession, 42 of the 58 economists who answered said it was.

 

But yeah, it does reaffirm what you're saying:

 

Growth is expected to turn positive again in the second half of 2008.

 

The Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch says:

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/sp-sees-oil-91-year-end/story.aspx?guid=%7BBA5DA189-56FA-47D0-A468-71F9E9E5806E%7D&dist=hplatest

 

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- The price of crude oil is expected to stabilize or dip by the end of the year as the U.S. economy struggles through a recession, even if that contraction is mild and short, Standard & Poor's analysts said on Thursday.

 

Don't expect the United States, the world's biggest oil consumer, to do much work driving up oil prices this year. The U.S. economy has moved into a recession, Wyss said, but he predicted it should be fairly short and mild because of fiscal and monetary stimuli.

 

So... recession now, better relatively soon?

[Pangloss]

Yes, at least I hope so. It reminds me a lot of the recession at the end of the bubble burst around '99/'00, which is often cited as a factor in Gore's defeat (or perhaps "incomplete victory"). We'll punch through it fairly quickly and come out on top again.

 

On a less positive note, the boom we experienced following the last recovery had a number of down sides, many of which have been raised here. Some of those are just fodder for neosocialist ideologues like Ariana Huffington, but some of them are real warning signs that need to be heard. The housing situation should not have happened, for example.

 

But we learn and move forward, albeit usually in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back manner.

[CDarwin]

I think a superdelegate should only go against their voters if Obama had a serious problem - he breaks the law, etc. Listening to Clinton with her crystal ball is not one of them.

 

Who are "their voters?" The voters nationally or the voters in their states?

[john5746]

Who are "their voters?" The voters nationally or the voters in their states?

 

If a superdelegate was elected, then those people's vote. If not elected, they are free to do as they please, IMO.

[CDarwin]

If a superdelegate was elected, then those people's vote. If not elected, they are free to do as they please, IMO.

 

So Phil Bredesen should vote for Clinton but Al Gore can go with whoever? I kind of like that solution.