home

New Delegate Awards: Obama Gets No Net Gain After Miss.

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:00:00 AM EST
Tags: 2008, delegates (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The AP has released new delegate totals. As a result of New York and Colorado releasing final numbers, Obama's delegate lead is the same now as it was before Mississippi. Here's what happened:

Obama won 19 of the 33 delegates at stake Tuesday, according to the Associated Press tally, which gives him an overall lead, including superdelegates, of 111.

Clinton, however, eliminated Obama's gain from Mississippi when she picked up five delegates yesterday based on final results from the New York primary and the Colorado caucuses, both held Feb. 5.

Thus, Obama's gain from Mississippi is no more.

Update: Comments Over 200, thread now closed

< Proposed Florida Re-Vote Plan Released | The Florida Revote Plan >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    New Delegate Awards: Obama Gets No Net Gain After Miss. | 199 comments (199 topical)
    Not if MI and FL ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:47:55 AM EST
    are counted or revote.  Then the number of delegates needed for the nomination increases.  And if the results are similar (and polls indicate they would be) Obama will need a higher percentage to hit the required mark.

    I think Obama would win MI (none / 0) (#9)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:48:04 AM EST
    and lose Fl by less than 10%. Nothing much will change.

    [ Parent ]
    The polls suggest other wise ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:57:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Polls say (none / 0) (#11)
    by Seth90212 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:06:07 AM EST
    he's tied in MI which means he'll probably win by a landslide. Polls say he's down big in FL which means he'll probably lose by less than 10%.

    [ Parent ]
    well no, polls do not say that (none / 0) (#33)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:57:01 AM EST
    but even if they did, you do not seem to be on page with what polls results mean in this election.  close means Clinton wins big.  Clinton ahead means Clinton wins bigger.  Obama ahead by a lot means Clinton comes very close.

    [ Parent ]
    By that reasoning (none / 0) (#108)
    by independent voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    apparently, I missed a lot of states that Clinton won....hmmmmmmmmmm

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has tended to outperform polls (none / 0) (#112)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    in many states,  so I do not accept your premise.

    [ Parent ]
    So has Clinton, so whether (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    you accept it or not, it seems moot.  I find it rather refreshing that polls are moot and that votes matter more.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure what your point is? (none / 0) (#185)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    I was responding to a comment that suggested that Hillary always outperformed the polls.  I was merely saying that this is incorrect.  I never suggested the opposite.

    [ Parent ]
    How many states (none / 0) (#129)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    has Clinton won with 65% of the votes? Arkansas. I'm thinking. What other states? He was down by 20 in Ohio and once he began campaigning and his people got on the ground he closed, and that's even with the Dittoheads crossing over. And Ohio is probably the worst-case scenario for Obama. If 40% vote against Clinton with no real opposition on the ballot that suggests to me that her strength in Michigan is overestimated. As for Florida, I expect a win, considering how well blacks are routinely kept off the rolls, but considering how the vote in January was suppressed by the circumstances surrounding the legitimacy of the election I don't see any 65% blowout there.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you accusing Democrats of keeping (none / 0) (#131)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    blacks of the rolls too.

    [ Parent ]
    Or are you saying that the (none / 0) (#132)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:47:18 AM EST
    problem exists only in Fl and not in Ga SC Miss NC Al ARK La should I continue?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think that is what he was saying. (none / 0) (#155)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:12:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton didn't win a majority in FL (none / 0) (#176)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    She got 49.7% of the vote.  Not-Clinton actually won in FL.  I don't think 49.7% is going to translate into a huge victory if there is a do-over in FL.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (none / 0) (#142)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:56:42 AM EST
    doesn't think he would win MI because he's refusing a do-over there. He's demanding that he be awarded 50% of the delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Not necessarily. Glad you can read minds[nt] (none / 0) (#158)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:13:11 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Then he ought to fire his surrogates (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    who keep saying exactly that -- 50-50 for Michigan.

    [ Parent ]
    I was referring to the assertion that he doesnt (none / 0) (#184)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:35:33 AM EST
    want a do over because he thinks he would lose.

    I believe he would have a good chance of winning Michigan in a fair race,  but that there are other considerations at play that might lead him to prefer to avoid a do-over.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think there will be a revote in Florida (none / 0) (#16)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:35:48 AM EST
    at least.

    I agree with Josh Patatniak over at the Plank that the smart move for Obama at least is to agree to seat Florida's delegation through the Rules Committee.

    Even though he is likely to do better in a revote,  it would probably  give Clinton a good news story at the end of the campaign,  due to much higher turnout it might increase her PV margin from the state,  and you could argue that the money both candidates would spend in a revote in Florida would be better spent against McCain in November.

