Memo to SuperDelegates: There is No Frontrunner, the Race is Open

The latest Gallup poll shows Hillary and Obama in a statistical tie.

The results confirm Gallup's March 22 report showing that Clinton's recent lead in the race -- apparently fueled by controversy dogging the Obama campaign over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- had evaporated.

At the same time, thus far Obama has not been able to reestablish the clear frontrunner position he enjoyed in late February, and again in mid-March. As has happened so often over the past six weeks, the race among national Democratic voters has become "too close to call."

As to the popular vote, pledged delegates, super delegates, electability and electoral votes, here's some things to think about:

Peter Daou, Hillary's internet director, writes at Hillary's blog:

Myth: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.

FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.

"The Math" is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win.

MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must "overturn the will of the people."

FACT: The race is virtually tied, the "will of the people" is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.

The race is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.

An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the "will of the people" is just words.

Other ways to look at the race: The big states, the Republican states and electoral votes.

The Wall St. Journal (free link)on the first two:

Clinton aides are highlighting that Sen. Barack Obama has won among affluent voters in caucuses and primaries in states with small populations of Democrats -- such as Idaho and Wyoming -- and among African Americans in Republican states unlikely to turn blue in November -- such as South Carolina and Georgia.

A Clinton campaign memo released early this month noted Sen. Obama has won 10 out of the 11 core Republican states that have held primaries or caucuses this year. Wyoming, for one, the campaign later noted, hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964.

Here's the map showing who's won which states so far.

Then there's the electoral vote. Sen. Evan Bayh, a Hillary supporter, told CNN the superdelegates should consider them as well:

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

....So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

One point I want to make here. The DNC requires a certain number of delegates to get the nomination. Excluding the MI and FL delegates affects the total number of delegates each candidate is entitled to claim, but it doesn't invalidate the popular vote. The DNC can't erase the more than 2 million votes. Thus, I think the superdelegates should include the MI and FL votes when counting the total popular vote in deciding who has the bigger share. Both candidates were on the Florida ballot and Floridians voted in record numbers.

Obama could have agreed to the MI revote and didn't. He withdrew from the MI race, most likely for strategic reasons, seeking to minimize a probable win by Hillary. His supporters ran radio ads in Michigan telling them to vote uncommitted. In my view, he has no right at this point to tell the superdelegates not to count the votes, regardless of what the DNC does with the delegate count.

So, Hillary's ahead in popular vote and electoral votes, in the big states and the states most likely to go Democratic in November. She's ahead in the big states that are critical for Dems in November. Obama's got a small lead in overall pledged delegates and has won more Republican states that have a slim to no chance of going blue in November.

The superdelegates need to consider who will bring it home for Democrats in November. The results so far indicate that person is Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. [Update: Comments now closed.]

< Is A "Coup" By The Superdelegates Breaking The Rules? | Obama's Potential Path To The Nomination >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Richardson himself (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by DaytonDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:54:29 PM EST
    set the bar on this on Fox yesterday when confronted by Rendell on the seeming contradiction of supporting Obama when New Mexico went for Clinton. Richardson said that was true but by less than 1 percent like that was close enough.

    false comment by (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    JGarza deleted. It falsely claimed Obama won the New Mexico popular vote and delegates. Hillary won by just under 1% and in pledged delegates. Source: New York Times; CNN

    I did not claim (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    that clearly you didn't read my post.  I said he won the delegates of all the contests and the popular vote from all the contest by more then 1 percent.  That was my point on why comparing what Richardson said about his state, did not line up with the nomination in general.

    So what you're saying (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    Is if Hillary is within 1% of the popular vote of Obama (which is about 250,000 votes right now), it'll be OK for Superdelegates to go with her.

    Similary, delegates-wise, Hillary won New Mexico by more than 7.5% (2/26). So if Hillary is within 7.5% or so of the Obama's pledged delegates (about 250 delegates) it will ALSO be OK for Superdelegates to overturn that result.

    Thanks for the clarification.  It is now the Obama's position that if Hillary is within 250 pledged delegates and 250,000 popular votes, it's "close enough".


    She isnt (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    unless you count Florida and Michigan, and they aren't going to be counted.  Not to mention you can't say that Michigan mean anything since he wasn't on the ballot.

    Fairly confident (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    I'm fairly confident that she'll be withing 250K even without Michigan and Florida, and ahead counting Florida.

    250,000 Votes? (none / 0) (#219)
    by ROK on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:00 PM EST
    So, you're okay with not counting ALL of the caucus votes? The states that got stuck with that type of system get left out, huh?

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#236)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:51:30 PM EST
    I really have no idea how your comment is in any way a response to my comment, other than the use of the number 250,000.

    In any case, about 25 million Democrats have voted (that includes all primary and caucus states), 1% of that is 250,000.  Is there something about that that you do not understand?


    Rasmussen - Hillary leads by 2 pts (none / 0) (#37)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    I'd be interested in knowing (none / 0) (#40)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    who folks think is better at National tracking; Gallup or Rasmussen? I tend to trust Rasmussen a little more but I hear Gallup used a lot. Maybe it is splitting hairs. Just wondered what BTD and Jeralyn and everyone else thinks.

    I look at (none / 0) (#55)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    Trends, not the absolutes of either one. If they keep the same methodology they'll at least keep general errors about the same.

    Having said that I tend to see Gallup reflecting events a little more consistently the Rasmussen (imho).


    I suspect that the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by frankly0 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    real electoral fallout for Obama from the Wright issue, with respect to the Democratic primaries, is that Obama now has a permanent, and relatively low ceiling to his support. It's very unlikely, I think, that he will ever again gain a substantial lead on Hillary; too many people, even among Democrats, are permanently turned off to him now. But I think Hillary can gain a real lead on Obama.

    Peter Daou is wrong (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:14:02 PM EST
    The Superdelegate math DOES hurt Hillary.  If she does not make any gains in the current delegate gap she would need to wing over 75% of the remaining superdelegates just to tie Obama.  

    You behave like (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    supers can't change their minds -again- before the convention.  You DO realize that they're not even obligated to endorse anyone up until their vote at the convention, right?  Endorsements /= definitive votes at the convention.

    I'm willing to bet that those Black Caucus members who were bullied by JJJr are now rethinking their votes again after the true vetting began.


    Isn't BOs delegate lead (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by smott on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST
     like 4+%? That seems significant...

    It's less significant (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    Than Hillary's delegate lead from New Mexico, which Bill Richardson deemed insignificant.

    Yep this is a solid arguement (none / 0) (#167)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    anyone know that superdelegates have been joing the others camp for like the entire election?  This is a pathetic attempt to spin the campaing in Clintons direction.  Their is a front runner who is winning this race and guess what it's not your candidate.  But my words won't count go ahead and destroy the Democratic party trying to proove that democracy doesn't count.  You scream from the roof tops that Obama is disenfranchising voters in Florida and Michigan which is not true.  But now you would like to disenfranchise 13+ million voters.  Best of luck!

