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

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

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

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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
    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.  

    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.

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

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.



    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.


    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?

    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!

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.    

    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.


    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.


    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.  

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

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

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


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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.  


    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 ;-)

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  


    Yeah, what tek said! (5.00 / 0) (#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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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!

    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.  


    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.


    Delegates or not, (5.00 / 0) (#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.  


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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".

    Or - ahem - (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:17:44 AM EST
    primaries that don't count in states that don't count (much).

    We in WA are a case in point...big turnout for caucuses = big win for Obama...

    Followed by a primary that didn't 'count' with and even bigger turnout (!) and Obama barely broke 50%.

    What, I wonder, is 'the will of the voters?'

    Never mind...sigh...

    (And what the Hell am I doing up at 6 am?)


    In fact... (none / 0) (#25)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:22:01 AM EST
    ...we might be able to get the whole thing down to a half dozen states, especially if we look at 2000 and 2004 voting results.  Primaries should be held in only those battleground states where the margin of victory was less than 4 points, no more than 48-52 one way or the other.  The candidate who wins those states wins the nomination.  We could have this wrapped up in two weeks.

    An even better idea (none / 0) (#79)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    Let's just dispense with the voting altogether.  The superdelegates can just decide which candidate they think will win whichever 12-14 states they determine "count".  Easy and inexpensive.

    My head is dizzy from (none / 0) (#76)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    the caucus delegate process.

    Its true the larger states are where the concentration of population is, and the smaller states generally do not produce sizeable tax revenue sent to DC and depend on the larger states to make up the differences. By that alone is one reason to consider eliminating them, but it would not be the essence of our system of government to equal representation. Just thinking outloud and sayin.....


    no because all of those small red states (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:58 AM EST
    have a chance to wise up and become a state important to democratic victory in the future.  We need to campaign there and build blue districts etc... however we can not allow those states to chose the nominee and lose it for us in the fall.

    Tongue in cheek? (none / 0) (#34)
    by faux facsimile on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:57:45 AM EST
    Regardless it's really bad policy to claim (publicly) that certain states 'don't count', 'shouldn't choose the nominee' etc. It's hard to argue that you want somebody's votes in Nov. but not in Feb. or Mar. Saying 'we want your judgment, but only on certain questions, because some are two important to be left up to you folks' is kinda insulting.

    I dont think anyone (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:04:55 AM EST
    has ever put it in those terms except Obama supporters.

    I think the point is (none / 0) (#68)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:42:16 AM EST
    that Obama did well in caucus states like Id and Wy, small states with small democratic voting block that generally go red by significant percentage---yet those caucus wins (among other caucus wins in similar states) might throw the primary to Obama.  

    I applaud Obama for getting his supporters to show up at caucus venues in all these states to ensure they had a good chance to win.  But it is hard for me, and others, to stomach the fact that these traditionally red states--that all seem to hold outdated caucuses instead of a more fair popular vote--can turn an election.

    I have two problems with the primary process---too long, especially in an even race such as this one; and no standardized format.  Some states allow Republicans and Independents to help decide who the Democrat nominee should be.  Some states have primaries, some have caucuses, some have mixed primary and caucus.  IMO there should be no more than one month between the first and last vote cast.  This is the election year?  So candidates are allowed to campaign for four months, hold debates.  May 1 the primaries start, all in popular vote allowing only registered Dems to decide the Dem nominee.  Polls close in the last state by midnight of June 1.  One calendar month.  Then there are still several months for the presumptive nominee to start campaigning against the presumptive Rep nominee.


    The problem (none / 0) (#92)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:57:42 AM EST
    with "letting the small, Republican states" decide the Democratic primry (to me) isn't that they're small, or not reliably Democratic. It's their dispropotionate voice int he process. Heck, California and Ohio have something like 1 delegate for every 10,000 or 11,000 voters. Wyoming had 1 for every 800 (?I may be slightly off on the number).

    In the absence of a candidate who can hit 2025 delegates, this is what makes the popular vote a more important indicator of the Democratic party's choice. The delegate # is so wildly unfair that it's kind fo a joke at this point.