    Michigan cannot be seated as is so I would imagine some kind of compromise would have to be reached there.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's arc is over (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:58:49 AM EST
    it is on the downside now and after PA I expect Clinton to win by even bigger margins in FL and MI, so does Obama.  If that was not what he thinks he would not be fighting a re-vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure it is. (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:43 AM EST
    If you just don't count the 30 states he has won in and the fact that he won Mississipi by 23 points.

    Clearly a sign of a campaign on a downward curve.

    Up is down, down is up, and Hillary is winning.

    [ Parent ]

    Read again (none / 0) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    There is no reason to dismiss a point with hyperbole. It wasn't said he didn't win those. What was said is his arc may be over. He may be entering a losing streak.

    [ Parent ]
    Won states (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    But that is not what happens, it's the delegate proportions that he gets.  Winning those states did not give him the delegate jackpot.  They are head to head.

    [ Parent ]
    Well I have been focussing on delegates AND (none / 0) (#89)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:57:15 AM EST
    popular vote, as surely both are important as most Hillary supporters on here seem to accept.

    Winning states, padding his pv lead (by 100,000 in Mississipi), and increasing his delegate lead all help Obama make his case to Superdelegates that they should endorse him.

    Unless you think that delegates won, states won, and a pv win would not be enough to win the nomination?

    If Hillary gets a pv win then I agree she would have a strong claim to the nomination if she can convince the Superdelegates.   I'm not sure if you think Hillary can win with neither a pledged delegate lead, or a PV lead without tearing the party apart and handing the presidency to McCain, but if you do then I would like to hear your rationale for that scenario.

    [ Parent ]

    Simple (none / 0) (#118)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:33:39 AM EST
    Winning a state in the race towards the nomination really gets you nothing, delegates are proportional.  I thought it was all about Pledged delegates for the Obama campaign?  Winning a state sometimes is not consequential.  

    [ Parent ]
    That was one of the three criteria I mentioned (none / 0) (#160)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:17:02 AM EST
    I gave delegates and popular vote equal weight in my argument.  why are you focussing on the states won number as it is a straw man.

    I am saying that Mississipi helps Obama by adding to his delegate lead, and by adding 100,000 to his PV lead as well (more than most had predicted).

    Now you can argue that momentum doesnt matter (i agree),  you can argue that states won doesn't matter (I agree to a point),  but I don't see how you can argue that a 23% margin, 100,000 vote margin and extending his delegate leads don't matter.

    It's quite possible that Hillary makes up the PV deficit by the end of the contest (much less likely on the delegates).  If she does that then fair play to her and she has a shot at the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Mississippi was a given (none / 0) (#85)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:52:27 AM EST
    So no, I don't really count Miss as a upward swing. Hillary will do quite well in Penna and once again, it is a big state. All the states matter, but you must have the big states to win.

    When I talk to people they seem to have spotted the chinks in the armor for Obama. So mob rule is slowing down. For instance, when he made the statement the other day about NASA money going for education to make better Engineers, I was stunned. JFK backwards. In the first place, $12bil a month for Iraq which is the projection, can build a lot of schools, educate more engineers, and educate everyone in the United States. When people heard his NASA plans I bet they heard 'Wow, a LOT of people are going to lose their jobs', 'Wow, Houston, Florida, and California are going to lose jobs' and 'Wow, we are going to give up our lead in the space programs and pioneering to other countries while we still play in Iraq', etc.

     

    [ Parent ]

    PA is expected to go with Hillary (none / 0) (#97)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:04:57 AM EST
    By the same token that Mississipi was expected to go with Barack, PA is expected to go with Hillary.

    As so many other have said before,  nobody seems to be getting any momentum.   The relevance is that it helps Obama to pad his pv and delegate leads.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you really (none / 0) (#103)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:08:36 AM EST
    setting up Pennsylvania and Mississippi as equivalent states?

    [ Parent ]
    If you are a Obama Supporter (none / 0) (#110)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:20:21 AM EST
    You would believe that. I am reading this thread today and thinking we are getting into the DKos arguments again and that is one of the things that steered me in the Hillary direction in the first place after Edwards. And now I am very glad I did. And I get to vote in Penna for Hillary!

    [ Parent ]
    the point is (none / 0) (#102)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:08:16 AM EST
    that he has won more states but hasn't been able to seize the bigger states that would have assured his win.  As it is he clings to a narrow lead.  Hillary probably can't catch him in pledged delegates.  Everyone who is paying attention knows the supers are going to decide this election.  So the article of merit is:  If the delegates in MI and FL are seated and Hillary hasn't decent wins in both, wins PA and holds her own in Guam, Puerto Rico, Oregon etc then the super swing to Obama might stop and shift back towards Clinton.