    I don't for a minute (none / 0) (#182)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:08:31 PM EST
    I don't for a minute agree with Richardson that the will of the people should be ignored.  If more voters have selected Hillary or Obama at the end of the primary process, that person should be the nominee.

    I was kinda depressed today because (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:14:44 PM EST
    I keep hearing on blogs and the media that I am wrong. My Candidate is unworthy and needs to quit for the sake of the Dem Party. They are wearing me down. But maybe if I had not stopped fighting the Iraq War years ago that we would not be hitting the new milestone of 4,000.

    But then, I looked at that pretty map. Impressive. I see I that I am not alone in my voting for foriegn and economical experience and better health care . I see that Clinton Haters might be a myth of the media otherwise there would not be so many votes for her without the help of the Dems for a Day vote. That map shows how big it is all about. I see a lot of smaller red states voting BHO But I see the BASE voting Hillary. I hope she does not give up. If McCain did, the GOP guy would be Mitt right now. I feel a whole lot better.

    Electability is the true test (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    that the Supers need to follow irrespective of who has more pledge delegates.  In all past elections the pundits and media already know with certainty which states are guaranteed to the democrats and the republicans with only a handful of swing states that decide the election.  Why would it be any different now.  The need to show right now which states Obama is guaranteed and those electoral votes and how many states Hilary is guaranteed and those electoral votes. Then the Supers will look at how each could win the swing states and the total of those electoral votes.   The Supers then look at who probably can get more electoral votes after this study and that is how the supers make their decision.

    For me, it's also about who can govern. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by WillBFair on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    Obama was given credit in Illinois for bills others passed. He adopted Clinton policies on healthcare, fiscal restraint, and bipartisanship. For the rest, he recites far left cliches like his darling baby lambkins foreign policy, or vague rhetorical moves only possible with help from an amoral media. That's when he's not making smarmy comments about 'old politics' and 'a new generation of leaders'.
    The Clintons created a national legislative agenda that reversed the damages of three republican administrations. After this particular Bush, we'll need them again big time.
    It's too bad. I would so like young people to see our greatest policy experts in action. It's a thing of beauty.

    Look at the map more closely (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    You'll see that one candidate is winning with left-handed immigrants from Bhutan who have high income jobs yet drive domestic cars and drink imported beer. The other candidate is winning in states that have had more best cinematography oscars than any other and has more vegan restaurants and downloads the most polka music. You see, if you add up all the votes gained in states that have houses with tile roofs versus those with roses in the front yard and fruit trees in the back yard but have at least one kid  with braces and a B average in core classes and another kid that can play any Brahms piece by memory on a bassoon you will find the true leading candidate in the race.

    Or, you can add up the votes and delegates.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Raheem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    Perfect answer....

    Caucus into Votes? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by suisser on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    Can someone suggest a link that will educate me on Caucus State voting behaviour in the actual election?  What precedent is there for a small number of Caucus participants predicting actual voter behaviour in GE?

    I don't believe there is one. (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:21:45 PM EST
    Simply for the reason that caucusing is an entirely different process than primary voting, which is better like voting in the GE.  People "voting" in caucuses are just a small sampling and not at all representative of the general population.

    it seems to me its a little difficult (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    to argue that the supers have to vote the way their districts voted with Kerry, Richardson et al out front for Obama.
    I guess consistency is the hobgoblin of democratic minds.

    It Only Works If You Are An Obama (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:12:30 PM EST

    Furthermore, (none / 0) (#85)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:18:12 PM EST
    if Super Delegates were simply to vote the way their "districts" voted, wouldn't we simply just give those districts more pledged delegates?  The whole point behind super delegates is to let the party elders have their independent say.

    So, it's fine if Kerry want's to vote differently than Mass, but don't complain if some other super votes differently than his or her district.


    Why Fl/MI will matter is because the race is too (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    close to call.. they will need more pointers to hash the stuff out and the ones that come to my mind :

    1] Who won FL/MI
    2] Who has the late momentum
    3] Who can win the white house for the dems
    4] Who has the Popular Vote lead, Delgate Lead/Electoral College Vote, Max Voters per delegate count etc etc..
    5] Who is leading the polls and by how much
    6] Who is dominating the news in a positive manner
    7] Who won their own state
    8] Who can benifit them in their political ambitiouns [hint: Richardson]
    9] Who looks more Presidential {above all}

    The more the Obama camp ask Hillary to quit (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    the more confident I feel..

    I have never been more optimistic of this race than at this very moment.. Please pump up the music .. a little more !!


    I think I am starting to agree (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:48:42 PM EST
    I smell panic

    Right: asking Hillary to drop out as (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:52 PM EST
    Obama appears to be tanking worse and worse against McCain is transparent.

    Nice list (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    That would be a nice post: To all Super D's: The Case for Hillary Clinton.

    and I am sure the Super Delegates will add their (none / 0) (#123)
    by TalkRight on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:37:04 PM EST
    own crazy excuse to the above list to justify their Political Calculations!

    MI & FL will count as they stand, (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST
    you can make book on it. for the superdelegates to ignore those results would require a supreme  suspension of disbelief, also a total disinterest in their continuing in their prestigious roles in the party. aint gonna happen.

    that's an interesting analysis, and pretty much confirms what i had feared: a fair chunk of sen. obama's primary victories are chimerical; they are in states least likely to vote democratic in the fall, regardless of who the eventual nominee is.

    as well, caucus results should be discounted heavily (regardless of the winner); this isn't how the GE is conducted, people tend to vote how they really feel in the privacy of the booth, rather than being browbeaten in public.

    the critical issue to be addressed is who his most likely to prevail in nov. against sen. mccain? given the overall numbers, a careful breakdown of the actual states won by each (not merely the # of states, but those state's voting history in the GE), who has the momentum going into the convention and who is most likely to have additional, unknown skeletons in their closet yet to be revealed (and revealed they will be.), the only logical choice here is sen. clinton.

    an argument can be made by the obama campaign that he's brought many new voters into the democrat fold. a fair point. however, then the question becomes, how many of them will be there in nov.? the "dem for a day" isn't likely to hold in the GE, those "converts" will be practicing republicans at night and, sadly, we're not allowed to burn them at the stake any more. they will vote republican. yes, a chunk of the actual "new" voters will stick with the party, but not enough to make the difference come nov.

    i have feared that sen. obama was a flash-in-pan, the "one hit wonder" of politics, if you will. he came out of virtually nowhere, unvetted and mostly unknown by anyone outside of his state senate district in IL. his lack of hard campaign experience (he's never had a legitimate competition before) and his overall thin gruel of a resume' would ultimately lead to his failure.

    we are starting to see those cracks in the veneer widen into gaping crevices.

    You think they will be seated as is? (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:55:49 PM EST
    I would like to see that happen. What's your reasoning.

    simply put, (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    in the absence of a complete and total takedown by obama in the rest of the primaries, they have to be accounted for. to not do so runs a huge risk of those states taking their democratic ball and going home in nov.

    not even the most ardent obama supporter wants that to happen, because it's a near guarantee of a loss to sen. mccain. they may not be able to see beyond the end of their noses, but they aren't suicidal either.

    the results of both those contests will be taken into account at the convention.