    And THAT's what my problm is with Wyoming, Alaska, etc.


    oh i agree with you (none / 0) (#125)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:39:34 AM EST
    but I think the voting patterns of states in the GE matters solely because I don't think that a state that isn't going to vote for a Dem in the GE should have a significant voice deciding the Dem nominee.  Which goes to your pt that they have a decent number of delegates based on population. Obama's plan has been and still is to win as many of the Red States as possible and pick up the Blue States he can.  But the blue states he is picking up are states that aren't swing states and have low Electoral votes, like Vermont and RI.  So it just seems wrong to me that Hillary can win all the populous states that Dems need to be able to win but by focusing on winning the red states Obama looks as though he has to be the winner because he has more wins.  I just find the whole system wrong and flawed.

    Hey Teresa (none / 0) (#55)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:33:22 AM EST
    Were you at the rally the other day? And going to the St Pat's Parade? I had heard that Hillary was going to make an appearance in the parade. Hope that is true. Good to see you.

    Some Democrats are more equal than others (none / 0) (#161)
    by Blue Neponset on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:17:46 AM EST
    Democrats from red states are still Democrats, and they should have a say in who becomes our Presidential nominee.  

    Stategery (none / 0) (#27)
    by faux facsimile on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:44:39 AM EST
    I don't see how a well-hidden article about finalizing the results from 4 weeks back gives anybody momentum - neither Obama's 'gain' in CA nor Clinton's in NY.

    The 'bump' from Mississippi is simple - Obama's running down the clock and running up his popular margins.

    (If Obama were smart, he'd let them seat the Florida delegation as is. A Michigan revote, even a loss, will pad his popular vote totals such that short of a huge meltdown in Pennsylvania - a 70-30 blowout, he'll have things locked up both on delegates and on popular votes - even ignoring all the caucus states whose votes haven't been included).

    I'd be very hesitant to use 2000/2004 maps as a guide to victory. The individuals in this election will matter, and they will to some degree determine what/where is up for grabs. The worst thing to do would be to conduct a Kerry-like campaign focusing resources into one area (Florida) simply because it was close the last time around, while ignoring more winnable places (Missouri).


    Jeralyn-- (none / 0) (#116)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    how is the popular vote determined in caucus states?

    Jeralyn-- (none / 0) (#117)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    how is the popular vote determined in caucus states?

    In caucus states where votes were tabulated (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    then the raw votes are counted.  In several states actual raw vote numbers were not counted so as I understand it they have not been counted in any of the PV calculations.

    A bump (none / 0) (#119)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:34:46 AM EST
    is how you look at it.

    Obama picked up four delegates from California's readjustments a couple of days ago. He picked up another superdelegate from that special election in Illinois. So those five you refer to are cancelled out. So the Mississippi bump is back.

    These fluctuations in delegate counts will continue. More and more as we get closer to the convention there will be superdelegates announcing. Momentum is where you see it, and Clinton supporters need to see a lot of it because she's losing in the delegate count, the measure by which a candidate is nominated.


    points for style (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by tree on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:20:04 AM EST
    on the spin, but the Mississippi primary was TWO days ago, not EIGHT, so the post headline is completely accurate.

    And I thought your point last week was that the gains and losses from LAST WEEK were a wash. Do you think you get to count the Obama gains from last week yet again, but ignore the losses? Isn't that double counting?


    But it also reminds one ... (3.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:16:41 AM EST
    of the importance of MI and FL.  If those results were counted as is, granting Obama the uncommitted from MI, that would ad (by some estimates) 105 to Hillary's count.

    Results from revotes could be similar.

    Showing how important FL and MI are.

    They could tie this thing up.


    It doesnt matter how many delegates FL (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:44:31 AM EST
    adds to her count,  it matters how big her margin would be from Florida.

    The estimate I've seen bandied about by Isaac Chotiner on The Plank would be a 37 pledged delegate margin (though this doesnt count the Florida superdelegates whose votes would also presumably now be counted,  and they would benefit Clinton too).