    Look at it this way.  The small states like ID, NE, WY, SD, ND etc generally go to the GOP in the GE.  Just as now winning the most states doesn't mean a thing in the GE.  You have to win the big states, the money states...NY, CA, NJ, MI, FL, PA, OH.  If Kerry could have squeaked out just one small red state he would have been Pres..  If Gore could have squeaked out his own state of TN he would have won.  Neither did so losing FL killed Gore and losing OH killed Kerry.  All signs pt to Hillary being able to win the necessary states to offset the GOP's dominance in winning the small EV states.  Plus she will do well in the GE in TN, AR and will still get IL whether they resent Obama's loss or not.  Obama has a strong case as well.  He won't win GA or MS most likely but if he draws the blacks to the polls like he did in the primaries he will narrow the gap and in the popular vote.  I don't think Obama can win FL in the GE but he can take MO and maybe NV, IA and MN.  VA and WVA will look like swing states but they will most likely do the same thing as 04---show a close race then go solidly red on election day.  I truly believe Hillary is the most electable.  I think she will pull the big states and win states that Gore and Kerry couldn't--mainly AR, TN, and IA---if she does she wins.  Obama might win as well but I see more states of concern with Obama---mainly OH and FL.  I don't think he can win AR or TN so he would need to pick up every other swing state.

    At least that is what I believe.  I could be completely wrong.  Nothing matters though until we get to the convention and see where the superdelegates throw their chips.

    [ Parent ]

    Dukakis did great (none / 0) (#134)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    In all the "big states", in the Democratic primary.  Means nothing for how a candidate will do in the general.

    [ Parent ]
    This is why... (none / 0) (#196)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:12:30 AM EST
    ...we should only count the states that "matter" - and forget about all of the rest.  That is why we should streamline the process and include only "Big States/Key States" (whatever they are).  Really, we - or, I'm sorry, the superdelegates - should only consider the candidate who can win the contests in battleground states where in 2000 and 2004 the margin was 48-52, or 47-53 at the most.  All of the rest will be blue or red one way or another (so forget about Texas, Illinois, and California - they shouldn't vote either.  They're really not 'key' because it's pretty clear who will win there).

    All of the rest of the states should just not vote. It's that simple. The superdelegates should probably make this decision too.

    [ Parent ]

    On the downside again? (none / 0) (#75)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:45:51 AM EST
    This is the 5th or 6th time his arc has been on the downside now.  It must be a weird arc.

    [ Parent ]
    It is; see Gallup tracking polls (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    as the candidates keep switching the lead.  It looks like a little kid's toy train tracks, criss-crossing constantly.

    [ Parent ]
    bigger margins in MI? (none / 0) (#91)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:57:30 AM EST
    Hmm... so Obama is going to get less than zero votes?  That would really be impressive.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll be charitable and assume she is (none / 0) (#100)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    giving Obama the unpledged delegate total in MI when making that point.

    [ Parent ]
    Delegates vs Popular Vote (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:14:30 AM EST
    I do not think that pledge delegates is synonymous with popular vote.  I think popular vote is more represented of what the people want and the best way to be fair of the public wishes.  You could have more pledge delegates and loose the popular vote.  I think that if we let this go all the way to the convention the gap of pledge delegates will be very small especially if you have a redo in Michigan and Florida.  Then at that point you can better the Supers can have a more analytical playing field on what to base their decision.  IMO popular votes trumps who is ahead in delegates.  

    I agree (none / 0) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:46 AM EST
    and I think if Obama is leading in pledged delegates AND the popular vote, he should be the nominee. Now, if HRC is leading in popular vote and Obama is leading in pledged delegates come convention time...that is the pickle. And they'll be joined at the hip by the powers that be.

    [ Parent ]
    This whole FL/MI (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:15:16 AM EST
    thing will be resolved. They will seat all those delegates as is. What excuse do they have? Yes, the Republican legislature broke the rules. But so did NH and SC and they have not been punished in this way. It is beyond silly for the DNC to not seat the FL delegates especially, considering the history of that particular state and voting.

    Mr Dean (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:51:46 AM EST
    was on MSNBC this morning and his comments did not exactly inspire a lot of confidence that it will be resolved before the convention.


    [ Parent ]
    Dean doesn't necessarily call the shots (none / 0) (#46)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:23:35 AM EST
    The Rules and Byelaws committee at the convention can make the decision on whether to seat the delegates.  The candidates will control the committee in proportion to their pledged and superdelegates excluding Florida and Michigan.