    Sure (none / 0) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:07:35 PM EST
    but one of the 2 candidates will have conceded by the convention so neither Florida or Michigan will matter.

    You think Obama may concede before the (none / 0) (#185)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:09:13 PM EST

    Yes (none / 0) (#194)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    If that is the way the race unfolds from here on out.  As I said somewhere in this thread, Hillary will need to essentially win out for that to happen.   If she splits the states then she is done.  

    The Big States (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    I just posted this in a comment at Corrente, but since it's on topic here (and since it required some math (which I used to enjoy and was good at, but am sorely out of practice)), I thought I'd add it to the discussion.  

    It's about the Big States and why they are important and how each candidate did in them. Here are all of the states with 20 or more EVs:

    California 55
    Texas 34
    New York 31
    Florida 27
    Illinois 21
    Pennsylvania 21
    Ohio 20

    The next state is Michigan with 17 (so, yes, as it currently stands, the Democratic party is apparently prepared to disenfranchise voters in 2 of the largest EV states - well done, democrats!). So Clinton has won every one of the big states except Obama's home state.*

    Going back to large EV states, to be more generous to Obama, let's make it a top-10, which would give us all states with 15 or more EVs, and is really a top 11 since three states tie for 15. That list, along with the primary results to date, would look like:

    California (55): 55-45 Clinton
    Texas (34): 51-47 Clinton
    New York (31): 56-40 Clinton
    Florida (27): 50-33 Clinton
    Illinois (21): 65-33 Obama
    Pennsylvania (21): Not Yet Held
    Ohio (20): 54-44 Clinton
    Michigan (17): 55-40 Clinton (v. unc.)
    Georgia (15): 66-31 Obama
    New Jersey (15): 54-44 Clinton
    North Carolina (15): Not Yet Held

    The only state he has won other than his home state of Illinois was Georgia. Anyone think Democrats are going to carry Georgia in November? It's also not very representative demograpically of states Dems must win in November, including Georgia, because like so many Southern States, African Americans are over-represented in the democratic primary and for Georgia made up approximately 51% of the primary electorate (Clinton won the white vote and I'm sure some of that was racism, but Obama won the vote of people who thought the gender of the candidate was important, so he benefitted from sexism). If Obama's lucky, he might be able to add North Carolina to his list along with Georgia (that assumes the recent poll showing a statistical dead heat is an aberration).

    It is very difficult for me to believe that the Democrats are going to nominate someone who lost all those big states, especially when most weren't even very close.  Of course, this is the democratic party and if any group of people could decide to rally around the winner of Utah and Wyoming because he's going to expand the base, nevermind that the real base appears to prefer someone else, then it would be the democrats.  As I believe another commenter here once said, they couldn't organize a one-car parade.

    All vote totals are from Green Papers. Georgia exit polling comes from CNN.

    * Interestingly, Obama's margin of victory in Illinois accounts for 650,304 of his popular vote lead over Clinton since that was his margin of victory there. If you add back in her margin of victory in NY, which seems fair since that's the state she represents, then 332,827 votes of Obama's popular vote lead can be attributed to his margin of victory in his home state. In other words, if you take out their home states, Obama's popular vote lead would shrink by more than 300,000 votes. I have yet to decide if that's important or not.


    again the key question (none / 0) (#170)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    is not which demo won in those states but will the supporters of the other candidate cross the line and vote mccain.  When was the last time dems won Texas?  

    I do like the Illinois point, that is a ton of votes adding to the popular and should factor in somehow.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#218)
    by trublueCO on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    BDB, first off kudos for your work. I think, however, we have to modify your work a little.

    California and New York should be taken off the list. I think most of us agree that Obama or Clinton would win there in the GE. I think there is also a good chance that Clinton or Obama will win Michigan and Illinois in the GE. I also think that either has a tough shot at winning TX.

    I just find it hard to believe that a win in the primary equates to a win in the general election. In fact, I think that either democrat has a leg up in any state this election because people are fed up with Bush politics. Add in the amazing enthusiasm for our two remaining candidates and I think you have a great formula for victory for either in the general election.


    Sorry If I Was Unclear (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    My point was not that Obama will not carry California or Hillary will not carry Illinois - that each will only carry the states where they won in the primary.  Instead, my point was that not only are many of these big states absolutely crucial in November, but that big state primaries are much more like the general election than a caucus in Wyoming.  And whether the state is blue (Massachusetts), red (Texas) or swing (Ohio), Clinton has excelled in the primary of all of the big states except for Obama's home state.

    As for what this means in terms of the GE, JOC has an interesting post at Corrente on where things stand based on today's polls.  While the polls will obviously change between now and November, the interesting thing to me is that the reason Clinton does better against McCain than Obama is big states - she racks up more electoral votes in fewer states because she is stronger in Michigan and Ohio and states like them.    

    So I think the two things are related - Clinton's ability to win big primaries and her strength in the GE - I didn't mean to indicate that I thought Obama wouldn't win some of the bluest states (although his continued weakness in Massachussetts is weird).


    trublueCO (none / 0) (#225)
    by Raheem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    you have hit the point exactly... Hillary won NJ, NY, CA... those states are likely to go Democrat... Gov. Rendell even said Pennsylvania will likely go Democrat as well... so winning these states do not indicate much in terms of the general election... its faulty logic..

    Maybe this is an obvious point, but (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:58:45 PM EST
    is the push to get Hillary drop out motivated primarily by the realization that the FL and MI cannot be disallowed without probably costing the election in November?

    No (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:05:47 PM EST
    the push to get Hillary to drop out is based on the fact that the party cannot win if it is divided.  

    1952, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984. In each of those years one of the party primaries was a hard fought down to the wire affair, with all of them save 76 being on the Dem side.  In EVERY case the party that had a hard fought race lost the general election.

    Through in 1912 and 1908 for good measure and you can see that the longer the fight, the less likely you are to win.


    I believe you are misanalyzing the issue. (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    I believe the head to head polls over the next two months will carry a lot of weight in arguments about SD's. If Obama holds his own against McCain, then he will probably have no difficulty winning the nomination, assuming he still leads at that point.
    If he is tanking in the polls, though, the SD's will have a very good reason to choose Hillary. In fact, it is YOUR reason: the desire to win in November.

    OK (none / 0) (#246)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:22:00 PM EST
    I don't really disagree with that.  As I said, the SDs will vote with conventional wisdom.  If Obama starts to spiral downward to the point where he is getting beaten soundly by McCain but Hillary is holding her own, that likely means that Hillary is doing very well and will be the clear favorite.

    But that needs to happen first and it still appears unlikely to.  


    But you must agree that Clinton has every (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:25:03 PM EST
    right to try to make it happen then?

