Super Delegates Will Decide The Nomination Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

Over at Daily Kos, a front page post includes this:

[I]f Obama and Clinton split the remaining pledged delegates 50/50, Obama would need only 35% of the unpledged delegates (aka superdelegates) who haven't yet committed to a candidate, while Clinton would need 65% of them.

I am not sure on the math or the assumption that the remaining pledged delegates will be split 50/50, but I do appreciate the honest admission that it will be the Super Delegates who decide the nominee. The candidates understand this of course, and are spinning hard for reasons why the Super Delegates should support their respective candidacies. The rules are the rules and wooing the Super Delegates seems to be a part of them.

Let's hope people are not shocked by the fact that the candidates are trying to win the Super Delegates. This is an Open Thread.

NOTE- Comments are closed.

< Rezko Trial Continues | Obama Attacks Hillary's FP Credentials >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Patrick Murphy and the Obamacans (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    this morning I saw Patrick Murphy on MSNBC proudly proclaiming that his wife was a BIG  supporter of George Bush and had voted for him twice and now she was excitedly supporting Obama.
    I hear this all the time.  the question, it seems to me, are these people on OUR side or just on Obamas side?  do we even want them on our side?
    it seems a reasonable question.
    it also seems unlikely to me someone who "voted for George Bush twice" is going to vote for down ticket democrats.
    once is forgivable.  I voted for Reagan once so I have to say that.  I did not vote for him twice.  by 2004 is was very clear what Bush was about.

    who is Patrick Murphy? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:18:02 AM EST
    the shiney (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:19:27 AM EST
    new vet/rep from Pennsylvania as of 2006 and mouthpiece for Obama.

    He's a Dem (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    bragging that his wife voted for Bush twice? Seems like a lack of good judgement there.

    like I mentioned (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    I hear stuff like this all the time from Obama supporters.
    frankly it scares the hell out of me.

    Oh, Okay, gotcha. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:09:20 AM EST
    At first I thought you were criticizing his choice of wife.  Then after my logic circuits kicked my emo circuits hard, I realized you were saying that bragging that a two time Bush voter was supporting Obama wasn't great judgement.

    My opinion of two time Bush voters is that they either bought into the have-a-beer aka comfort and Fear! meme twice or they are hardcore issues(abortion, taxes, ....) voters.  I find it easier to believe that the low information, emo voters would go for Obama than any hardcore issues voters would find his messages acceptable.


    what exactly is his message. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    hope? who doesnt like hope?

    Well, um, he has such an amazing ability... (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    My pet right wing blogger recounted a conversation with an Obama volunteer:

    "Uh, well, he has such an amazing ability to bring people together to get things done,"


    Patrick Murphy (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    is a blue dog Dem who won back a suburban Philadelphia district in 2006.  A major victory notwithstanding the fact that he frequently votes the wrong way.

    Murphy isn't that bad, actually (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:04 AM EST
    Chris Carney, who comes from a much more Republican district, has been worse.

    Awwwwwwwwww, my district (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    Of course, Chris Carney was running against Mr values Don Sherwood. Even die hard Republicans I know could not vote for Sherwood and were probably mad that the mistress had called the cops when she thought he was choking her. BTW, they could not vote for Chris Carney either.

    Isn't this just another old ... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    advertising gimmck?  People who don't normally don't like X kind of product, like our product.

    Most of you probably remember this ad.

    The "Pugs Like Obama" schtick just looks like another version of this ad campaign.


    Murphy (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:06 AM EST
    PHILADELPHIA-Some of the old-school pols in this town are figuring out that they can milk this lengthy period before the Pennsylvania presidential primary on April 22 for all it's worth.

    Take the city's Democratic committee, made up of 69 ward leaders. They met on Friday to talk about endorsing either Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama. Bill Clinton even came to the meeting to promote Mrs. Clinton and Patrick Murphy, a local Congressman, came to promote Mr. Obama.


    he never seems so but (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:23:40 AM EST
    why is it that he pronounces Iraq Eye-rack but he can pronounce Iraqis correctly?
    whats up with that?
    guess Eye-Rack is a military thing.

    At first blush Obama has. . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:07:18 AM EST
    the better rationale for getting super delegates -- he leads in both elected delegates and national popular vote.  If it ends up that way then I think he wins -- it's more small-d democratic and all the other rationales for super delegates involve opinions about which states are more likely to be swing states and which how voter support will shift around depending on the candidate.

    If Clinton pulls ahead in the popular vote, it's a real mess from my point of view.

    If Clinton is on the upswing at the end of the contests but still behind by both measures and continues to a floor fight, then it's a double-super-screwed-up mess.

    The revotes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:09:39 AM EST
    As you recall, I have explained why revotes are what Hillary wants.

    If you missed it, my post is entitle "Why Obama Does Not Want Revotes in MI/FL"

    My subtitle could have been Clinton's Path To The Nomination.


    I hope Dodd (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    and the rest keep it up.
    I do not think they will be able to stop a revote but I do think they can make sure Obama gets totally swamped.

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:18:48 AM EST
    One school of thought is that the re votes will help Clinton get ahead.  I think she's too far behind even in the popular vote to do more than cut into Obama's lead.

    As for the end-of-race momentum idea I've expressed before my horror at the thought of what will happen if Clinton leads in neither the popular vote nor the pledged delegate count and yet manages to pull the nomination out using super delegates.

    That is not a judgment on who's better equipped to win in November or what the super delegates "should" do.  It's my evaluation of what will happen to the party in that event.  We'll lose two branches -- the non-committed-Democrat Obama fans (eg, Daily Kos) and African American voters -- at least for this election and, in the case of African Americans at least, we'll suffer for at least a generation.


    What is the basis of your (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM EST
    "too far behind to cut into Obama's lead" assessment?

    The numbers I've seen. . . (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    for popular votes are Clinton running about a half million behind Obama at this point.  It's hard for me to see her netting that much going forward.  She has some good states coming up, but there are still a couple of good states for Obama as well -- starting with today's vote in Mississippi.

    You're not seeing the full numbers (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM EST
    of all voters so far.  She's ahead in popular vote if, gasp, all voters are counted.  It's a concept that used to be a principle for the Dems.

    fair elections rather than shams. (none / 0) (#186)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM EST
    used to be a Democratic principle as well.  Not so much anymore.

    JJE (none / 0) (#190)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    can you explain your comment that fair elections are better than shams?  Where have you seen an election sham?  Where do you stand on the revote prospect?

    excluding (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    Florida and MI, the lead is around 500,000.



    Excuse me 600,000 (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    I think Clinton could make that up, and that it is not at all unlikely that she will.

    That means. . . (none / 0) (#71)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    that including the existing FL and MI counts, she's still behind by something like 300,000 votes, right?  I really think her best possible outcome from the re-votes is what she got before.  There's PR for her, but Obama has Mississippi.

    I'm not disputing that she could do it, but I'd put money down against it.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by muffie on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    If you give Obama all undecideds in MI, she's down about 300K.  This was her margin of victory in OH.  I think she can make this up in PA, which is a closed primary.  She would then need to split the rest of the popular vote after that, which looks possible.

    I think she also needs a revote in MI and FL to help push the case that she's got momentum, and that voters are still uncomfortable with Obama in these key states.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    She would be down about 150k if you assign Obama all the uncommitteds which would be silly because Edwards was still in the race then.