    If Obama AND Hillary both say that they will instruct their delegates to vote to seat MI and FL in some kind of compromise fashion then it is basically a done deal AFAIK.

    [ Parent ]

    yes but (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:45:28 AM EST
    that would happen at the convention.
    it would be way better to resolve this before we get there.  which would require leadership from Dean and BOTH candidates.
    I am not holding my breath.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but if both candidates commit to that (none / 0) (#111)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    solution now,  then surely things can proceed on that basis?  i.e. on a "gentlemans agreement" if you'll accept the sexist phrasing.

    [ Parent ]
    The "gentleman" is the one to do it (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:55:27 AM EST
    then, as Clinton already has said she would ask her delegates to do so.

    You are correct -- if Obama would do this, it would be a done deal, and the Dems could get back to other and more significant issues for society.

    [ Parent ]

    The excuse is.... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    ...those two states broke the rules.  The punishment, determined by the DNC, was that their delegates would not count.  I think the penalty was a bit too harsh but how can you argue that FL & MI should get to play kingmaker after breaking the rules?  The DNC gave both states ample opportunity to change the dates of their primaries/caucuses but both states chose not to do so.  IMO, they don't deserve to be rewarded for ignoring the DNC.  I think cutting both states'their delegates by 50% and then give half to Obama and half to Clinton would be a fair punishment.  

    [ Parent ]
    Two points (none / 0) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:13:58 AM EST
    1.  In the case of Florida, at least, the poison pill of moving the vote up was attached to a bill to allow PAPER TRAILS FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING.  Vote for one and you got the other.

    2.  50/50 split.  Taking votes away from people who already voted for a candidate isn't exactly fair is it?  That's what the 50-50 split does.


    [ Parent ]
    50/50 split doesn't work (none / 0) (#162)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    Applying a 50% reduction might though.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI (none / 0) (#169)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    I think giving what amounts to 100% of the delegates to Clinton because she was the only big name on the ballot is less fair then splitting the delegates 50/50.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but Obama might prefer that (none / 0) (#181)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    to having this drag on into June.  Even seating them both with a 50% reduction would still leave him in a strong position as any pv count out of Michigan at least would still be heavily tainted.

    Also,  I don't know how the uncommitted delegates were allocated.  Were they chosen from the Obama and Edwards voters or are they chosen at random somehow?  If they were chosen from Obama and Edwards voters who actually turned up to vote uncommitted then he would be likely to pick up the bulk of them anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Popular vote (none / 0) (#191)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    If they do seat 50% of the delegates that would give the Clinton campaign a way to argue that the popular vote in those two states should now be considered when deciding who to vote for at the convention.  I certainly would prefer a 50% reduction as opposed to no penalty at all but IMO legitimizing the first primary vote is a bad solution because those primaries weren't legitimate.  

    [ Parent ]
    True, but Hillary and her surrogates are already (none / 0) (#193)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    counting the PV from Florida and Michigan so that would change nothing.

    The audience here are the superdelegates and even if the current votes from Florida and Michigan are honoured and delegates seated at 50%,  for fair minded superdelegates there might be a small question mark over Florida's PV results,  but there would be a huge glaring 20 foot high Hollywood sign of a question mark over any popular vote count from Michigan.

    In the above scenario,  barring Obama flaming out in the remaining contests I think he wins.

    [ Parent ]

    interesting tidbit (none / 0) (#192)
    by delandjim on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    I read this a couple of weeks ago, the rules and bylaws actually say to reduce by 50% OR they can use a different punishment if committee decides.(paraphrased)

    I'll see if I can find the applicable rule.

    [ Parent ]

    Response (none / 0) (#167)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:23:09 AM EST
    1. Choices have consequences.  The FL Dems could have had a caucus on Super Tuesday but they chose not to.  

    2. It isn't fair to seat delegates after claiming you wouldn't either.  FL & MI should be punished for breaking the rules.  Giving them 100% of their delegates and the ability to decide the fate of the Democratic nominee isn't much of a punishment.    


    [ Parent ]
    you're kidding, right? (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by SarahinCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM EST
    Not fair to whom?  It's not fair to voters that their votes aren't being counted.  The candidates are the last on the list that need fairness right now.  Are you saying Floridians actually had a choice in this matter?  That they could have self-organized caucuses?  

    Surely you can't truly believe disenfranchising voters is acceptable, no matter the candidate you support?

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#217)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    you know, you could have organized CAUCUSES--that would benefit Obama.

    Man, I just watched another video clip of Obama's minister.  He really does not like white people.  Guess he didn't get the unity message.