    That puts a dent in Obamas 160 odd pledged delegate lead,  but still leaves Hillary 100+ down.


    And then add Michigan and (none / 0) (#163)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:21:23 AM EST
    Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico margins in her favor, as best can be predicted now -- and the difference in pledged delegates could be down from the 100-delegate margin of less than 5% of delegates to, say, 2% or so.  

    So if she picks up a margin other states still to come -- it's tied or at least so tight that this makes clear why Obama wants her out now, and why desperate steps are being taken now.  But if those boomerang on him, too . . . at some point, I think that his campaign is going to pick on the wrong person to trash, and the backlash will be bad.


    Does anyone here really think... (none / 0) (#12)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:49:02 AM EST
    ...Clinton is going to catch Obama in terms of pledged delegates? Or even come within 100?  Wow.

    The best she can do is hope to win the total popular vote.  Without that, she will not be the nominee.  Make all the "Big States" arguments you want.  If Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and total popular vote when this is over, he will be the nominee.

    So, keep hoping she wins the popular vote. Otherwise, there's no chance that superdelegates will produce the headline:

    "Superdelegates Overturn Will of People, Give Hillary the Nomination"

    That would be the narrative. With the popular vote, she's got a chance.

    No. I don't think (none / 0) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:48:41 AM EST
    she will catch him in the pledged delegate lead. I don't think that's the argument, actually. But if she wins the overall popular vote when this is over, you'll have quite a time trying to get Obama nominated based on that.

    That's why I think there will be a joint Clinton/Obama ticket if she wins the pop vote lead. There is no other solution if the DNC wants to prevent protests in August.


    If she wins the popular vote... (none / 0) (#22)
    by sar75 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:17 AM EST
    ...she can make a compelling case and the narrative would likely work to unify the party.

    If she loses the popular vote and the pledged delegates, I do hope many of the people on this forum who are arguing that only some states really matter will accept the result.

    I also wish everyone here, no matter who they support now, will pledge to vote for the Democratic nominee in November.  I have zero use for any Clinton or Obama supporter who would rather vote for 100-more-years-of-war McCain.  If they do, they really don't care about real policy or the direction of the country, because in the end, the differences between Clinton and Obama on policy are slight.


    No such pledge from me. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:41:28 AM EST
    not after Hillary has been treated by the media and reverse racism and the sexism.

    I will (none / 0) (#24)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:18:04 AM EST
    definitely, absolutely vote for the Democratic nominee.  McCain IS not a choice. Neither is sitting this election out. I may not agree with Obama's policies in comparison to Clinton's. However, a rabis pro-lifer who is more hawkish than Bush is definitely not an option. Plus, ew! I can't ever vote Republican no matter what!

    Your post makes alot of sense (none / 0) (#44)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:20:52 AM EST
    I just hope the more rabid partisans for both Hillary and Obama can also be as sensible come November.

    Otherwise welcome to a long term majority of "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court.


    it's just not that simple unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    Many of us are faced with a complicated moral dilemma on this issue:  1) vote for a candidate that is not only a feeble democrat but also ran a campaign mired in sexism, race-baiting, potential voter disenfranchisement, and rovian smear tactics, just hoping that it will pay off in terms of a decent supreme court justice or two, or 2) not vote for either candidate, hoping that a democratic congress will fend off McCain's wackiness, but at least not feeling complicit in the Obama bully gang campaign. It's honestly not an easy choice.

    I'm sure there are many (none / 0) (#170)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    Obama voters who would look at the Clinton campaign and tick several of your boxes also.

    You said it better than I ever could. (none / 0) (#201)
    by felizarte on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:29:39 AM EST
    totally agree with you.  

    Obama is the one to pledge to me (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:31:12 AM EST
    that the racism charges and sexist stuff will stop, not only in the campaign but also for the next four years, minimum.

    My intelligence was insulted often enough by the current president, and I didn't vote for him.  Why should I vote for one who continues to insult my intelligence by insulting people whom I admire?  And why should I vote for yet another president who claims to be a uniter but is even a worse divider?