    I think more realistically assigning him about 25 of the 40% of the uncommitteds would be fairer.


    You're forgetting a very important (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by frankly0 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:34:55 AM EST

    In a revote, it's highly likely that the number of people voting would rise dramatically, perhaps by a factor of two, based on what happened in other states.

    Obviously, the vote was suppressed in both MI and FL because voters knew that it was not supposed to count. Moreover, given the obvious stakes in such elections late in the game, you'd expect an even greater level of participation. And I'd expect that a mail in vote would increase the numbers even further.

    The rise in participation alone can dramatically change the result. Obviously, if you take the ~300,000 margin Hillary got in FL (as I recollect) and multiply it by two, you've got a real impact -- this is likewise true of MI.


    Still, No Takers? (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    I'm not disputing that she could do it, but I'd put money down against it.

    More Math (none / 0) (#155)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:25:40 AM EST
    I look at the total vote from FL and MI which is 2,39,000.  To make up 500k, she would have to take FL and MI 60/40.  I think she will make up some of the with PN over the votes that Obama will gain on some of the smaller states.

    You mean revotes? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    She won Florida by 300,000 and beat uncommitted (which included Edwards voters) by over 200,000.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    Sorry, I was running an errand.  Yes, if you completely discount FL and MI and hold re-votes.  She is ahead as the current votes stands, but when you exclude FL and MI, they are 500k apart.  I think she will make up some of the 500k with the remaining states, but it will be a challenge.  This is another reason I appreciate her push to hold a re-vote.  She's not guaranteed a popular vote.

    No (none / 0) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    including the EXISTING FL and MI numbers and she is ahead.

    Assuming this is true. . . (none / 0) (#168)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    and I've seen differing reports (not expressing an opinion), it's still not accurate unless it assigns some "reasonable" percentage of the uncommitted vote in MI to Obama.

    In a realistic re-vote I see Clinton's best result in Michigan being an Ohio-like split.  I think Obama will make up ground in Florida, or at least not lose ground.


    Well, to define "truth" (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:42:36 AM EST
    based on amorphous uncommitteds is really iffy.  It simply is true that Obama got no votes in MI.

    So what is more realistic and useful is to say that the MI vote is not as useful as we wish it could have been, had Obama stayed on the ballot as he could have done.


    It's even more realistic to say (none / 0) (#191)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:46:52 AM EST
    That it's completely useless as a data point, unless the question is what would happen if Clinton ran unopposed.

    PS. . . (none / 0) (#183)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:40:24 AM EST
    Notwithstanding the issue of MI uncommitted and the as-yet-unreported pro-Obama states popular vote, this is still considerably more favorable for Clinton than many of the reports I've read.

    That's sure true! (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    And it's one of the reasons I keep coming here, as so many reports are so biased or just uninformed.

    No (none / 0) (#172)
    by Andy08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    including FL and MI she is slightly ahead at this moment.

    And I agree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    that Clinton needs a "will of the people" argument.

    She needs to win the popular vote.


    is the "will of the people" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    reflected in Obama's push for Repubs and Indys to vote for him and "be a Dem for a day"?

    that is a "will of the Democrats" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    argument and it may come into play too.

    So (none / 0) (#196)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:48:30 AM EST

    So, are you going to discount HRC's Texas and Ohio vote totals for cross over Repubs doing Rush's bidding?  The Dem for a day arguement cuts both ways.

    Is the will of the people (none / 0) (#68)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    reflected in counting the crossover democrats for a day Republicans who followed Rush Limbaughs advice to vote for Hillary,  and that Bill Clinton courted by appearing on Rush's radio show on the day of the Texas primary?

    No evidence that Rush had any influence (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    on the voting in Texas.  In fact, if you look at the data it appears that the "Democrats for a Day" voted overwhelmingly for BO.  We have been through this discussion with Bob, so go check out those posts.  

    It's impossible to break down (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:06:48 AM EST
    Independents and Republicans who voted for Clinton and Obama and determine intent.  

    i.e. Did person a) vote for Obama because he thinks he is the weaker candidate and will vote for McCain in November,  or because he actually wants Obama to win and supports him.

    I find it hard to believe that Hillarys improved margins amongst Republicans was suddenly because they all had an epiphany and realised that they want her as president.  

    It is an empirical fact that Limbaugh urged his listeners to vote for Clinton to screw with the Democratic primary, drag it out, and to help McCain.  It is also a fact that Bill Clinton appeared on his show.  Now you can argue as to how much of an impact this had,  whether it was 0.1%, 1% or even 2 or 3%.  But I don't think it is unreasonable that Hillary benefited from this,  and Bill Clintons appearance on his show suggested that he thought it would too.


    You have been told this is not true (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    about Bill Clinton being on Rush's show.  You have been told this on previous threads when you tried this lie.

    Fyi, repeating untruths is not how it's done here.  Take that tactic to the low-information, high-gullibility blogs.


    I haven't read any responses on previous threads (none / 0) (#137)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:16:19 AM EST
    that pointed this out,  and I read it on this thread only after posting this comment.  I'll take your word for it and withdraw the implication.

    I would (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Claw on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:31:54 AM EST
    Love it if Bill Clinton went on Rush's show.  What a battle of wits that would be: Rhodes Scholar, genius, 2 term President v. semi-coherent blowhard.  Oh, it would be a beautiful day in America.

    While we are on the topic of "will of the (none / 0) (#215)
    by hairspray on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    people" how about all of the caucuses that Obama won which are not at all demcratic.  In Washington state for example Obama won the caucus by 60-30 with only a small subset of the voting population but in the primary won 50-48 over Hillary with 5 times the number of voters.  I don't think Obama has the popular vote.

    Please stop with the Internet rumors (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:05:28 AM EST
    Clinton appeared on Mark Davis's show in Texas, where you might have read there was an election going on. Later that day Davis was a guest host for Rush, and replayed the interview.

    As for crossover votes, the fact that Rush called for it doesn't mean it happened. Do you have any data to back that up?

    But I get your point. Republicans voting for Obama are a sign of his broad appeal. Republicans voting for Hillary are simply trying to distort the process.


    Supers don't need the will. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by corn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    Regardless of fairness and will, Clinton is going to get it as long as she's close.  I would bet (and have) that the lion's share of the remaining supers have informed her, "keep it close and you've got my support."  No doubt Obama has heard more than a few suggestions to the contrary - "you need to put her away."  This is why he's so tripped up over Fl/MI.  It ensures a close number and in that situation he'll lose.

    would it be better to lose (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:38:13 AM EST
    Women, blue-collar workers, and older people?

    and Latinos (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:16:05 AM EST
    And lesbians and gays nt (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by DaleA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    Clinton has the popular-vote lead (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:36:28 AM EST
    according to several sources, if all voters so far are counted.  Which is what is supposed to happen in a democracy, having all votes count.

    It definitely is the math that super-d's will use.


    Fidel Castro agrees (none / 0) (#194)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#209)
    by tree on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:58:08 AM EST
    if Castro agrees or not, or if he even gives a s***, but I do hear that he agrees that the sun rises in the east. So I guess you've pretty much demolished the eastern sunrise argument there in one deft (or is it daft?) comment.