    [ Parent ]

    Choices have consequences (none / 0) (#222)
    by delandjim on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    Yes, and a consequence of not allowing Fl or/and Mich to have any say in the primary greatly increases the likelihood of their swinging to McCain in the fall. Of course Fl. more so than Mich. And That is Fl 27 electoral votes and Mich 17. We would probably lose Fl. But not Mich., considering economy.

    [ Parent ]
    no (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:49:22 AM EST
    superdelegates will not save her.
    the popular vote will

    I agree (none / 0) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:02 AM EST
    with your assessment. I have no doubt barring some insanity that HRC will win the popular vote and be ahead of BO in that regard. She will be the top of the ticket...now whether or not he chooses to accept the VP spot is another matter altogether.

    [ Parent ]
    After mocking her the other day about it (none / 0) (#86)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:54:22 AM EST
    I see no reason why he should be on the ticket.
    It was like McCain mocking Kerry about the VP position.

    [ Parent ]
    I really think (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:57:27 AM EST
    that ship has sailed

    [ Parent ]
    That seems excessively touchy (none / 0) (#114)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:25:30 AM EST
    He was quite right to be mocking the suggestion that Hillary is offering him the VP slot while she is in 2nd place by all measurements of the race so far.

    Once she is ahead by some fair measure then fair enough,  bring it up.  Otherwise it is kind of offensive.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not offensive (none / 0) (#136)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:53:02 AM EST
    it's called campaigning. Framing your opponent in a way that's more favorable to you is perfectly acceptable. The only time she should treat him as the front runner is when she's trying to lower expectations before a primary. Unfortunately, the most mundane campaign tactics are being called lies and smears by Obama supporters (I'm not saying you are going that far).

    By the same token, I have no problem with Obama mocking her suggestion, and reminding evryone who's ahead. I do have a bit of a problem with the constant portrayals of Hillary as a Rovian politician who will do anything to win, because I think that veers too much into the personal. But tough campaigning is far from dirty, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it was sneering mockery (none / 0) (#175)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    He could have said he appreciated the thought but wasn't interested as the current leader of the pack right now. But he had to rub her face in it and laugh at her. I, and others I know, thought it was childish of him.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think it plays to her favor in the long run. (none / 0) (#206)
    by Iphie on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    If she does secure the nomination there will be pressure on her to select him as her VP. Given that he has so vehemently rejected the idea, it makes it much easier for her to pick someone else; why she didn't reject him, he rejected her!

    [ Parent ]
    If she wins the popular vote, maybe (none / 0) (#43)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:19:28 AM EST
    but I don't share your confidence that she will.

    [ Parent ]
    perhaps I should have said (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    the popular vote CAN save her.
    it is certainly not, you will pardon the expression, inevitable.
    I do think it is likely though.
     

    [ Parent ]
    If Michigan revotes, but the Florida results (none / 0) (#57)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    are certified as is,  then I'm not sure I see how she can gain a PV lead without some pretty unlikely results in Michigan and winning some upcoming states that are very friendly to Obama.

    If Florida revotes as well then the potential for a significantly higher turnout (Florida was the only state where Democratic turnout didn't dwarf the Republicans,  showing that it was suppressed by the "Beauty Contest" nature of the primary, and the fact that she has the potential to pick up a higher percentage of the vote in a 2 candidate field means she might make up enough votes.

    [ Parent ]

    except............................................ (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:06:11 AM EST
    a huge chunk of the states (all in the deep south) that obama won, due to the very large (and that's a good thing) turnout of the AA voting community will disappear come nov., regardless of who the democratic nominee is.

    mississippi is a prime example: obama won, due to his enormous popularity among the AA community, who came out in force. even if that community comes out in force in nov., mississippi will still go mccain, because the AA community is not the majority in that state.

    throw out SC, GA, AL, NC, VA, MS, TX and LA; nice as those were, they aren't representative of the entire voting population, i'll put money on them all going for mccain in nov., regardless of who the dem. nominee is.

    the same is true of MT, WY, UT, NV, AZ; all will go red come nov. again, regardless of who the dem. nominee is.

    that leaves 37 states, some of whom are pretty reliably blue. those are the states that should be the focus of the convention, should the primary season leave both clinton and obama at pretty much of a draw.

    the question then becomes: who, of the two, stands the best chance of capturing all 37 of those states? that's who should be the dem. nominee.

    this is exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:09:47 AM EST
    and stated without the "certain states dont count" stuff.
    no one ever said they didnt count.  that is as much a misrepresentation as saying "people who cant afford health care will be forced to buy it".
    what that have said is that those, mostly red, states are going to have nothing to do with a democratic electoral victory.
    this is the nub of Hillarys "big state" argument.
    and it is a perfectly sound argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Not a very "democratic" argument though (none / 0) (#53)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:31:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    well (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    big states or no she will not be able to win, IMHO, without winning the popular vote.
    as far as I am concerned that is the very definition of democratic.  unlike the insane byzantine delegate mush.
    the other is just about winning.