    You have it bass-ackwards.  Voters don't make promises to candidates -- it's the other way around.    I'm waiting.


    But there are arguments against that (none / 0) (#143)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    The rule is the number of delegates wins the election. That's the rule in the rulebook. So by saying that someone won the most delegates he's shown a popularity over the course of the campaign.

    How are caucuses calculated? Do you count each caucus vote as equal to a vote in a primary? You may not like caucuses because fewer people participate in them, but by presuming a caucus vote only equals a primary vote you diminish the worth of caucus states if your sole basis is actual votes.

    Do you include totals from Michigan and Florida? Plenty of people here would, but I don't think that flies among the general public.

    How do you count crossover votes in the Democratic primary? Would victories in open primaries have to be devalued because there were Republicans and independents voting? What calculus would prevail there?

    Does a vote in January, when Obama was a relative unknown, count equally with a vote in February or March or April?

    In short, there are plenty of ways to slice the popular vote. Moral arguments over the popular vote will be in the margins because the only actual count is the delegate count. And even there Clinton may not be able to manage an advantage in popular vote.


    The rule also says (none / 0) (#164)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    that that you need 2,025 votes for the nomination. It doesn't say the one with the most delegates wins, even if he doesn't reach that number. The fact is, there are arguments to be made for pledged delgates, and for popular vote. Because many caucuses in smaller states can be overwhelmed by a campaign whose demographics favor caucus participation, and because the apportioning of delegates often doesn't represent the will of the voters in caucus states, having a lead in pledged delegates is not a cut and dried case for the nomination.

    At the same time, a lead in the popular vote can be misleading, since a candidate can build up popular vote totals in a relatively small number of big states, out of proportion to the number of electoral votes they represent.

    This is where the superdelegates come in. No, they are not perfect, but the idea is that they will weigh all of the options and vote for the candidate they feel has the best chance to win. But it's the Obama partisans who are arguing (in some cases screaming) that Hillary gaining the nomination by getting a majority of the supers will represent a theft of the nomination that is rightfully Obama's. Building a case in advance that the convention results will be illegitimate has the most potential to damage the party, which is one of the reasons why I see Obama as the most self-interested canddiate.

    Of course many Hillary supporters are arguing that the popular vote lead should carry the day. But I haven't seen too many say that Obama winning based on the supers will be "theft."


    The problem with the popular vote (none / 0) (#95)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:01:12 AM EST
    Is that it mixes apples and oranges.  Caucus turnout is much lower than primary turnout, and treating them the same doesn't make any sense.  If the caucus states had primaries, Obama probably would have won by fewer percentage points, but his overall popular vote lead would be larger.  Another reason to get rid of caucuses.

    reason to get rid of caucuses (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:07:25 AM EST
    that list is getting longer than Santas Christmas list.

    exactly (none / 0) (#109)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#124)
    by JJE on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:39:25 AM EST
    Hopefully this season will teach the Dem party some much-needed lessons.  I don't like belonging to a party that can't do anything right.  Can you imagine an undecided voter watching this mess?  "They can't ever run their primary, how could they run the country?"

    Yep, the downside of the Obama strategy (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    to go after caucus states and count on wrapping it up with Super Tuesday.  So much attention to Clinton's problems in a focus on Super Tuesday has as usual let Obama off the hook for the problems in his Super Tuesday strategy, focusing on caucuses that were frontloaded on the primary calendar.

    He reaps, he sows.  It's not the harvest he hoped.


    Alternate spin, even with these adjustments (none / 0) (#15)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:48 AM EST
    Obama's lead is still larger than it was before Ohio + Texas.

    See California's delegate adjustments, Mississipi, Wyoming, and Superdelegate endorsements since March 4th.

    OT Florida Cannot Have Mail In ReDo (none / 0) (#19)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:58:07 AM EST
    Last night on TV in Florida they showed how the laws in Florida election committee rules prohibit them from having a mail in ballot election. It is clearly prohibited. A suggestion was let the Governor sign a decree to override this law.   Another option was let some one else conduct the mail in ballot election and let them verify the votes.  Problem is they can't do that unless the have the voter registration list and the law says that Florida cannot sell the list or give away the list. What a pickle

    As I understand it these rules do not (none / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    apply to an internal Democratic Party contest, as the redo would be.