    This is one of the things that makes me laugh (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:08:39 AM EST
    when Obama supporters react with horror to the fact that Bill Clinton is calling superdelegates. Tom Daschle is in charge of the superdelegate outreach effort for Obama. Ted Kennedy is putting in a lot of time, as well. I wonder what kind of "new politics" they're engaging in when they make those calls.

    I saw a reference on a site recently to Hillary winning on "superdelegates alone." I can't stand to go to Kos (I was never a regular reader) but is anyone over there really taking away the message that whoever gets the nomination will need the supers to do it? There seems to be a lot of willful ignorance among Obama supporters when it comes to acknowledging that he engages in traditional politics as much as any other candidate.

    And for the record, when I say "Obama supporters" I'm generally referencing people on other sites. People here like flyerhawk seem to be able to make a strong case for their candidate while still being realistic about the ins and outs of politics.

    That is what was striking to me in the post (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:10:32 AM EST
    the acknowledgment that the Super Delegates will decide the nomination.

    No, the supers will only decide. . . (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:04 AM EST
    the election if they vote for Obama.  If they vote for Clinton, they will be stealing the election.  You need to work on your Koscabulary.

    heh (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:30 AM EST
    Ah (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    My bad.

    If the supers (none / 0) (#29)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    vote for a candidate who has lost pledged delegates and the popular vote, they will be stealing the election from the voters.  

    Isn't that implicit in your statement that Clinton needs a "will of the people" argument?


    Ex ante fairness? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:31:59 AM EST
    What happened to that?

    The rules, as the candidates KNEW BEFOREHAND, allow the super delegates to vote their independent judgment.

    To pretend now that their doing so would be stealing the election is de facto changing the rules.

    I happen to agree with you, but I do want you to acknowledge that the rules fetish that we see from Obama supporters is empty political posturing.


    It wouldn't violate ex ante fairness (none / 0) (#78)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    or the rules.

    It would be undemocratic and perceived as such.  

    Any rules fetishism by Obama supporters or anyone else misses the point.  


    It absolutely would violate ex ante fairness (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    under the rubrik you have advocated for weeks now - to wit, these were the rules when the voting started - Super Delegates can vote for whomever they want.

    You are game playing now.

    You are trapped an know it.

    I think you basically have to either drop your ex ante line or your the super delegates will steal it line.

    You cannot plausibly maintain both.

    I believe your smart play is to drop the ex ante line.


    I don't understand your point (none / 0) (#112)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    It would not violate ex ante fairness to the candidates for the super-delegates to vote for the loser of the popular vote precisely because those were the rules at the beginning of the election season.

    It would however be undemocratic.

    There are multiple more or less independent factors at play: fairness to the candidates, fairness to the voters, democracy, and general election strategy.  They are interrelated, of course, but not identical.  

    Therefore it is no contradiction to say relying on the super-delegates is fair to the candidates but undemocratic, or that seating FL is unfair to the candidates but good for the GE.

    We may at the end of the day have to choose the lesser evil, but at this point there is still a solution that is fair to all, democratic, and good for the GE: revote.


    Nothing democratic. . . (none / 0) (#121)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    about the Democratic nominating process.

    It's a novel idea that the Democrats should nominate their candidate based on democratic principles.  I support your idea and would like to see it happen sometime in the future.


    Right (none / 0) (#136)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    so ex ante fairness is the overriding consideration, except when it is not.

    Right Steve M (none / 0) (#145)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:21:14 AM EST
    That's exactly what I'm saying.  You have made similarly insightful responses to my comments before.

    It truly is a pleasure to have a discussion with you, except when it's not.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    Fairness and democracy (none / 0) (#164)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM EST
    are separate issues.  You can have one without the other

    Superdelegates are fair but undemocratic, counting uncontested primaries is (sort of ) democratic but unfair.  

    Get it?


    I think you're confusing me. . . (none / 0) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    with BTD.

    The super delegates were created specifically to counteract the democratically chosen primary winner.  If the party intended to consider only the will of the voters, the super delegates would not exist.

    Therefore, if they choose a less popular candidate over a more popular one they are simply fulfilling their purpose.  Not a good arrangement in my opinion, which is why I've been calling to have the entire concept of supers eliminated.

    But it is what they're there for, and an outcome based on the party by-laws can hardly be called "stealing", notwithstanding the fact that it will be perceived that way by people who aren't familiar with the real primary mechanism and who aren't really interested in taking a dispassionate  look at it.


    You are right on the rules (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    but wrong on the fairness of it.

    It is indeed changing the rules in order to insure fairness and I support it.

    The nominee preferably will have won both the popular vote and the pledged delegates.

    But at a minimum, they should have won one or the other.

    Of course the super delegates may very well disagree with me and I won't boycott the Party if they do, but I will think they will be making a mistake if they do not see it my way.


    Fairness? In the primary? (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    I'm not sure where the idea of fairness enters into this.  You yourself have pointed out the almost insane unfairness of votes in big primary states counting one fifteenth as much as votes in small caucus states in terms of the number of delegates received.

    It ought to be clear that the Democratic primary process is not, for the most part, concerned with small-d democracy but rather with other party issues.

    In the absence of even a claim to fairness, I think either you can't talk about fairness or you simply have to declare the party's by-laws as a proxy for fairness.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:47:31 AM EST
    I am arguing for change the rules de facto in the middle of the game and for making  FAIRNESS and helping us win in November the paramount principles.

    Ted Kennedy (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    a superdelegate who is voting against the voters of his state.

    is it just me (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by joei on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
    who thinks if obama is the nominee he will have less credibility then if it is the other way around, assuming the rest of the elections play out the way everyone is expecting.

    sometimes i am not as objective as i would like to be. :)

    I'm not sure what you mean? (none / 0) (#58)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    He will be less credible by winning twice as many states,  winning the pledged delegate count and probably the popular vote?

    Or have you some strange ideas about how the rest of the contests will play out?

    Maybe you didn't notice that Obama actually won the delegate count for the last week by 15 (including superdelegates, and certification of California) so his lead is getting bigger.  Maybe you didnt notice that in national polls he is back leading Hillary above the margin of error.  Maybe you missed him winning Wyoming by over 20 points?


    Glad you're not noticing that HRC (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:49:15 AM EST
    is picking up caucus delegates elsewhere as the process goes forward, because the "Dems for a Day" and for Obama are not coming back for another day, as they need to do to hang onto the caucus numbers in their column.  The party regulars know the process.

    How does winning (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    Wyoming matter much if he can't win it in a GE? Does anyone seriously believe that Wyoming would go blue?

    the big scandal (none / 0) (#181)
    by joei on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    of this whole election is the caucus delegate math.

    obama supposedly picked up more delegates in idaho compared to hillary's big win in NJ. i will never be able to come around to understand that fact.


    Dirty Delegate Truths (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    from Craig Crawford:

    The Caucus Myth

    For starters, forget about hard counting delegates from just about any caucus state. In many cases, including Iowa, delegates are not directly elected to the national convention. Instead, only delegates to in-state conventions are picked. And final choices on national delegates are not made until late spring, usually at statewide conventions.

    Super Wild Cards

    And then there are the near-800 super delegates -- unelected, unbound and unlikely to present profiles in courage when the going gets tough. Around 75 of them have not even been picked yet, perhaps the ultimate wild card in this unpredictable campaign.

