On Mar 6, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> Because she's behind in the delegate count and probably can't
> overcome it.
More from The Note:
> The supers stay put (at least for now). Bloomberg News' Kristin
> Jensen and Julianna Goldman: "A group of uncommitted
> 'superdelegates' were ready to make a show of support for Obama by
> trying to pressure Clinton to give up, said Tim Roemer, a former
> congressman who's rounding up backers for Obama. Now, after her
> wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, many will still back Obama
> without calling on Clinton to quit, he said."
>
> Stubborn old math -- and frustratingly egalitarian rules -- reside
> at the heart of the current standoff. "Using the ABC political
> unit's delegate calculator, in the unlikely event that Clinton
> sweeps all twelve remaining contests with 55 percent of the vote,
> she will have 1,793 delegates, and will still trail Obama, who will
> have 1,841 delegates," ABC's Jake Tapper reports.
>
> "If Obama were to sweep the dozen contests with 55 percent of the
> vote, he will end up with 1,902 delegates and Clinton will take
> home 1,732. He, too, would fall short of the magic number 2,024."
>
> Is it possible to do it without the supers? Assuming no super-
> changes, Obama "would need to win 77% of all the remaining pledged
> delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024 to secure the
> nomination. That is highly unlikely due to the proportional
> delegate allocation rules in the Democratic Party," ABC political
> director David Chalian writes. "Clinton would need to win 94% of
> all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024."
>
> "The scenario leaves the Democratic Party facing a stalemate with a
> variety of chaotic endgame scenarios - and a chance that a long,
> bloody contest could rip the party apart while giving Republican
> John McCain a leg up in his White House run," Geoff Earle writes in
> the New York Post.