    The insanity of the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by macwiz12 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    Three states were given permission to hold their caucus or primary before February 5th. They had restrictions, but were allowed to change them without penalty. Let's look at those states. Start with South Carolina. The last democrat to carry the state of South Carolina was John F. Kennedy. The chance of any democrat winning SC in 2008 is somewhere between slim and none. Now we look at New Hampshire. The democrat carried that state in three of the last four elections. The democrat also carried Iowa in three of the last four elections. The upside potential for the democrat is 11 electoral votes with little chance for SC.

    Now look at Michigan and Florida. The democrat has carried Michigan in the last four elections. The democrat has only officially carried Florida in one of the last four elections. In my opinion 2000 was stolen. The 17 electoral votes from Michigan are a reasonable assumption regardless of the candidate and even if the state has no voice in the selection process.

    Florida is an entirely different story. If the primary doesn't get counted, the democrats will likely lose the state. That means a gift to the republican of 27 electoral votes, more than the three "special" states and 16 more if you realize there is no chance in SC.

    As a democrat (who has voted in EVERY presidential election since I became old enough in 1968) and a resident of Florida who voted in the primary but not for either of the two remaining candidates, I find this whole situation STUPID. While unlike Michelle Obama I can say that I will support whomever is the democratic candidate, I have, for the first time considered becoming an independent. The democratic party no longer cares what I think.

    Superdelegates, the margin is negligible. (5.00 / 0) (#251)
    by Big Boy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:14:51 PM EST
       In the race for the most popular votes in the Democratic Party's presidential primary contests, Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton is about 711,000 votes -- not including Florida or Michigan -- according to Real Clear Politics.

        Of Sen. Obama's 711,000 popular-vote lead, 650,000 -- or more than 90% of the total margin -- comes from Sen. Obama's home state of Illinois, with 429,000 of that lead coming from his home base of Cook County.

        That margin in Cook County represents almost 60% of Obama's total lead nationwide.


    Memo to super delegates (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    elections results are important, except when they don't favor Hillary, then tracking polls are all important.

    Ignore all those states Obama won, Gallup has  a tracking poll out.

    I am not sure (none / 0) (#14)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM EST
    why I am bothering to ask, but what "tracking polls" are being treated as more important that elections?

    This: (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:21:08 PM EST
    The latest Gallup poll shows Hillary and Obama in a statistical tie.

    The poll is cited (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:23:53 PM EST
    as only one factor among many that support the premise that the contest is still undecided.  She didn't say it was more important than any election.

    The other stuff doesnt match reality (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan aren't going to count in their current state, so really its a poll and thats it.  But if BO isn't the front runner I'm happy for Hillary to get front runner scrutiny from the press again.

    Wrong (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    Whether you like it or not, whether it works for your candidate or not, REAL PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND VOTED. It is not a poll. You are inaccurate.

    Delegates may or may not be seated, but votes can't be erased (well, unless you are a Republican in Florida and its 2000).


    Maybe you should argue (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:06:33 PM EST
    that Washington's primary should count as well.  Real people voted in that as well.

    Actually a case could be made for this as (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:24:16 PM EST
    the primary was established by voter preference, and subsequently ignored by the state Democratic Party. It's clear from the huge voter percentage difference for each candidate that the caucus really skews the voting results. There is over a 20% difference in results. further the GE is not established by caucuses, but primaries. Guess which would actually reflect the actual will of the people.

    And the primary is supposed to be (none / 0) (#140)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:44:37 PM EST
    advisory. How can it be advisory if it carries no weight, has no impact?

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    It should count, I have no issues with that. But let's remove the caucus numbers.

    Yes (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST
    and real people didn't show up because they were told it wouldn't count.  Not to mention in Mich. he was not even on the ballot.

    so the people who showed up (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    And voted, including for uncommitted for fake people? Wow, I didn't realize. Thanks for clearing that up!

    Sorry you candidate said herself they (none / 0) (#213)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    shouldn't count, wait that was a ways back when  she was thought to be winning.  Did she change her mind?

    You confuse (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:20:31 PM EST
    What Hillary or Obama says with what is right and factual. Some of us (believe it or not) don't just repeat and believe what "our candidate" says. If the tables were reversed I'd still say the same thing. People showed up, people voted. You can't wave that away because "xyz said so."

    Plus the electoral college (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    thing is like saying if the primary were winner take all we would be ahead.  The problem is they're not.

    I love polls, but (none / 0) (#4)
    by rdandrea on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:57:34 PM EST
    I'd like to see the breakdown of the Gallup responders.  I suspect he didn't filter out people/states that had already voted--just did a random sample of the US.

    That's fine, but it gives no indication of the race going forward from here; as such it's really of questionable value for anything but punditry.

    I would like to see a poll of GOP (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:33:33 PM EST
    How about a poll right now with GOP and Indy voters who voted Dem and will vote Dem in the General Election. Now, that would be interesting.

    Polls is a static picture (none / 0) (#13)
    by Prabhata on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    Polls are not truth.  Polls read the sentiment of voters at a given time and are as changeable as the weather.  Although polls can be taken as indicators to read the political environment, they are not the whole picture.

    As always (none / 0) (#6)
    by DaytonDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    I could be incorrect and I know there are lots of different counts out there, but my understanding is less than one percent on both at present.

    On the popular vote factor (none / 0) (#7)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    I agree completely, Jeralyn, that the MI and FL popular vote is going to play into this.  The penalty related to the delegates; nothing said (so far as I recall) about the reality of x number of people voting.  The key may be how the perception is framed.  Looking at all the votes cast--since its not formal as a rule or other binding requirement--is just that: Looking/seeing/being aware of all the votes cast that comprise the popular vote.  Some Obama strategist may ask to  "strike that," but we all know or will know the Florida and Michigan popular votes numbers by heart very soon.  So, it is kind of hard from a human behavior standpoint for any decisionmaker to ignore in one's internal process of deciding who can get the most votes in the states that will yield the delegate votes one needs.  (And: Tho I live in Colorado, our purplish state doesn't hold a candle in electoral strategy numbers to a strategy that might center on simply adding Ohio to the Gore or Kerry list.)

    Nevada may be the key (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:16:49 PM EST
    When looking at electability, one need not look exclusively at Ohio.  If the Democratic Nominee wins all of Gore's states and New Hampshire, which John Kerry won, then only Nevada is needed.....

    That would create a tie in the Electoral College.  The tie would go the House of Representatives with each state having one vote....Right now, the Democrats have a majority in the House Delegations of 27 states....the current tally is Dems 27, Republicans 20, with four ties (the total is 51 because of D.C.)

    The good news is that current polling by Rasmussen vis-a-vis McCain shows Obama beating him in Nevada by 4, and Hillary beats him by 1.  Bush beat Kerry in Nevada by only four points....The demographics have shifted even more in the Democrats' favor since 2004 with increased Latino voters...

    The West is where the race will be won....Colorado could go for a Democrat too.


    Obama is in the lead and its almost impossible... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Raheem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:04:57 PM EST
    for him to lose the delegate and popular vote lead, yet their is no front runner?????