    Of course, these caveats (and many others) are too numerous to mention when the news media reports "hard counts" of Democratic delegates. But at a minimum we should be calling these counts "estimates" only.

    At least when we report economic numbers we usually call them "indicators." It is time for such modesty in Democratic delegate counting -- just a slight nod at least to the fact that in uncharted waters like this we really don't know anything for sure.


    if he is such a big winner (none / 0) (#67)
    by joei on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    why is he so afraid of FL & MI re-vote.

    Afraid? (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    Just because BTD thinks he shouldn't want a revote doesn't mean he has actually come out and said he doesn't want one.  In fact, he said he would be open to whatever the DNC works out.

    Which shows he's afraid (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:51:05 AM EST
    or, um, fibbing.  The states and candidates have to initiate the plans for the DNC to approve.  So I, personally, disapprove of his delaying tactics and obfuscation of the truth.  This is not the way that someone who wants to be president ought to act.

    no (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:52:21 AM EST
    he is leaving it to his mouth pieces like Dodd to say he doesnt want one.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:52:44 AM EST
    Just because he is not in favor of them does not mean he is afraid of them.



    I wish an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:33:57 AM EST
    (one of the sane ones--you know who you are) would provide a reason for NOT revoting.  The money is there-raised from both sides-the will is there and the means are there.  So, why won't Obama come forward and say yes to a revote?  He keeps saying that he'll abide by the rules of the DNC.  One of the rules allows for a revote.  Why won't he accept it?

    I don't follow (none / 0) (#199)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:51:19 AM EST
    If he says he will abide by the rules, and the rules call for a revote, how is this not accepting a revote?  
    Sorry, I realize this isn't what you were looking for, I think a revote is great, especially in Michigan (although I am more optomistic here than many, since current polls show them to be tied).

    Reasons that Obama might be reluctant (none / 0) (#213)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:09:53 AM EST
    1.  Hillary's campaign will beat him over the head in those states as the guy who didn't want their votes to count

    2.  It gives Hillary another positive news cycle if she actually wins those states fair and square,  even if by massively reduced margins.  

    The outcome could be very muddy,  with Hillary winning both,  but the Popular Vote count looking more favourable for Obama (if you compare the counts including the illegitemate MI and FL contests with the one with the final votes).

    OTOH,  if Obama can win Michigan in the revotes,  which seems eminently possible then it could be a net win for him which seals the nomination.

    The fundamental issue is he has been running a front runners campaign since super tuesday and has been reluctant to take risks.  From where he is sitting,  despite a bad news week,  his delegate lead is expanding and he is current hot favourite for the nomination.  Revoting Florida and Michigan introduces uncertainty into the equation and the potential to upset that.  I can understand why he is not ecstatic about the prospects of revotes.


    So Hillary was in Scranton last night (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:16:53 AM EST
    Her parents and Grandparents were from Scranton and I was born there. So last night she was in Scranton. None of us could get away from work to drive there and have a hope of getting in to see her. The cool thing is that all of the local stations covered her visit for over an hour. Imagine, overriding Brian Williams on NBC and part of Wheel of Fortune. It was the best speech I have heard her make and yet it is probably her stump speech. She got a huge applause with the keeping NASA moving forward. Interesting, the Hillary appearing on the Debates is nothing compared to the Hillary appearing at the rally. In fact, she sounded just as eleoquent at OHB and more. There were a LOT of women there. My guy cousin called me this morning. He is a Republican. He took his niece and he was so excited at having gone. He said he was in the last 100 in and several thousand were turned away to the 2nd overflow auditorium. He was smittened. Already planning on voting for her, he said it was so exciting being there. He and his wife will vote for Hillary in the GE. My neighbors are turning Dem to vote for Hillary in the Primary AND the GE. On DKos yesterday I glanced at a diary encouraging Repubs to change over just for the Primary to vote for OHB. So my friends will be able to cross over and they said they will stay Democrats. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaa.  

    What a good, detailed report this is (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:26:46 AM EST
    -- if anecdotal, but it all helps to know.  Thanks.

    And very interesting that local media pre-empted the network for an hour for this!  Good for them, too -- and I say that hoping they do so for Obama, too, if he speaks there.  This is how to help create high-information voters, as media ought to do.


    I'll let you know. about his coverage. (none / 0) (#200)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    She has her roots here and thus it was more a Hometown girl comes home, but if you remember, after the both conventions 2004, the candidates made Scranton their first stop. Scranton? Ha. Hillary stopped in Old Forge for Pizza. Her parent's neighbor, Mrs. Price, gave her some home movies showing her at around a few years old in her Mary Janes. They showed the pictures on Inside Edition.

    Monopoly Money (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by blogtopus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    I've said it once I'll say it again: Obama is winning Monopoly money. When the GE comes around, he'll be as embarrassed as a person trying to use Monopoly money at a casino.

    There are really 3 points that should matter to a Super Delegate:

    1. Anybody who's been paying attention here KNOWS that Obama has been building up his lead in delegates and primary voters with states that have NO chance of turning blue in the GE.

    2. Registered Democrats prefer Hillary 2-1 over Obama. His number are inflated with independents and Republicans, many of whom just registered for a day.

    3. Hillary has proven she can win the big contested states. Obama has won Illinois, his home state.

    This is all without TOUCHING the policies or stated beliefs of these candidates (but these are in fact indicative of who's policies are more attractive to progressives).

    If Hillary is behind in the popular vote and the delegate count, the Super Delegates will have to do some math and figure out how much of Obama's lead is from voters from outside the party. This is a DEMOCRATIC primary, folks, not a clam bake.

    Oopsy. Point 4: If Obama's supporters want to pick up their ball and go home, that's definitely something the Supes should consider. Again, they'll have to look at his supporters' makeup to decide if this is likely and/or survivable.

    Super Delegates are not going to (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:38:59 AM EST
    vote for Obama if he doesn't win one of PA, FL or MI (and I'm not sure one is enough).

    If he had pushed for a resolution of the FL & MI problem 2 months ago it might have been different.  But he's going into the summer with the potential for some huge losses.  And the actual delegate split doesn't matter -- it's the checkmark on election night that matters.

    We can post all the votes and delegate pledges in a spreadsheet, but I don't think the specific numbers matter.

    Hillary is an established candidate and her roots in the party establishment run very deep.  If Obama's tidal wave of support can't win big states (hasn't won big states), those established politicians aren't going to risk November's election on an unknown.  

    At this point he should be pushing for revotes and ramping up his campaign in FL & MI.  Because he's got to convince the SDs that he can win those sorts of states.

    This game Obama & his supporters are playing with FL & MI can't be playing well in the hearts of the super delegates (whatever they might be saying publicly)

    According to some (none / 0) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    SDs are already moving towards Obama with none of those votes in.

    The aren't moving enough to matter (none / 0) (#193)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    I'd be very surprised if there was enough movement in either direction to matter before those 3 states are settled.

    I've heard 15 a day (none / 0) (#195)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    Is that true?

    I don't know, is it? (none / 0) (#202)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:52:50 AM EST
    Do you have a link?  I hadn't heard anything near those sorts of numbers.

    Just the Obama supporter upthread (none / 0) (#206)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    I think BTD needs to revise the title of this Open Thread.

    Super Delegates Will Decide The Nomination AFTER ALL THE VOTES ARE COUNTED.