    Pehaps, but the issue is time (none / 0) (#83)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:51:25 AM EST
    Look at the schedule from their official plan.  They have a month to have comments on the process at which point it'll be finalized on April 12th.  The DNC will receive the proposal on the 14th and in order for this to go according to plan, ballots would have to start going out on the 19th?  Does anyone believe that all of the legal issues can be resolved on that tight of a time frame?

    Why Clinton's supporter don't just donate the extra money and have a replacement primary under the exact same rules as before is beyond me.      


    California and Caucus (none / 0) (#26)
    by fazel on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:31:38 AM EST
    You fail to mention that on March 4 Obama picked up a net of eight delegates from the certification of the California primary, and the popular vote (if it comes down to that) will be a difficult argument due to the nature of the caucus process.

    Ohio - Hillary picks up 9 (from CNN)
    Texas - Obama nets 3 (from NPR)
    Rhode Island - Hillary plus 5 (from CNN)
    Vermont - Obama plus 3 (from CNN)
    Wyoming - Obama plus 2 (from CNN)
    Mississippi - Obama plus 5 (from CNN)
    California - Obama  plus 4
    California - Hillary minus 4
    NY and Colorado - Hillary plus 5 (from this site)

    Hillary = 9 + 5 -4 + 5 = 15 delegates
    Obama = 3 + 3 + 2 + 5 + 4 = 17 delegates

    By my math, Clinton's lost two since March 4. Obama will pick up another at the Wyoming convention. Not much headway, considering he also gained another 100 000 in the popular vote in Mississippi.

    Were the delegates that Hillary picked up (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:24:54 AM EST
    in NY etc ones that had not previously been allocated,  or did they come about due to final votes changing, in which case they are presumably also being deducted from Obamas totals also (to be consistent with your California math).

    The delegate narrative still seems to be (none / 0) (#30)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:28 AM EST
    that she is as far behind today as she was March 3. With his blowout in MS, not much changed votewise, either.

    As for popular vote, how do they deal with caucuses?

    caucuses (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:55:50 AM EST
    good question.  I was also wondering how they will deal with the popular voet in MI and FL if they cut some kind of deal on the delegates.

    That's another good question. (none / 0) (#48)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:24:58 AM EST
    Something tells me the DNC will never act with such a heavy hand again. It would also seem that big states like CA, FL, etc. will begin to set their own rules for the nominating contests. The DNC is clearly powerless in those cases.

    I'm not convinced. Whatever happens FL and MI's (none / 0) (#52)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:30:34 AM EST
    position early in the Calendar did them no favours in the Democratic race.  Neither candidate campaigned in either state,  no advertising was purchased in either state, and effectively their democratic voters were disenfranchised.  This might now be resolved with some kind of solution after the fact such as a revote,  or seating of their delegates,  but either way they have had minimal influence on the candidate selection process.  If either Hillary or Obama had sealed the deal after Super Tuesday or Obama after March the 4th then both states would have been meaningless.  While Obama or Clinton would have seated their delegations at the convention,  their contests would still have been meaningless, whereas if they had been on Super Tuesday or shortly after their influence would have been massive.

    All that is true. (none / 0) (#67)
    by halstoon on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:41:38 AM EST
    What I'm talking about is in say 2016 (when hopefully we next have a contested primary) when Cali decides they want to go after NH; what will the party do? They clearly aren't going to invalidate the elction, not after this year. They will not be able to deny the power of Cali, so if Cali wants to go second, they will.

    I heard (none / 0) (#146)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:04:20 AM EST
    someone propose that with the exceptions of Iowa and New Hampshire because of historical relevance or something, that there be rotating primaries, where states of certain sizes from certain regions can go earlier in one election cycle, then fall back and allow another state to go early in another. Certainly, some kind of organized rotational order of primaries would go to solve a lot of these problems.