    [ Parent ]
    fair enough. (none / 0) (#70)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:42:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#113)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    The rule is whoever has the most delegates is the winner. Always has been. To presume the popular vote is the sole determinant in the nomination is silly. It's only an argument to disregard the rules.

    If Clinton goes to the convention without any lead in the pledged delegates or the popular vote but still manages to convince enough superdelegates to vote for her then she wins. It may cause a lot of dissention in the party, but the rules are.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM EST
    You write:

    Unfortunately, The rule is whoever has the most delegates is the winner.

    That is not the rule.

    Additionally, with Obama garnering lots of delegates from states which offer one delegate for every 800 or so voters, and Clinton garnering delegates from states that give her one delegate for every 10,000 voters... well, somehow Obama's pledged delegate lead no longer looks so impressive.

    [ Parent ]

    Correct (none / 0) (#204)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:46:47 AM EST
    That  is NOT  the  rule.

    But  the  Obama  supporters   who  frequent DKos  and TPM  have  been  bamboozled  into  believing  it  is  the rule.  

    Sad,  really.  

    [ Parent ]

    and (none / 0) (#212)
    by delandjim on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    Don't forget hoodwinked, it's bamboozled AND hoodwinked ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    That IS the rule (none / 0) (#207)
    by cymro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    The rule is whoever has the most delegates is the winner.

    In fact, that is the only rule, once we define the meaning of has in that sentence. Someone must win at least one ballot at the convention to be the nominee. And to do that, they must have the majority of the delegates (of all kinds, elected and "super") voting for them.

    [ Parent ]

    wrong (none / 0) (#214)
    by delandjim on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    It is not the majority, it is first one to get 2208 (counting Fl & Mich. it looks like it some way shape or form they will have delegates) on a ballot vote at the convention gets the nomination. That is different that majority.

    [ Parent ]
    I have said repeatedly (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    that she will have to have the popular vote to win the nomination.
    as far as rules.  the rules say the supers can vote for whoever they think will be the best candidate.
    if Hillary goes to the convention with all the big electoral states AND the popular vote she will be the nominee.  and no rules will have been broken.
    or even bent.


    [ Parent ]
    Actually ... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    the rules say even less than that.  The give the Super Delegates no guidance on what should determine their vote.

    They can vote for any candidate for any reason.

    They could select a candidate based on who does the better Donald Duck impression.

    [ Parent ]

    There (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    isn't much about the Democratic Party that is very democratic anymore.  The more I watch Barack Obama, the more I think there isn't very much about him that's democratic either, or what is more distressing, that is even decent.

    Heard anything about Samantha Powers and the monster debacle this week?  No, because Obama is busy framing a 72 year old white Democratic first-ever woman VP candidate as a racist--by twisting her words--to paint Hillary as a racist.  

    Hillary won three states, so Obama has to haul out the Racist smears.  My God, and people who are supposed to be educated Democrats just eat this stuff up.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, what tek said! (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by bodhcatha on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    I was glad to see GF defend herself so vigorously on TV, without backing down from her comments.  She said it was a disgrace that whoever spoke about Obama's advantages was immediately kicked to the curb as a racist (e.g. Bill, Gerry, white voters).  We're talking about people with more of a record on civil rights than Nobama will ever have.  I hope GF keeps on speaking out.  Am I OT here?

    [ Parent ]
    So long as that is the attitude of the Democrats (none / 0) (#58)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:35:50 AM EST
    none of that will change. You cannot write off so many states going in; that was the crux of what Dean's mission was when he took over the DNC. A 50 state strategy has to be in play. If you keep with the 37 states and a hail mary plan, you never have a chance at a real mandate.

    I also disagree about the South, but I know I'm alone in that. Black tunout was high for the primaries; it will go through the roof if Obama is the nominee. The GOP will have to commit resources if they are to keep all the South; not to mention down-ticket effects. Under your strategy, the GOP has no need to put any resources into the South, and Democrat voters have no reason to turn out. Thus, all the states stay red, and nothing changes.

    The bluest states will be blue regardless. The two remaining candidates have different strengths in the toss-ups. Who can give the Dems a fighting chance and maybe pick up some House seats in the Red parts of the country should not be discounted.