    Popular vote is likely to come into play (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jim J on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    with their decision if HRC pulls ahead. I don't believe everyone has fully internalized this fact yet, other than a few at this blog apparently.

    She IS ahead in popular vote (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    per Real Clear Politics:

    Popular Vote including FL & MI:
    Obama, 13,601,175 (47.3%)
    Clinton, 13,620,653 (47.4%)

    and that doesn't include the Washington State primary, which puts her farther ahead, as well as caucus states that also have not released official vote totals.   


    Only if Obama gets 0% of Michigan (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    Which may be the dream of many people on here but it's never gonna happen.  If you give him the uncommitted vote he comes out ahead.  Who knows what will happen in a revote but he will probably get more than 0.

    President Uncommitted for four years (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:15:24 AM EST
    is not an attractive argument.  The popular vote is what it is today.  With a revote, yes, he will get more than zero.  But if the other candidate gets more than that, which is quite probable, then you can't even use your specious argument here.

    So you had better come up with a better one soon.


    President I was the only one on the ballot (none / 0) (#144)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:19:32 AM EST
    is an attractive argument?

    That is how Obama won his first election (n/t) (none / 0) (#180)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    If Hillary wants to use Popular Vote as a metric (none / 0) (#188)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    for wooing Superdelegates,  the only way Michigan comes into play is with a revote.  To claim otherwise is silly.

    If Florida and Michigan revote then Hillary needs to rack up over a 600,000 vote margin to erase Obamas lead.


    Just because... (none / 0) (#184)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    Obama is uncommitted to his Senate duties, and was uncommitted to over 100 votes as an illinois legislator, doesn't mean he was the person the uncommitteds voted for.

    Though ican see how you might make that mistake.


    I'm not sure if I am reading you right (none / 0) (#115)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    but if you are suggesting that the Washington State primary would put her further ahead,  I dont see how that can be the case as Obama won it?

    Sorry, correct -- this is confusing me, too (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    as I type it too many times.  So I'm off to work.

    Obama won the WA by 3 points (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    It would net him another 50+ votes vs. the 30k spread in the caucus I think.

    A net 20k+ for Obama


    Actually I am wrong (none / 0) (#177)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:34:57 AM EST
    Obama won the Washington primary by 39k votes out of 700,000 cast.

    what ever (none / 0) (#7)
    by myed2x on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:10:16 AM EST
    happened to the 'will of the people' you were touting not long ago?

    Who says the Superdelegates won't vote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    for the popular vote winner? I think it is a powerful argument.

    But it will be the superdelegates who decide which argument they accept. Not me.


    It is a powerful argument (none / 0) (#40)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:33:33 AM EST
    But not a knock-down argument, because it undercounts caucus states.

    I do think that if Clinton wins the popular vote and PA and the FL and MI revotes, she will get and should get the nomination.  

    In fact, it's hard to see a scenario where she wins the popular vote and doesn't get the nomination, given that she will have the momentum and the swing states.  

    The only scenario would be if FL and MI refuse to do revotes (or if they do caucuses and people insist on counting the earlier elections in the "popular vote").


    I agree with this: "I do think that if (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:42:16 AM EST
    Clinton wins the popular vote and PA and the FL and MI revotes, she will get and should get the nomination."

    How does it undercount caucus states? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    Voters in caucus states (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:41:48 AM EST
    already have way more say in the election of pledged delegates than their numbers would otherwise imply, as you have addressed previously on this site.

    They are not entitled to a similarly outsized degree of representation when it comes to persuading the superdelegates, as well.  Indeed, perhaps the most important role of the superdelegates is to look at the process and determine whether the delegate allocation system has led to an undemocratic result.

    My sense is that, at the end of the day, both candidates will have plausible arguments and I will accept whatever result the superdelegates decide.  Sometimes you just have to flip a coin.


    You messed up my Socratic question (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    It's much harder to vote in caucus (none / 0) (#86)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM EST
    states and therefore they generate fewer popular votes.

    Caucus state voters are overcounted in the pledged delegates, but caucus states are undercounted in the popular vote.


    What's the solution? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    It's much worse in caucuses, but some people are unable to participate in primaries -- the weather was bad, or they couldn't get off work in time. Should we look at the electoral votes apportioned to each state? The number of registered Democrats? What would your proposal be?

    Pledged delegates (none / 0) (#125)
    by AF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    and popular votes.  If a candidate wins both, he or she should get the nomination.

    If it's a split decision, other factors come into play like electability and momentum.


    OK, I agree. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    The problem with all ... (none / 0) (#211)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    these arguments is the supposition that all Supers will vote for the same reason, or even a majority will.

    They won't.

    They will have their own idiosyncratic reasons for voting.  This idea that some convincing argument will swoop in at the end and sway them all is nonsense.


    most people think (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    "the will of the people" involves counting their votes

    Sooo, Obama gets unearned delegates? (none / 0) (#11)
    by goldberry on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    How much of a handicap does Obama need to win this thing?  

    polls (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    Anyone notice that Obama has regained the national lead. The numbers are tightening already in Pa. too. As a Clinton supporter, it is disconcerting that she seems to be sliding and he is gaining again, so soon after her "big" wins last week. Except for the belief that she may lead in popular vote after Fla. and Mi. are re-done, she never seems to gain a lot of momentum. Rendell supposedly made a statement that an Obama/Clinton would be good too, even though he prefers Clinton on top. Is it just wishful thinking that Hillary can pull this out? I'm asking this with great trepidation. Don't kill me, Hillary supporters.

    from Craig Crawford (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    Going forward in this campaign, perhaps it would be best to drop the word momentum from our political vocabulary. Voters appear to be doing a funny thing -- when the race turns to their states they are making up their own minds with little regard for what happens in other states.

    I'm not sure I agree (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:13:37 AM EST
    There's a reason that Obama's current lead is essentially based on two very good weeks. They're his votes, and I wouldn't argue otherwise. But when all of the coverage of a candidate is based on when she'll drop out, I find it hard to believe that it doesn't demotivate her base.

    I have to believe this is particularly true in Wisconsin, where Obama drew substantial support from Hillary's base, somehting he hasn't done before or since.

    This is just a guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers from Mississippi show a narrower margin than Obama enjoyed in states with similar demographics. If it does work out that way, I would argue that it's an indicator that his momentum has slowed.


    The numbers tightening in PA? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:19:27 AM EST
    What do you base that on? Different polling outfits have different polls but you can not timeline them. They are different polls.

    A quick glance (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    at ARG (I know we are supposed to not trust them) said 52-41. Closer than the 15+ spread I've seen other places. A little disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about with polls; I just look at the numbers and count on guys like you to flesh them out for me.

    But ARG has no previous poll (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:36:54 AM EST
    There is no timeline to determine whether Clinton's lead is narrowing or expanding in the ARG poll.

    You, I think are referencing a Ras poll that had her up 15. But you could as easily reference a Q poll that had her up 6 and say she was expanding her lead.

    BTW, in the RAS trend, she is way up, from a 4 point lead to a 15 point lead in PA.


    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:43:14 AM EST
    I compare polls to each other rather than looking each polls individual time line. On another note, let's assume the Q poll is the most accurate one, is that enough of a margin to hold off Obama? or does she need the 15 pojnt win?

    I think 6 points is not enough (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    and Hillary will be hard pressed to make an electability argument on that margin.