    If we don't fix our primary schedule (none / 0) (#174)
    by spit on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:29:06 AM EST
    after this year, we're absolute fools, and that's on the party much more than the states, IMO. I hope everybody is keeping a list of all the things that need fixing in our primary system -- the schedule is on the top of mine.

    The really funny thing about all of this as far as I'm concerned is that if the DNC had done the standard thing and stripped FL and MI of half their delegates, the two states would have wound up getting less attention and having less leverage than they're going to have now. And in a way, you're correct that the end result has actually weakened the DNC's ability to penalize states.

    The DNC shouldn't have been so heavy-handed in the first place, is what I'm saying. They can't do something that stupid and then complain about it when people stop trusting them to be smart.

    And whoever made the total-delegate-stripping suggestion at the DNC should IMO never work in politics again.


    You are 100% correct (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:42:18 AM EST
    People assume that if we remove the punishment on MI and FL, somehow the message will go out that you can benefit by breaking the rules.  Those states have not benefited in the slightest!  Gosh, if the whole point of this were simply to get your delegates seated - as opposed to getting money, candidate appearances, and influence on the news cycle - they could have held their primary any old time.

    The reason is that she IS still as far behind (none / 0) (#49)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:26:40 AM EST
    I wonder too.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:50:44 AM EST
    by which measure are they counting the popular vote in my state...WA...by big caucus turnout or by MUCH bigger primary turnout?

    "momentum" (none / 0) (#41)
    by VicAjax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:18:42 AM EST
    is irrelevent at this juncture, anyhow.  with so much time before the next primary, momentum could swing several times depending on the political winds.

    what is important is the math... which others have already pointed out.  if you're a Clinton supporter, the two candidates, at best, "broke even" during the past week to ten days.  if you support Obama, your candidate erased Clinton's March 4 numbers, plus some sprinkles on top.  either way, the numbers don't look good for Clinton.

    not to mention, there seems to be more evidence, based on exit polls, that the 9% of Clinton's Mississippi voters who self-identify as Republican, may have been trying to game the system (this comes from a reputable website.. not a partisan one):


    Craig Crawford (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:30:03 AM EST
    a guy I admire more and more as this silly season passes had a great post on momentum or the lack thereof:

    Momentum No More

    It is hard to tell what, if anything, matters about roughly 9,000 voters in Wyoming's presidential caucuses on Saturday choosing between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The raw numbers are so tiny -- Obama won with just 5,378 votes -- and the state is so reliably Republican in general elections that it would be easy to dismiss the whole affair.

    But Obama's Wyoming victory again demonstrates that momentum does not exist in this campaign. Just four days earlier Clinton posted wins in major states, Ohio and Texas. If momentum means anything, surely those victories would have garnered the 2,000 extra votes that Clinton needed to at least pull even with Obama in Wyoming.

    Likewise, Obama's month long string of February victories seemed to gain him little new ground for the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4. Going back to the beginning of this race, Obama's Iowa victory did not beget a win in New Hampshire. Clinton's Nevada success did not even help her remain competitive in South Carolina, where Obama's runaway win apparently did not impress the biggest states voting on Super Tuesday in early February.

    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.


    Why do (none / 0) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:32:22 AM EST
    some insist on repeating these rumors and innuendo? And why is it so clear that Republicans that have voted for Obama in every other state count as "cross -overs?" Only when they vote for HRC, they are trying to game the system. At best, both got votes based on sneaky Repubicans. Either way, it's a wash. Some Republicans are voting for both of them because they like their policy positions and think that they'd do a good job.

    the numbers (none / 0) (#60)
    by VicAjax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM EST
    i rejected it too, when it wasn't backed up by numbers... but these exit poll results, if you look at them, are peculiar.  take these, for instance:

        * 85 percent rated John McCain favorably, and 58 percent had a "strongly" favorable opinion of him
        * 41 percent said they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the Democratic nominee.
        * 56 percent said Clinton has not "offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems."
        * 62 percent said Clinton does not inspire them "about the future of the country."
        * 72 percent said Clinton is not "honest and trustworthy."


    forgot to mention (none / 0) (#63)
    by VicAjax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:40:04 AM EST

    that the above numbers represent the responses of Republicans that voted for Clinton.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    is anyone going to quantify the number of Republicans who voted for Obama in all the open primaries to date who are simply Hillary-haters with no chance of voting Dem in the GE?