    Maybe we should change the title...

    that's what Gallup says the poll numbers show (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    as quoted above:

    At the same time, thus far Obama has not been able to reestablish the clear frontrunner position he enjoyed in late February, and again in mid-March.

    I see the goalposts are moving (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:14:51 PM EST
    When did Gallup's national tracking poll become the bellwether for the Democratic race?  

    She's not saying (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    the polling is dispositive.  What she is arguing is that, considering the factors above, it cannot be said that one candidate has a decisive lead over the other.  Therefore, Jeralyn argues, it would be foolish to favor Obama because he has some kind of overwhelming lead.

    One way or the other (none / 0) (#35)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    one of the candidates is going to be picked.

    You can argue until your blue in the face that Obama hasn't proven that he should be the nominee.  However that does not in any way support the claim that Hillary should be the nominee.  

    And at the end of the day you are still stuck with the fact that Obama is leading in the 2 most critical measurements available, delegates and popular vote.


    Leading does not mean finalized (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    There is no rule that says who is leading must be the finalized candidate. The only rule is reaching the magic number of finalized delegates. By the way, super delegates can change their minds, based on their own criteria--not yours or mine. Also state delegates can change too in the process of delegate selection to go to convention, so even that is not finalized. Let the people vote!

    But it's not the end of the day yet (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:40:56 PM EST
    is the point, and you know it.  With 10 states to go, that's the same as saying it's not even dusk yet.  So there's a way to go before we whose handsome coachman turns back into a mouse at midnight.

    I think there is a third measure (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:08:47 PM EST
    aka what has he actually won with those 2 measures? is it a better chance at the WH when taking a critical look at the delegates and PV and where they came from?

    History has shown that 'big blue' and crucial swings can very well go red. And Obama hasn't shown that he can capture the Dem base. He has spent more and has had the time for folks to 'get to know him', yet he still can't knock her out. why? Those 'big' states. The ones we need in the GE.


    excuse me (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    we have two choices at this point.

    "that does not in any way support the claim that Hillary should be the nominee"

    doesnt really make that much sense.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    It is not at all impossible for him to lose the popular vote lead. It just counts whether you want to include FL and MI or pretend people never voted.

    It is probably accurate that she can not catch him in pledged delegate numbers, but that ship sailed. No one is going to win by that at this point.


    It's not "almost impossible" (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    for Obama to lose the popular vote. It's actual very possible and, imo, probable.

    Pay No Attention (none / 0) (#9)
    by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    To that front runner behind the curtain.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    Well, I do not agree with some of this post. Particularly, the part about Clinton leading the popular vote.

    Here's the link on popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    TOTAL  Obama 12,838,762
    Hillary 13,084,646

    Includes MI and Florida votes
    Excludes caucuses (as do all popular vote totals)


    With all the outrage over disenfranchising voters (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:28:27 PM EST
    in MI and FL you dismiss all the voters in caucus states pretty easily.  If you can't get a real popular vote count, i.e. one that counts all the voters, then I don't see how you can argue that popular vote should be any factor in the outcome.  That's 13 states right out the window.  How can that be justified?

    MI and FL (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:32:26 PM EST
    chose to go early.  caucus states decided to have caucuses.
    they all knew the implications.

    What implication was that? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    Did the caucus states miss the fact that Clinton supporters, upon realizing that they would be unable to win the delegate race, began to argue that popular vote somehow matters and thus caucus states should matter less?

    That's an argument for not counting either (none / 0) (#155)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:55:23 PM EST
    MI/FL or the caucuses, which I am fine with.  However, the argument is seriously flawed since MI and FL knew they risked not being counted while I don't think there is any argument that caucus states knew their voters would not count in some fundamental way.  I think the whole popular vote discussion is silly in the absence of an actual popular vote for all the contests.

    Since popular vote has no independent standing in the formal system for selecting delegates this discussion is about crafting arguments that will sway the super delegates.  The argument that Jeralyn and others are making is that super delegates should view the popular vote as an important consideration in deciding who to support.  A counter argument is that the popular vote is not a good factor to consider as it excludes voters in caucus states.  (This is obviously particularly unfair to Obama since he won most of those states).  I've yet to hear a coherent response to that argument.  If you are a serious Clinton supporter it is in your interest to come up with one.

    While the pledged delegate count is imperfect for a number of reasons it is still the only number we have that reflects the views of every person who showed up at a primary or caucus.  I think that is a powerful argument for a super delegate.  I also recognize that under the rules that can make the decision by flipping a coin.

    I do hope when all this is over that the DNC and the states take a long, hard look at the whole process and make some big changes.


    Caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST
    don't vote.  They caucus.  And if they have an informal preference ballot, it is pretty informal and unrelieable.  See my post above.

    Well, (none / 0) (#175)
    by cmugirl on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:04:08 PM EST
    I know my sister (registered in Michigan) was in Nevada during the caucus.  She was asked by several different people if she would come caucus.  She told them no, she wasn't registered there, but they asked her to come anyway. I can't believe she was the only one they tried to pull in.

    And, for example, Obama encouraged college kids in Iowa (who were not FROM Iowa) to caucus.  It wasn't ILLEGAL, per se (college kids can register where they go to school in Iowa), but this was asking people who are "not from Iowa" to participate in them which changed the nature of the event. (He was also accused of busing in kids from Illinois to participate, a charge his campaign denied).



    So every voter in a caucus state loses (none / 0) (#247)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    their voice because:

    a) your sister was asked to caucus in Nevada;
    b) Obama did something legal in Iowa; and
    c) The Obama campaign was accused of doing something.

    Maybe some super delegates will find that compelling.  I doubt it, but it is possible.


    That chart gives Obama zero votes (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:08:50 PM EST
    for MI. On that basis alone, I dismiss it. You cannot say you are counting the MI popular vote and then penalize Obama for following the Dem Party rules in removing his name from the ballot. If you want to include HRC's MI votes you need to give Obama roughly the 25% he was polling... or 150K votes.  That's why this doesn't work... and why BTD's 500K vote cushion is, at the very least, sensible.

    I explained why it's fair he gets no votes in MI (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    in my post. This isn't delegates I'm counting, it's popular votes. He strategically removed himself from the ballot. He rejected an approved MI party plan for a revote. He got no popular votes in MI. His choices, he's accountable.

    Fair? Not to the MI voters (1.00 / 0) (#88)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    And I thought that was the idea.

    And, no, Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson did not "strategically" remove themselves from the ballot.

    Under Democratic National Committee rules, only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are allowed to hold primaries before February 5.


    why Obama withdrew in MI (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:27:09 PM EST
    see missed my earlier post

        CNN's Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider suggested the Democrats who withdrew may have calculated that it was simply in their best political interest to do so.

    "If there's no campaign, the candidate most likely to win Michigan is Hillary Clinton," Schneider said. "Her Democratic rivals don't want a Clinton victory in Michigan to count. They want Iowa and New Hampshire, where they have a better chance of stopping Clinton, to count more."

    darn (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    inconvenient details

    Why then (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    did they keep their names on the Florida ballot?  There was only an agreement not to campaign in these states.  Once the DNC ruled, they took these states off the list.  They did not have to remove their names.  Clinton, Dodd, Kuchinich, and Gravel didn't, in fact.