    [ Parent ]

    I am from the south (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:39:43 AM EST
    I mostly diagree.  if what you say was correct it seems to me AAs would be better represented in the congress.
    it is not like there have not been qualified AA candidates who have lost in the past.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm a Southerner, too. (none / 0) (#78)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    And Congress is not the White House. If Obama is the nominee, black people will have a chance to be the face of this country, with one of their own as the leader of the free world.

    When that becomes a reachable goal, you will see black voter registration skyrocket, and they will have turnout like nobody's seen before. That's just my opinion, but blacks have never been so close to power as electing a president. Here in GA they haven't even had a chance in my memory to elect a governor.

    That's just my opinion, but one that I am very confident in.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree about AA turnout, though not (none / 0) (#71)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    with your 50 state strategy point.  I think Hillary is the wrong candidate as she is going for a Karl Rove 50% + 1 election victory while Obama expands the playing field.

    [ Parent ]
    one other thing about Mississippi (none / 0) (#80)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:48:41 AM EST
    its fine for Obama that 8 in 10 AA voters voted for him.
    on the other hand the fact that 7 in 10 white voters voters voted for Hillary is not so good for Obama.
    or for us if he is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:43:02 AM EST
    the more he attacks white Democrats in high places, especially women, the more his "base" will shrink.  The odd thing is that he isn't at all worried about that and the DNC isn't worried about it.  I guess they all think he'll pull in enough Republicans to make up the loss.

    [ Parent ]
    IMHO (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:48:49 AM EST
    this racial stuff is hurting him far more than it is hurting Hillary.
    and I agree that calling Ferrarro, who is an icon to many women and has long record of working for civil rights, a racist is not going to set well with lots of people.  and not just women.


    [ Parent ]
    imo both you and tek are right (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:04:12 AM EST
    but I'm going to have to give it a week or so and see if the narrative remains the same.  If some reasonable heads calm the waters and we go back to Obama praising Clinton and Clinton praising Obama then I think Obama can get back voters he is turning off right now--including superdelegates.  But I don't see cooler heads prevailing.  Olbermann wouldn't have put himself out on a limb like that if he planned on being fair and balanced through the remainder of this primary battle.  dKos is off the chart insane, they aren't coming back to rational arguments anytime soon, if ever.  Some other blogs might calm down...but not Hufpo...checked it out a while ago, lot of Ferraro and Clinton are evil posts on the front page.  One good post though Seth Grahame, funny and rational.  So I think the Obama camp has cast their weight behind systematically continuing the demonization of Hillary.  I see this policy hurting Obama in not only PA but OR as well.  I also see it turning off superdelegates who call Hillary a friend and might have been heading to Obama but will go back to Hillary if they get tired of hearing a friend they know is no racist being called a racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Good analysis. (none / 0) (#221)
    by tek on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    It reminds me of a cartoon I saw where Hillary carrying a sign that says something about beating the Republicans and Obama is carrying a sign that says Hate Hillary.  Maybe his strategy will work--I read truly distressing posts from Obamabots on HuffPo and C & L--but I can't figure out what kind of political structure he thinks this country will have after he gets done hammering away at white people who actually guaranteed that Blacks would have rights and opportunites.  It's starting to sound to me that the main message of his campaign is that only black people are good and white people are intrinsically bad.  Will it play in Peoria?  We'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    It also silences Gore, Edwards (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST
    and just about anybody who might want -- whom we might want -- to speak up about the MI/FL disenfranchisement or other issues and could help to resolve this.

    Nobody dares depart from the Obamamemo.  That is clear now.  And that shuts down discourse to the disadvantage of the Dems -- and the country.

    [ Parent ]

    Equally Obama has beaten Hillary (none / 0) (#104)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    in states that are virtually 100% white.

    I'm not sure you can extrapolate these figures to a general election.

    If you do that then it means Hillary will only get 10% of the AA vote in a GE,  in which case welcome President McCain.

    Of course I don't think that Hillary would only get 10% of the AA vote in a GE,  just as I don't think that Obama would only get 30% of the White vote.  I think the vast majority of Democrats will vote for the nominee, and in a decently run campaign Independents should also go for the nominee, whether it is Hillary or Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    well (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    I was really talking about the south and unfortunately I think those numbers are not far from what can be expected from white voters in states like Mississippi in the general.


    [ Parent ]
    This is the reason (none / 0) (#115)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    why Obama should get lots of superdelegates from red and purple states. He may win a few of those states. Alternatively, when the top of the ticket is losing by 30% the rest of the ticket is going down too.