    Obama's rise in national polling (none / 0) (#32)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    could be a result of Olbermann's big show last week FALSELY accusing the Clinton camp of initiating NAFTA-gate.
    According to the latest from Harper's office - available prior to Olbermann's show, the Clinton camp was not involved.

    KO (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:28:20 AM EST
    I've deleted the program from my DVR and I say that as a former Olbermann addict.

    lately Olberman (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    has been reminding me why I hated him for years during the Clinton presidency for his vapid, exploitative "White House In Crisis" show.
    he was an opportunistic idiot then he is an opportunistic idiot now.
    all those "special comments" - exploitation and opportunism.
    I dont think he believes in anything.  there have been times in the last couple of months that he has outright lied every much as O'Reilly does.

    revotes (none / 0) (#31)
    by deminma on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    If Obama somehow won Penn  which seems unlikely would everyone still be arguing for a revote?

    If Obama agreed to a 60/40 of delegates for clinton for MI/FL  would that be enough to not revote.  

    I hear the strident calls but it seems like a poor use of money when everyone agrees that she will win FL by 15% and maybe MI by 5-10%.   This would still leave Clinton more than 100 behind in delegates and at best tied for the poular vote.

    It would not appease me (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    She needs to overtake him in the popular vote, not tie him.  Who leads now; I keep reading conflicting reports.

    Well it depends on the agenda of who is doing the (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:36:49 AM EST
    counting.  Also,  the popular vote counts exclude a number of caucus states which went with Obama completely from the count as they did not report raw vote totals.

    The counts I've seen that excluded Michigan and Florida show Obama leading by between 500,000 and 700,000.

    Other pro Clinton counts including both Michigan and Florida show it locked up about even on popular vote.


    The excluded caucus (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:38:38 AM EST
    states are Iowa, Maine and Nevada.

    2 Obama, one Clinton.

    WA had a primary whose number should be included in the PV count.

    I think the total effect of this will be Obama +70,000 votes.


    If you count the WA (none / 0) (#102)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    primary and caucus, don't you have to count the Texas primary and caucus? I thought someone rightly pointed out that it is ludicrous to count both, as many votes are duplicated.
    Or did you just throw that in to see if anyone was paying attention?

    I count only the primary (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    for popular vote figures.

    Caucuses are for picking pledged delegates, primaries are for gauging the popular will.


    No, she is ahead (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    with FL and MI -- but, as you say, without WA's primary and caucus states that haven't released totals:

    Popular Vote (with FL & MI, without WA, IA, NV, ME)

    Obama      13,601,175    47.3%   
    Clinton    13,620,653    47.4%

    From Real Clear Politics today. Despite what Obama is still saying today.


    Why would Obama use numbers from (none / 0) (#122)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    States whose delegates do not count and whose contests were not sanctioned by the DNC, and where he was not even on the ballot?

    Um, JoeA? Obama wasn't on the ballot (none / 0) (#133)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    because he VOLUNTARILY removed his name.  No secret about this.  

    He removed his name (none / 0) (#159)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    because there was an agreement amongst all the candidates not to compete in the state, and the DNC decreed that the state did not count.

    There are competing Popular Vote counts out there,  I don't see why Obama is under any obligation to use one that includes states that have not had an official Democratic Primary yet that was endorsed by the DNC.  


    He removed his name in a political gamble (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM EST
    and lost.  Please state the facts.  

    Actually (none / 0) (#204)
    by magster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    If he was pandering to Iowa, and he won Iowa, he won by removing his name from the ballot.  There may be a consequence now, but if he hadn't won Iowa, he'd be out of the race.

    Do you honestly think (none / 0) (#150)
    by independent voter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:23:29 AM EST
    it's accurate to say she should be ahead in popular vote counting MI results? I mean, really, even if you despise Obama, common sense would dictate he will earn more than 0% of the vote in a revote. I really think it is stretching to declare Clinton ahead in popular vote.

    Some of the logical contortions and (none / 0) (#162)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    mental gymnastics required to come up with figures in Hillary's favour are amazing to behold.

    No, it's just that it is what it is (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    for now, based on all kinds of complications including candidates deciding to withdraw from states for complicated reasons (but not being required to do so by the DNC).

    So it will be what it will be with revotes.

    And even if there are not revotes, it will be what the super-delegates decide to do, based on whichever counts they think are most useful to win the White House -- we can "hope."  If the super-delegates factor in anything else, they would be fools.  (And that, of course, is entirely possible.)


    Equally, Obama could elect to support seating (none / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:35:00 AM EST
    50% of the delegates from Florida and Michigan,  similar to what Republicans did.

    Or,  could argue for a revote in Michigan where the argument is very strong,  and seating 50% of the Florida delegates where at least everyone was on the ballot.

    This has the benefit for him of

    1. putting a question mark over any popular vote totals including Florida

    2. allowing a revote in a state where he has a very good chance of winning (positive press),  and minimising any good press Hillary would get from Florida.

    That ship has sailed (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:39:25 AM EST
    There will be revotes.

    it has (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:50:53 AM EST
    as I wave from the shore.
    but I do hope they keep fighting it.

    To bring another state into this discussion is (none / 0) (#53)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    ridiculous.  Regarding your proposed 60/40 split for MI and FL, no that will not do.  The delegates should be split according to the vote: approx 50% for Hillary and 0% for Obama in MI; he voluntarily removed his name from the ballot, as did Edwards.  Hillary was not the only candidate on the ballot.  As for FL, the delegates should be split according to the vote; not quite sure of the percentages but I believe it was over 50% for Hillary to about 28% for Obama.  FL was a level playing field so I don't understand why a re-vote needs to take place.  

    Agreed then, no revote for Florida, seat 50% (none / 0) (#64)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    of the delegates as the Republican's did.

    On Michigan it will be a cold day in hell when delegates are seated based on that vote.  The only way that works is if there is a revote.


    All I'm saying is that we had two elections, and (none / 0) (#72)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    the candidates were all on the same level playing field.  To insinuate that someone was shortchanged is not being honest.  (I'm not saying you are saying that, just that many, many Obama supporters are.)  I don't believe the voters in MI and FL should be penalized for something that was not in their control.  But I understand that seating these delegates based on these elections is not going to happen.  So the next fairest thing is a revote.  

    All Obama has to do . . . (none / 0) (#39)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    . . .  to end this soon is to win Pennsylvania.  If he fails to do that, both he and Clinton and their ardent supporters need to bend their knee to the party aparatchiki or risk a devastating blow to the Democratic Party's general election hopes in November and their futures in Democratic politics.

    Pennsylvania is territory that is very favourable (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    to Clinton.  He will compete fiercely there and spend alot of money,  but he is going to go all out to depress expectations.  I think if he keeps with within 5-10 points in Pennsylvania that would probably be viewed positively.

    It will not be enough (none / 0) (#85)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    He cannot continue to lose the industrial Democratic strongholds. If he loses PA, even by five points, then MI and FL take on added importance.

    I don't understand this argument (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    It seems to imply that because he loses narrowly in the primary then it means he will lose it in the General.  By that token Missouri and Illinois will go Republican in the fall if Clinton is the nominee.

    the argument is (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:15:08 AM EST
    if he cannot win a democratic primary in a state he probably can not win a general in the state.

    and (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:17:04 AM EST
    Hillary could win without MO and IL.
    Obama can not win without TX, CA, NY, NJ, PN, etc etc.