    Kucinich tried to remove his name in MI. n/t (3.50 / 2) (#132)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:41:19 PM EST
    As for why their names were on in FL, I'd be willing to wager that it was because the GOP in in control in FL and that they made the rules.  As a result the Dems agreed (including HRC) agreed not to campaign there.

    Just as it is (none / 0) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    fair to ignore the caucus states when tabulating a popular vote.

    Gaming the numbers does not help give them legitimacy, Jeralyn.

    I could just as easily argue "Hillary chose to recognize the punishment given to Florida and Michican.  Her choice.  She's accountable" Gee that was fun.  

    Giving a 328,000 to 0 lead for Michigan completely invalidates your argument except in the eyes of strident Hillary supporters.


    I see the issue (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:29:38 PM EST
    as counting her votes. Each of her votes reflect a real person who voted for Hillary Clinton. You can't erase them.

    And the people who showed up at the caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    are not real?

    They are real, as are the larger # that couldn't. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:30 PM EST
    Now you have lost me (none / 0) (#231)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:46:48 PM EST
    The "larger #"  did not show up for primaries either.  Most people don't show up and they don't get counted.  Doubtless caucuses are harder to show up for which is why they are less democratic.  But that is not an argument for not counting them at all, which is even less democratic.

    Its a particularly problematic argument if you want to seat MI and FL since there are certainly people who did not show up thinking that the vote would not count.  They are also real.  So are the people who voted for uncommitted in MI rather than Clinton because they supported Obama.

    Remember, this is not a courtroom, this is an attempt to sway super delegates.  You need a persuasive argument, not just snark.


    that wasn't a snark (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    look at WA and TX. Look at turnout in Caucus states vs similar sized states.

    and then there's the knowledge that if I were in a caucus state, I would not have been able to participate this year. My work isn't always open to advance planning and this years primary was right before a major industry event for me.

    I'm not saying don't count them, but weigh them appropriately. The states chose to caucus. They weren't forced and it's really hard to say what those number represent. I say weigh the states that have the best chance of staying red in the same manner.

    I guess you can get I don't like caucuses, eh?! lol!~


    I don't like caucuses either (none / 0) (#244)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
    but what exactly is your argument. My point has been that if you want to argue to super delegates, the only audience that really matters, you need a coherent case for why popular vote should count.

    You have now said that two kinds of voters, those who live in states likely to be red and those who live in caucus states should have their votes discounted (though you have not said how or by how much).  Its not clear how you would count those voters or why their vote matters less, particularly in the case of caucus states.  (I understand the argument for red states, though I think it is fundamentally flawed and reflects the 50 + 1 approach that has been terrible for the party.  My support for Obama has a lot to do with the fact that he has taken a 50 state approach.  If Hillary had not ignored so many states she might be ahead now.)  You can obviously say whatever you want (well here whatever J & BTD say you can, its their sandbox) but if you want to convince anyone who does not already agree with you I think you are going to need more.

    I think caucuses suck, but till the DNC bars them, which would be nice, they should count.


    As long as it doesn't hurt (none / 0) (#233)
    by Raheem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:48:21 PM EST
    Hillary, it can be counted... that is story of Jeralyn's blog posts unfortunately...

    Actually you can Jeralyn (none / 0) (#120)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    This is not an election, Jeralyn.  This is a party nomination process.  

    The entire process is undemocratic.  You can't reasonably cherry-pick that which you don't like.


    Why can't Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:41:07 PM EST
    when you seem able to do it continually?

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by hookfan on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    that this entire process is not democratic due to voter suppression, voter dilution, disenfranchising two major states by an arbitrary extreme application of the rules by DNC, so much power given to super-delegates, ignoring voter choices, etc. and etc.

    IT never has been (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    democratic.  In truth it is MORE democratic today than it has ever been in the past.  

    good admission (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:46:02 PM EST
    I think we have made real progress today

    Sigh. Not again with "not the rules" (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    That's a lie, disproved at this site many times, and I thought I saw you on those threads. . . .

    Call it what you will. (none / 0) (#145)
    by dannyinla on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:46:03 PM EST
    In August of 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee that only four states: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008.

    And the DNC followed that rule (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    in saying that if those states wanted to redo after that date, fine.  But you say that would be against the rules.  That's not fine on your part.

    Where (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by sumac on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    in that paragraph does it state that to abide by the DNC rules, candidates must remove themselves from the MI ballot?

    Real Clear Politics (none / 0) (#76)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    Has got estimates for the caucuces. They say if you include the caucuses and don't include MI and Florida, then Obama is ahead by about 820K in popular count.  I lay out here a plausible scenario where Clinton could beat him in the popular vote, even without MI and Florida.  And if that happens, they have to give it to her: nobody has ever won the nomination in the modern nominating system without winning the popular vote.

    Why exclude caucuses? (none / 0) (#96)
    by thefncrow on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:26:30 PM EST
    Here's the Real Clear Politics numbers, which include all DNC sanctioned contests, as well as theoretical numbers where the non-sanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan are added as well.  Further, these results give estimates for the caucuses based on the known results and turnout.

    Their result?
    No caucus estimates, DNC sanctioned contests only:
    Obama: 13,345,318
    Clinton: 12,634,376
    Result: Obama +710,942

    If make that all DNC sanctioned contests(factoring in the estimated numbers from the caucuses):
    Obama: 13,679,402
    Clinton: 12,858,238
    Result: Obama +821,164

    All of their numbers look better for Obama than the ones you posted, even the ones that exclude 4 DNC sanctioned caucuses and include the 2 non-sanctioned primaries, which result in:
    Obama: 13,921,532
    Clinton: 13,833,671
    Result: Obama + 87,861

    Real Clear Politics has complete numbers on Texas and Vermont, unlike USA Election Polls.  Kinda figured some place reputable would get those final results up now that we're almost 3 weeks out from those contests being held.


    Because (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:35:12 PM EST
    for example, you didn't even need to be registered to vote to be able to "vote" in the Minnesota caucus preference ballot.  It was a short straw poll of people who showed up and scribbled a name on a scrap piece of paper.  They were not "votes" in any reliable sense.

    Minnesota DFL Caucus Rules


    Minnesota (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jgarza on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    has same day registration

    what does that (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by eric on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:08:12 PM EST
    have to do with anything?  If you click through to the link, you will see that you did't need to be registered to "vote" in the preference ballot at the caucus.  You didn't even need to be 18.  You just needed to be "eligible" to vote by Nov.  Furthermore, you only need to be 16 to participate in the caucus generally.  And yes, the "voting" was done on little scraps of paper cut up by a woman in an Obama t-shirt.  These aren't votes that should count as being anything close to official or reliable.

    I read J's post, thought it was by you, (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    and was poised to write:  at last.  But then I decided to check to make sure you were actually the author.  