    I'm sure both candidates have received quite a few "strategic" votes.  I have no idea how to quantify those numbers.  It's not like Mississippi is the only state with crossover votes.


    Sure they have, I agree with you. (none / 0) (#84)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:52:03 AM EST
    but I was responding to a request for numbers that showed that Republican crossovers benefiting Hillary in Mississipi (she won 3-1) was a factor and that they weren't genuine supporters.

    You can say that some of Obama's voters in previous contests were more "anti hillary" than "pro Obama",  and I would agree with you to a degree.

    However I don't think that the Clinton campaigns assertions that the reason she is suddenly doing so well amongst Republicans (see 3-1 vote in Miss.) is that they like her message or are genuine supporters passes the laugh test.


    You might be surprised. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:11:10 AM EST
    Ther are many pro-choice female Republican voters who will/could/did/would vote for Hillary.

    How many?

    Who the Hell knows?


    Maybe, but why did 15% of Hillary voters in (none / 0) (#107)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:17:02 AM EST
    Mississipi say that they would not be happy with her as the nominee?

    Considering that Limbaugh (none / 0) (#154)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:10:45 AM EST
    and others called on Dittoheads to vote for Hillary to bloody, that was his word, Obama for the fall, it's clear that there has been a Republican attempt to support Clinton. That's the classic definition of gaming, and it's been the publicly announced plan in Ohio, Texas and now Mississippi.

    How to calculate this? Exit polls when people are gaming the system can be notoriously unreliable.

    But Clinton supporters should at least acknowledge that this gaming exists and should be asking themselves what it means about their candidate and why the Republicans want her as the candidate but not their President.


    Bob... (none / 0) (#198)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    Of course gaming exists.

    I well remember the Kos FP post telling kossacks to cross over in Michigan for Romney and all the backing he got for 'playing the game.'

    The problem is not that a few people try to game the system and tell somebody about it so that people then think they 'know what it all means'...the problem is that most people don't have a damn clue about governing and its relationship to politics and elections.


    15%? (none / 0) (#195)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:10:30 AM EST
    Hell, I don't know and neither do you!

    15% is probably about the proportion that aren't taking their meds with regularity and could be institutionalized if only their relatives knew where they were/are.

    OK...that's snarky...but still....


    JoeA... (none / 0) (#199)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    Come to think of it, if Obama (or Hillary) is the nominee, then fully 50% of the people voting for the candidate won't 'be happy' about it, having preferred someone else.

    So what?


    extrapolating (none / 0) (#96)
    by VicAjax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:01:25 AM EST

    there also seeem to be (from my conversations over the past year) a significant number of Republican McCain-haters who would vote for Obama in a GE, who would not vote for Clinton.

    Were those type of poll (none / 0) (#120)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:34:54 AM EST
    questions even asked after other open primaries? I don't
    remember that sort of thing after VA. Many Repubs voted for Obama here and it was spun as liking his message but that just seems too simplistic to me.

    I think the most relevant numbers (none / 0) (#64)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:40:50 AM EST
    are those I posted below.  i.e. The big gap in numbers of voters who went for Hillary but said they would not be satisfied if she was the nominee.  That suggests to me that more Obama supporters in Mississipi were genuine rather than "Democrats for the day".

    good point (none / 0) (#74)
    by VicAjax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    15% of all Hillary voters.  that's kinda nuts.

    Well, no... (none / 0) (#200)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    they might have been Edwards or Biden or Dodd supporters...or all 3.

    There has been analysis of the Mississipi (none / 0) (#61)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:39:10 AM EST
    exit polls, e.g. see here at The Field.

    i.e. In exit polls 15% of Hillary voters polled said they would not be satisfied if she won the nomination, compared to just 4% for Obama.

    This implies that potentially the crossover vote to game the election disproportionally benefited Clinton.