    You are having a laugh? (none / 0) (#146)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    Obama wouldn't win NY in the general?

    And HIllary would win Texas?

    Good luck with that argument.


    That argument is pretty obviously nonsense. (none / 0) (#152)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    If you follow it, it means New York goes to McCain if Obama is the nominee, and Illinois to McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

    There are structural demographic arguments that can be made against one candidate or the other in particular states, but as a general proposition it's silly to suggest that the second place Dem finisher in the primary cannot win the same state in the general.

    It's equally silly, by the way, to argue that he first place finisher can win the state -- eg Georgia.


    my point exactly. [nt] (none / 0) (#154)
    by JoeA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:24:48 AM EST
    Hillary has the Democratic base; Obama (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:19:01 AM EST
    doesn't.  If you can't carry the base you can't win the state.  Simple.

    The Philly Inquirer has a smart staff writer (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:39:19 AM EST

    Pennsylvania has 157 pledged delegates at stake in the primary, though the larger audience for what happens in the state is about 300 undecided Democratic superdelegates across the country. They might become crucial if the two rivals remain close in the delegate count and short of the 2,025 required to nominate.

    Has Markos (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:42:56 AM EST
    Also consented that FL and MI be counted?

    HOW (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    will they be counted?
    50/50 is not acceptable

    Obviously (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:00:55 AM EST
    Is that Markos's plan for FL and MI?  If so, while it's nice that he's finally consented that superdelegates are part of the rules, too, it's a weak gesture as long as he remains so offensive the "will of the people" in two very important swing states.

    Apparently we're supposed to treat Markos with kid gloves around here.

    Oh well.


    One for you. . . (none / 0) (#100)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    one for me.

    Two for you; one, two for me.

    Three for you; one, two, three for me. . .


    I'm not sure revotes are going to happen (none / 0) (#80)
    by magster on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    Obama has been getting superdelegates at a 3:1 ratio since Super Tuesday, and has already netted, I think, 8 more superdelegates since OH/TX.  Clinton's superdelegate lead is down from 95 to 38.  Obama will continue getting superdelegates at this ratio after MS tonight.  If he gets enough SuperDelegates between now and Pennsylvania to tie Clinton, she has no path to the nomination.  At that point, a revote in MI would kill her, because she'd have no way to win.

    I think we might see the SuperDelegates jumping in to end this thing by PA. Especially if Obama and Clinton continue to tear each other down.

    if revotes do not happen (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    McCain will be president.
    but they will happen.

    No revotes (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    No FL and MI.

    No legitimacy.

    And I'm already crying foul cause if they were counted by now, the superdelegates might be making different decisions.

    I'd like to no one "rule" that worked out in Clinton's favor during this whole process.  And how it worked in her favor.

    In other contests, when you look at it and you are forced to conclude that the rules only helped one competitor throughout the course of the entire contest, then one can make some conclusions about that.

    About the legitimacy of the contest itself.

    BTD has said Dean and the DNC have not helped Obama here, but if you're right, then they have.

    They gave Obama a 2 to 3 month window to win superdelegates where FL and MI never existed.

    That is if superdelegates make their desicions based on the premise that FL and MI should not be counted.

    I obviously disagree.


    You have pegged something here (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    that hasn't been said enough:  No matter what the DNC and FL and MI and who-knows-what-next do, the process has been delegitimized for a sizeable number of Dems on one side or the other.  

    And no matter what happens, the damage is done and may only get worse.  

    Anticipating consequences, which is what mature thinkers do, it is interesting to also consider which side has more of the longtime Dems and whether the trade-off will be worth it.  Are you listening, Donna "Watch Me Walk Out" Brazile?  (No, of course not; she has not listened to common sense even once in all this.)


    Not one side or the other (none / 0) (#156)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:25:53 AM EST
    I can't think of one example where a "ruling" or a set of rooolz broke Clinton's way.

    If FL or MI just happened when they should have happened, the narrative would have played out differently.

    Clinton would likely still be holding onto the popular vote lead right now.

    There's an asterisk on the popular vote right now.

    A big one.


    There will be a bitg asterik* on the entire (none / 0) (#160)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:27:28 AM EST

    I think most supers (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:01:38 AM EST
    are smart enough and savvy enough to know there will be revotes.

    If Obama wins PA (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:09:54 AM EST
    that is what will happen.

    If he loses, particularly if he loses by double digits, quite the reverse.


    Seems to me (none / 0) (#128)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    that Nancy Pelosi's statement to the superdelegates suggests that there will not be a mass movement to end the contest prior to PA.

    I think it's still way too soon (none / 0) (#87)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    to be thinking about super delegates, or pledged delegates, or flip-flop delegates, or the rest.


    Well, for instance, I recently posted something under the Rezko story that I found troubling. If any of you can give me an answer to it, please do.

    I'd welcome being told I'm wrong, or misinformed, or just plain too stupid to be blogging about it, if I am. Because I'm not a grave dancer and take no delight in being suspicious of others.

    The point is, nothing will happen until after the Pennsylvania primary. Either candidate could drop out before then, or after then, rendering all this math business moot.

    Just a thought.

    neither candidate is going to drop out (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    because neither can win enough elected delegates to win the nomination now.

    The Math (none / 0) (#89)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    RCP  Clinton 1470  Obama 1589
    Pledged Delegates to split 600
    so.... Clinton 1770 Obama 1889 =3659

    That leaves 390 left over.  If Obama get 35%, he gets 136.5 and that puts him at 2025.5 .  Clinton get 65%, she gets 235.5 and that puts her at 2024.5.

    So he need just a smidge over 35%.   So their math is correct.  I personally would like to see it come out a little better than a few point split.  But hey.... it's math.

    Now I'll go replace the 50/50 with the polls and demographics I have and see what it will look like.

    All that math (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    and you do not consider Florida and Michigan?

    Try doing it with a 2214 number.


    Keep in mind that it's not 2,025 (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    but a higher threshhold if there are revotes in MI and FL.  The current number is based on not counting their delegates.  If their delegates do count, I think the threshhold is 2,205 or close to it.

    The MSM continues to slant (none / 0) (#93)
    by kenosharick on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    the story as Obama "winning," and the superdelegates "taking it away from the people."
    They are swaying public opinion to this view.

    Which would be different (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    If FL and MI counted right now.

    according to the latest poll (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM EST
    I have seen a solid majority of democrats think the supers should do what they were meant to do and vote their conscience.

    I would really like to discuss this: (none / 0) (#98)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    I read on mydd that HRC seems to be gaining delegates in CO due to how the delegates are actually decided at the state convention.  

    First I want to know if anyone can verify this, and second, if this is true for other caucus states, can it shake up the delegate map?  LINK  

    Noone knows the true delegate count at this (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    time because not all of the caucus states have finalized their results.  Heck,  in Texas it will be another 2-1/2 weeks before all the initial numbers are reported.  The caucus delegates go to county conventions, they vote and the delegates are narrowed down, then they go to the state convention where the final numbers are tallied based on a VOTE at the convention.  Just because a candidate started with X number of delegates at the end of the election night caucus is no guarantee that that candidate will end up with X number of delegates by the time it is all over with.  Long story short...