    Obama not the frontrunner? (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:15:37 PM EST
    I'd rather be in his shoes right now.

    Repeat After Me... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    No candidate--from either party-- has EVER won the nomination in the modern era without winning the popular vote. Nobody. If they GIVE it to Obama, he would be the first candidate to defy the will of the people.

    As I pointed out in another threat, Clinton can win the popular vote even WITHOUT Michigan and Florida.

    Umm (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    That is quite an interesting comment.  If they GIVE it to Obama?   If Hillary manages to achieve your fairly incredible scenario then Hillary will be the nominee.

    Now assuming that doesn't happen, do you stick to your guys and say that the popular vote winner gets the nod?  


    Assuming the lead is beyond noise factor (none / 0) (#62)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    I'll agree to that.

    Absolutly-- (none / 0) (#64)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:01:53 PM EST
    The popular vote winner should definitely get the nod.

    that also is an opinion (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    not a rule

    Right... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    If I were a super delegate, I would consider electability, popular vote, and many other factors before the stupid delegate count.  

    What if JFK rose from the dead and said he wanted to run for a second term? Would the Obamiacs still be running on and on about the stupid delegate argument?  


    "An incremental advantage (none / 0) (#26)
    by AF on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game."

    Translation: The winner of the primary elections should not necessarily be the nominee.

    I disagree with that.  If one candidate wins the primaries -- ie the popular vote and pledged delegate count -- he or she ought to be the nominee.  

    That candidate could be Hillary or Barack.

    Except... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    that the winner must have a majority of the delegates.  If no one does--and, that is one thing I think that both sides agree will be the case--then, by definition, there is no winner.  Pledged delegates become unpledged, etc.  What so many people seem to forget is that little thing that neither of them will get the "magic number" before the convention in all likelihood.  The fact that Hillary Clinton may lag a bit in pledged delegates does not make Barack Obama the winner nor does it require the Superdelegates to move toward him.  The real test for all of us is just starting.  We don't need to wear ourselves out arguing our talking points--e.g., Obama is ahead in pledged delegates and therefore is a certainty.  There is a lot of time for certainties to develop...wherever they arise.

    Jeralyn, How in the world can you say (none / 0) (#30)
    by independent voter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST
    she's ahead in ELECTORAL votes? If that is so, please explain what happens in the GE (a hypothetical matchup between McCain and Clinton) in Texas, for example. See, John McCain won the GOP primary there, but Hillary Clinton won the Dem primary.
    Who is going to notify the Republicans that Hillary Clinton gets those electoral votes, because she won them in the primary?
    Who won the state in the primary has NO bearing on who will win in the GE. It just is not logical.

    I quoted Evan Bayh from the article (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:05:35 PM EST
    it was him, not me saying she has the lead in electoral votes.

    So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

    Under this theory, the winner of a Dem. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    primary/caucus gets all the electoral votes for the state.  Hypothetical.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#36)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    continues to argue that Michigan and Florida should count as stand despite the fact that this option isn't even on the table.  

    Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:46:04 PM EST
    did not happen in a vacuum.  someone will eventually take those votes into account.  one way or another.
    how anyone can doubt that is odd to me.

    Carville on CNN (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Grey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    Just a few minutes ago, he said that the idea that Obama is ahead in either count (pledged delegates or popular vote) is a fantasy based on calling the game with 2 innings left to go.  He then changed the sports metaphor to basketball and said it's like calling it with 3 minutes and 36 seconds to go, but you get the idea.

    He also added that the superdelegates who have yet to endorse know that this count is being taken without MI and FL and that they will keep that in mind before picking a side.  He made the point that the assertion that the superdelegates would "overthrow the will of the people" by going with Clinton is bull precisely because no one can honestly claim Obama is ahead while failing to count, or re-count, FL and MI.

    And that makes perfect sense to me.


    Carville doesn't watch many sports apparently (none / 0) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:27:39 PM EST
    Saying that Obama is currently ahead is s statement of fact.  Stating that he has won already would be similar to ending the game with 3 minutes and 36 seconds remaining.  

    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Grey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    And then the Pats would have won the super bowl.  Except for the fact that every minute of the game was played and the Giants won.

    Carville and the sport analogy (none / 0) (#138)
    by Prabhata on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    I like the analogy, but I'd say it's more like figure skating in that judges hold the final decision.  The superdelegates will elect the nominee and no matter how they decide, it will be their call.

    Not likely to change the outcome (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:49:31 PM EST
    I'll say this again because a lot of Clinton supporters want to ignore it.

    If the delegate count doesn't change then the remaining delegates will need to vote for Hillary 75-25 in order for her to tie Obama, presuming that the committed SDs remain committed to their respective candidate.  


    A couple of big assumptions there (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    1. Neither candidate drops out voluntarily (you sure this isn't gonna happen?)

    2. Currently aligned SDs do not change their position (sure this isn't gonna happen)?

    I think the issue may be you want the current state to be a frozen thing. Fortunately or unfortunately (depends on your view) it isn't.

    They will be seated (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    and they will be counted once one of the candidates drops out.

    now that makes (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:50:41 PM EST
    perfect sense

    Actually, It Does (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by thefncrow on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan chose to hold contests which violated the DNC rules.  As such, they had their delegates stripped from them.  However, between the moment they lost their delegates, and about a month ago, there was no headway being made on doing a new contest, because everyone expected that the field of candidates would quickly narrow to just one, and they'd be allowed to seat their delegates from the illegitimate contest once the nomination was settled.

    However, once it was threatened that Hillary might take this all the way to the Convention, Florida and Michigan realized that they might not get seated after all, because their delegations would then be swinging the election one way or the other, and this is when talk about holding a proper rule-abiding contest began.

    Without Florida and Michigan deciding to hold an actual legitimate primary contest, their delegates cannot be allowed to impact the race.  Once Hillary realizes this is over, Florida and Michigan will be seated.  If she doesn't come to this realization before the convention, then Florida and Michigan will be left with only the options of having a 50/50 split delegation, or staying home.

    If Florida and Michigan would like to have any impact on the Democratic presidential primary, they have to run a contest that conforms with the DNC rules, which is something they have yet to do, and which must be done before, I believe the drop dead date is June 10.  If they fail to do that, then they may only be seated in such a way as to ensure that they do not impact the contest, although once the contest is officially over and Obama is the only remaining candidate, there's nothing left to impact anyway.

    This is what was anticipated from the beginning.  It was only once Florida and Michigan became another chip for Hillary Clinton to introduce and say "Well, if we were to change the rules about <x>, I'd be able to reduce Obama's lead" that anything else was expected.


    There is NOTHING in the DNC rules (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    that prohibits the super delegates from considering the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries, which were legally carried out in their respective states. That is the issue at hand. Neither candidate can reach the threshold needed to win through the delegate route, so Super Delegates AND pledged delegates must consider other things, including that no candidate from either party in the the modern nomination process has ever won the nomination without winning the popular vote.