    He is also predicting a big delegate gain for Clinton from PA based on the math there of +26 delegates.


    +26 delegates (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:41:06 AM EST
    as Wolcot says, that would give the crybabies something to cry about.

    Yes, but my impression is that (none / 0) (#81)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:48:42 AM EST
     even allowing for PA, the remaining contests are likely to be at best a wash for Hillary.  She might pick up 26 in PA,  but she will lose those again in NC and other states.

    Obama's task in PA is to do better at expectation setting and not let the media and Clinton campaign raise his expectations too high.  If he can keep it to within 5-15% then he can move on to the remaining contests.

    Current opinion polls are helping him with the expectations,  now he just needs to avoid a narrative of him "closing in".


    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#93)
    by VicAjax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    has to go to clinton by 17-20%, or it will be a moral victory for Obama.

    you really (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:00:23 AM EST
    should have put "moral victory" in quotes.

    GP (nt) (none / 0) (#98)
    by VicAjax on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    It's not just states; don't forget PR (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    which has more delegates than all the forthcoming states other than Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

    Question: Are the Republicans Right (none / 0) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:37:45 AM EST
    Should we have a winner take all?  

    Beginning to look that way. (none / 0) (#172)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    All I know is someone better come (none / 0) (#128)
    by Florida Resident on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    out with a solution to the Fl MI dilemma word down here is that if delegates aren't sited, and they mean sited and voting, there is many a Democrat who aren't voting come Nov.

    Just intuitively (none / 0) (#130)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:44:43 AM EST
    I have a problem with the theories about Republican crossover voters. I find it hard to believe that so many voters would take the time to vote just to game the system. I mean really, if Hillary had the nomination sewed up by the time your state's primary came around, how many of you would vote in the Republican primary just to screw them up? I'm sure some would, but thousands of people? Or maybe that's just me.

    I can, however, buy the theory that people are holding their nose and voting for Hillary as a protest against McCain. They may not have a favorable impression of her, but they hate McCain more. Sort of the equivalent of the Obama supporters who will never vote for Hillary, and vice versa. That to me is very different from people blindly following Rush's orders, as they may well vote Dem in the GE.

    However (none / 0) (#182)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    he added about 100,000 to the popular vote difference.  That's what's important to me.

    Hillary will have a tough time catching up.

    (saying this as a Hillary supporter, remember.)

    Hillary's best chance of catching up (none / 0) (#186)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    lies in a revote in Florida and Michigan.

    Yep (none / 0) (#194)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:07:50 AM EST
    the two need a revote.  If no revote, no legitimacy to the election.

    Obama's best chance (none / 0) (#219)
    by auntmo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    of  staying  ahead  is    blocking   the  FL  &  MI   revote.    And  yet,  if he  does  so,  he  risks   alienating  FL  &  MI  in  the  general,  and  he'll  need  them  then.  

    It  is  a  conundrum.


    Yes, but he could block the revote (none / 0) (#223)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:33:19 PM EST
    by coming to some kind of compromise which involves seating Florida as is with some kind of 50% reduction in the delegates voting power.

    He is the front-runner and as such is being cautious.  Hillary is well behind and as such has nothing to lose. in arguing for a revote.


    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    Over 200.

    Why? (none / 0) (#225)
    by Independence33 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    Tell me Jeralyn how teks comments on her thread titled "there" is on topic for this thread and then I will understand how my reaction to her ludicrous comments and accusations is getting deleted. You say that you are deleting off topic comments. This support for Ferraros comments have nothing to do with this thread and thats why I responded in the first place. This is completly hypocritical. I have not been offensive at all in my responses and they are legitimate points. Why?

    Another elephant in the room IMHO (none / 0) (#226)
    by athyrio on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    is the fact that Obama has enjoyed a much greater positive media spin for months while Hillary has been cut down constantly by most of the media...What happens when he becomes the nominee and Hillary isn't there to get the blows...They will turn on him and it won't be pretty...I find it amazing that she keeps winning the big states while receiving these blows from the media...It shows how much strength she truly has with alot of democrats...