    IT won;t decide this (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    but it appears Hillary will gain some measure of delegates through this.

    perhaps 20 overall?


    The delegate counts (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11:53 AM EST
    given immediately after a primary or caucus are approximations.  While generally accurate they can move one way or the other.

    Immediately after the Alabama caucus it was reported that Hillary got more delegates.   Now Obama is up 2.

    Colorado, according to RCP, still has 10 unpledged delegates.


    You are missing the point (none / 0) (#143)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST
    In primaries the votes are done and the adjustment come from fixing any errors in the vote count.

    In caucuses, the actual process of picking the national delegates just begins and their are many more steps to take.

    The Colorado example referenced showed that many Obama delegates did not show for the county convention and as a result, Hillary gained about 3% in that county.


    The SDs will decide the race (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    by not deciding the race.  

    The vast majority of the remaining uncommitted delegates are clearly fence sitters that will vote for whomever is considered the leader at the end of the elections.  

    The DNC won't let this go to the convention.  If one candidate or the other is considered the leader by the public the Dem leadership will first privately and then publicly pressure the other candidate to bow out.  

    A convention floor fight would be terrible for the Dems.

    That is cute but silly (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    They will decide the race by deciding between Obama and Clinton, for whatever reason they choose.

    If they decide for Obama, because he leads in the pledged delegate count, THEY decided the race.

    If they decide for Clinton because she leads in the popular vote, THEY decide the race.


    i f one can believe Alan Greenspans wife (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    she said the other day that after discussions with many supers it seemed to her that most were dead set on voting for anyone they want.
    and they might not respond well to pressure from either side.

    I suspect (none / 0) (#131)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    he is right that they will decide the issue prior to the convention, rather than at the convention.  Obviously if a bunch of superdelegates endorse one way or the other, that can happen.

    I've been seeing a number of pieces from political veterans which make the point that if we have no nominee prior to the convention, it is simply not possible to gear up the infrastructure for a GE campaign starting from scratch on that date.  We cannot afford to wait for wholly practical reasons.


    Fl and MI will revote probably (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    June 7.

    We will likely know the nominee by mid-June to early July.


    terrible for the Dems (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    probably only if Obama lost it.

    Michigan Revote (none / 0) (#117)
    by Decal on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:09:16 AM EST
    Since the consensus is that Clinton will win PA and any FL revote decisively, it sure looks like Michigan could decide the whole thing.  Assuming a revote there, if Obama takes it he prevents Hillary from a sweep of all five big post Super Tuesday states (TX, OH, PA, FL, and MI) and he finally wins that elusive "big state" (Illinois excepted).  I think that would fatally damage Hillary's chances.  You'd think MI would be falling all over themselves to make a revote there happen.

    My Republican sister-in-law (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    asked me to explain all this to her but the phone started running out of juice and I had to give the phone back to my husband so he could take it to work with him.  I finished up with saying that the Democratic nominating process has been exposed for the travesty that it is.

    About 15 to 20 SDs per week... (none / 0) (#169)
    by mike in dc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    ...have been committing to one candidate or another(mostly to Obama since Iowa, actually).  We have a 6 week span of time where there are no contests.  It seems likely that this trend will continue.
    If another 150 SDs commit between now and the end of May, and Obama picks up about 2/3 of them, while the pledged delegates are split 50-50, then he only needs about 50 more SDs to get to 2025.

    If Florida and Michigan do a re-vote, and he gets 45% of those pledged delegates and SDs, he'd pick up about 180 more delegates, and he'd only need about 40% of the remaining SDs to get to 2207.

    I highly doubt there'll be more than about 150 remaining SDs by mid-May.

    I don't think BTD considered this (none / 0) (#178)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    as a possibility when he was explaining how Dean was hurting Obama by delaying on a decision.

    I think Dean is trying to help Obama by delaying a decision.


    SDs are no less democratic than any of the (none / 0) (#175)
    by Salt on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:34:30 AM EST
    other silly rules for Dems, they should vote as they please why some of this folks are even SDs is undemocratic, Donna the sky is falling I'll quit Brazile should never even be a  SD..  The entire dem Primary process is laden with problems and loop holes just waiting for exploitative behaviors that game the system and that's just what's happening.  Either way the process lacks integrity if electability to the Presidency is the intent of the outcome, which I assume from the make up or pseudo measures it is not.  Think about it, you could end up with a nominee who won 100 plus less electoral counts and by margins in identity groups that only reside in the intraparty structure easily moved by again exploiting grievances that inflame.  Sure 2000 and 2004 can be blamed elsewhere sort of but you could also say this way of selecting a nominee is not winner.

    Hilary vs Obama (none / 0) (#192)
    by Saul on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    I think if Hilary wins, she will have trouble with Obama supporters in the GE in a big way.  If Obama wins he will the same problem with Hilary supporters.   Ironically, the passion shown in this primary election could backfire and could be the cause for loosing the GE. I think the dream ticket was the only way to avoid this and Hilary made a big mistake by saying he wasn't ready to be CIC and then offer the VP position.  I knew what his response was going to be before he even made it.   She should have not said anything about offering the VP. You hold that back until the very end.  I know Hilary and Bill used it as a ploy in order to make the SD really think on the best way to choose so as not to loose the GE but in hind sight it probably was not a good idea. I have seen no positives so far by using this strategy.   I have a gut felling that if Obama wins he will loose the GE. There isn't much more the Republicans can throw at Hilary and she has survived most of it and she know how to fight but you can bet the Republicans have got a lot of ammo being prepared for Obama and I have my doubts that Obama can really handle it.   Latest poll I saw showed McCain even with Obama on who can win the GE

    I agree that it could be a problem (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM EST
    but I dont think I believe that there is enough wild eyed internet Obama-aid drinkers to lose the election.  maybe but when push comes to shove, I dont think so.
    fact is many would either have stayed home or voted for a republican anyway.  
    and I think Hillarys campaign has pretty much discounted a large part of the AA vote if she gets the nomination.  the truth is most of the states with large important AA populations are in the south in states democrats will not win in any case.
    how much harm can to do to be pelted with laptops and half finished lattes?

    Not that many people are emotionally tied (none / 0) (#201)
    by katiebird on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    to either candidate.  And I think that even those of us who feel deeply aligned in one camp or the other will adapt once we get past the convention.

    Commitment is a powerful thing, but once the object of the commitment is removed (a campaign ends) it's not that difficult for most people to switch their alliance.

    Look at how many of us have moved from Dreaming of Gore, to Edwards and onto one of the last two.  We didn't just take our ball and go home.  We're sad for what might have been.  But we've accepted the reality of the current situation.


    Math (none / 0) (#203)
    by Sunshine on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    The Republicans that we need to win over in the GE would be the middle age whites and maybe some of the re-necks that have just had it with Bush and the Republicans, not the AA's and the youth, they are in the Obama camp and most would stay with Clinton... Clinton's support is coming from the women, the middle age and seniors and I don't know if she could win the red-necks or not but Obama couldn't...

    The race baiting by Obama surrogates (none / 0) (#210)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    assisted by the media and Obama supporters attributing racism to the Clintons, is a sad day for the Dem Party.
    Even now, Obama supporters are claiming Hillary's VP comment is code for "get to the back of the bus, Obama."
    There seems to be more "codes" for racism than sexism.