    [ Parent ]
    States DO switch (none / 0) (#87)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:56:43 AM EST
    California was a reliable Republican state until Clinton flipped it.  Should he have not tried there?   Virginia is quite flippable with the DC exodus to the northern suburbs.  North Carolina and Texas won't flip barring a miracle, but they would require McCain to put resources there instead of being able to focus them all on FL, OH, and trying to get one small state to flip to him.

    We have a resource advantage this cycle, we need to try to use it.

    [ Parent ]

    no, va isn't "flippable" at all. (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    i'm born and mostly raised here. the section you refer to, NVA, isn't the entire state, by a long shot. it might be 1/4 of it, maybe. it might (or might not) go blue in nov. that leaves 3/4's of the state, which will predictably go...............red.

    the tidewater (huge military presence), the middle (richmond, 95 corridor) and the west/sw (lynchburg/roanoke/salem/danville). all of these will go red in nov., almost as surely as the swallows will return to capistrano. it has been so since nixon.

    i have a better chance of being struck by lightening and hit by a semi, simultaneously, than a democrat has of winning UT, MT or WY in nov. not in this, or any other lifetime.

    the real issue is: do the democrats want to win the whitehouse in nov? well, do they? if so, spend some assets on the aforementioned 13 states, just enough to let them know we care. the bulk of those scarec allocable resources should be spent in the 37 states the dems. have a better than 75% (and yes, i just pulled that # out of thin air, don't ask for a link) chance of actually winning in nov.

    that is, after all, the goal, isn't it, winning the whitehouse in nov.? ideals are what you work on after you've won, realism gets you elected.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm looking at the GE (none / 0) (#99)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:05:47 AM EST
    in terms of the once red states will be blue just because McSame is such a lousy choice for the Rs and the war weary people have had enough of GWB!

    [ Parent ]
    I think that's the elephant in the room (none / 0) (#203)
    by Daryl24 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM EST
    Winning 13 states that everyone knows are going Republican in November and losing the ones that dems must win cannot be ignored too much longer.

    You can probably throw Alaska in there as well.  

    [ Parent ]

    thread cleaned of (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    off topic comments.

    Context please (none / 0) (#1)
    by jcsf on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:02:38 AM EST
    If you are going to count "gains" and "losses" in the last 8 days, you also have to count the 4 delegates switch from Hillary to Obama in California (an eight point swing).  Which was made final on last - what, Wednesday, I believe?

    At any rate, I thought you were of the opinion that delegates didn't matter?  

    It goes against your purposes, then, to mention delegates gains and losses, as it only brings to the fore, how far behind Clinton is, in the delegate race.

    I don't think delegates is the most crucial factor (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:12:41 AM EST
    I think the big states/key states and consideration of electoral votes are more impt, since I want to know which of these candidates can best beat McCain in November.

    That person is the one whom the Dems should nominate. I don't go by polling, I might as well cast it astrologically. What I look at are the 2000 and 2004 states and votes.

    I'll be writing more on this in the next few days. A reader-number cruncher sent me some stuff I think is really interesting, but I have to get it into a format that reproduces in a blogpost (it's kind of a graph).

    As to why I wrote about this, it's for two reasons: (1) Others may think Miss. gave Obama a big win or some momentum back. I think the fact that he's in the same place as before Tuesday shows that's not true.

    It seems he didn't get a bump after Mississippi.

    [ Parent ]

    Delegates or not, (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:54:41 AM EST
    I  think  Mississippi   showed  us  a  larger   Black/white  divide  in  the  voters  than we  saw  before,   suggesting Obama's  ability  to  reach  across  the  lines   has  diminished.  

    And  I  think his  campaign's   continual   screaming  of  "racism"   has ,  and will,   damage   his  numbers  even  more  in  the popular  vote.    

    That's  not  a  racist  comment, Jeralynn.   That's  a    political  tactics   comment.  

    [ Parent ]

    Momentum is largely (3.00 / 1) (#5)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:32:10 AM EST
    a function of the order of states in the primary and caucus schedule.  What do you think of Senator Clinton's "big state" argument?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, I've sent you an email (none / 0) (#8)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:02:42 AM EST
    to discuss some personal matters.

    [ Parent ]
    Why not skip those other states? (none / 0) (#13)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:15:54 AM EST
    Seriously. We could streamline this process immensely if we just held primary in the "Big States/Key States."  How many of those are there? 12? 14? Or maybe less, because Texas is certainly not going to be a "key state". Or Illinois for that matter, which is hardly a battleground. It'd be less costly, over more quickly, and the important voters would be the ones who determine the nominees.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent idea (none / 0) (#14)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:29:16 AM EST
    What's the point in holding primaries in states that "don't count".


    [ Parent ]
    Or - ahem - (5.