    It's fairly simple (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:41:41 PM EST
    I know the whole checks and balances thing is kind of a new thing to Obama supporters (oh, wait... nope I guess it isn't), but the whole point to the Super D's is to CHECK the results of the primaries if they are pointing to a defeat in November.

    If the winds are pointing to an Obama loss (because he can't win the big states, or he has a few last minute skeletons piling out of his closet, or the national polls are tanking for him) then it is COMPLETELY IN THEIR RIGHTS to vote against his campaign.

    How many people who voted for Obama early in the primaries would still want him to be their nominee now that the crap is hitting the fan. Chances are, probably fewer than used to.

    Another thing to remember: The Super Ds don't have enough power to completely overturn a lopsided race. They only have the power to change a close race. The only reason this conversation is being held is because HIllary is still in contention.


    Actually, it doesn't. (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    I don't know about you, but telling me my vote counts after there is only one left standing in BS. It's no better than a 50/50 split.

    Sure It Does (none / 0) (#239)
    by thefncrow on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    If you would have liked your vote to matter in the election, you should have been pushing your elected representatives since they changed the date in 2007 and left your state without a valid primary contest for the 2008 nomination.

    Without such a valid primary contest, it's not fair for your state's illegitimate contest to in any way change the results which come from the contests which followed the rules.

    If you want to play the game, you have to follow the rules.


    If it would have been my state (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:11:44 PM EST
    you can be sure I would have been all over my elected representatives. But, that doesn't always work.

    I would be damn ticked if my state had pulled this crap. Even more ticked with the way things have been unfolding. And if at the end, when it didn't matter, they patted me on the head with a pander move aimed at the GE. Forget about it.


    I agree with this (none / 0) (#50)
    by Raheem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:54:02 PM EST
    they put Richardson in charge of convincing people of this.

    That will be the same (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    As not seating them.

    No (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    It will be the same as every past primary.  

    This notion that every state must be heard is quite specific to this election.


    on second thought (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    maybe you could be in charge of convincing people.

    Too silly to confuse the two situations (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:19:55 PM EST
    That's actually not true.  Even if momentum isolates one candidate by the time some states vote, that's a very different situation than actually taking a vote away from someone.  That's very different.  

    Especially when confronted with a situation where the vote being taken away does matter.

    Removing them from the process and then seating them, effectively tell them "enjoy your punishment now go cheer the nominee" is such a willful misunderstanding of human nature, that I can't believe someone would be arguing for it.


    the superdelegates can consider (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:13:49 PM EST
    the popular vote the way they see it. If they think FL and MI should count, they can count it. They can consider whatever they want. I think they should consider the 2 million votes in their calculations of the popular vote whether the DNC does or not.

    or they can vote for or against Obama (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    because of the way he dances.
    THOSE are the rules.

    This is true (none / 0) (#149)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    The Superdelegates can vote any way they want to.  

    But the way they WILL vote is to protect their political support.  All of these rationalizations about why they will pick one candidate or the other are meaningless.  They remaining SDs will vote the conventional wisdom.


    Obama supporters are targeting SDs (none / 0) (#44)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    who have endorsed Hillary, but their district/county/state voted Obama.
    What if all the superdelegates (hypothetically) supported the candidate that won their district, or county, or state?
    What would the SD map look like?

    This approach (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:19:29 PM EST
    is distorted by the fact that a large number of superdelegates are un-elected members of the DNC. They represent lobbying firms and think-tanks. A large number of them happen to live in D.C. and Maryland because that is where their obsession, the government, is located. If you want to "pledge" them to vote how their neighbors voted, they would have to go with Obama.  

    There might be some logic with elected officials voting the wishes of their state or district. After all they have to get re-elected. But the DNC members' loyalty should be to the overall party.


    The fact that FL and MI (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    Aren't shaded blue for Clinton in that map above is just as misleading as anything else.

    Isn't the real question (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    Can Hillary or Obama win the states that need to be won? Can we win Texas?  Will Obama lose CA?  Will Hillary lose IL?

    Will not counting FL and MI cost dems votes in the GE?  Does the democratic party allow FL and MI votes to be counted thus setting precedent for other states to move up their primaries in the future?  Is the decision not to count them too punitive and short sighted?

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by smott on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:04:27 PM EST
    Electabilty is what it's all about to me. Who can win the GE?
    How much has Wright hurt BO? How much does that make HRC more electable?....

    I learned long ago that the blogs (none / 0) (#89)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:21:28 PM EST
    don't reflect public opinion. Most people aren't as tuned in and don't have the sort of strong, often extremist opinion expressed by a relatively very tiny minority on the the Internet. And sometimes Internet posters live in a fantasy world. Witness the self-delusion about MI and FL counting as is.

    The race is basically over. Hillary has lost. The only conceivable way she can win is via the superdelegates. That won't happen. Obama is no lightweight. As of right now, after giving Hillary a huge headstart he has managed to gather more dem big shots to his cause than she has. Hillary cannot twist the arms of superdelegates because Obama is at least as strong right now as she is, and probabaly stronger. Much stronger. The percentage of supers Hillary needs to get her over the top is just not doable. She is only damaging the presumptive nominee by sticking around.

    And the only conceivable way (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by tree on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:47 PM EST
    Obama can win is with the superdelegates as well. So all the races going forward will help decide who will get the magic number. Pennsylvania looks like a blowout for Clinton, and the rest of the states look like they are pretty tight right now. Lets wait it out and see what happens in the real world, eh?

    So by your logic (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    If the SDs decide to throw it to Hillary then most people won't notice anyway.

    Most people... (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    Thats right.  Most people won't notice.  Because, in point of fact, most people are not reading delegate counts every day.  Most people know that it isn't just math...its politics and persuasion.  And, most people (who are Democrats) want a Democrat that can win.

    off topic (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:30:53 PM EST
    trying to hijack the thread doesn't work here. Stop.

    Since Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#150)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    Obama has picked up 62 super-delegates while Clinton has picked up 2. Given this trend, how can anyone speculate that supers will get Hillary over the hump, particularly when she is about 170 pledged delgates down?

    Let's not fixate on Wright. Bill Clinton was saddled with many more scandals in 92, yet he was still elected.

    That argument works both ways (none / 0) (#191)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    And the argument actually supports my point.  The Party will need to spend time getting the losing side to lick its wounds and come back into the fold.

    The best way for that to happen is for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
    to win a legitimate victory. Anyway, your point is moot. If Hillary does well as expected in the final states, she is not dropping out---all the more so if the margin of a putative Obama victory depends on excluding MI and FL.

    LOL.. Sorry, I don't see it that way at ALL: (none / 0) (#196)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:12:26 PM EST
    First of all, Reid and Pelosi are loathed by Democrats who support BOTH candidates. Do they have the authority to end the race? No.
    Only Gore, with Edwards also having a big voice, IMO.
    Second, I simply do not believe Reid or Pelosi will take such a stand. They are far too risk averse.

    Including popular vote totals in Mi and FL (none / 0) (#206)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    right? That is the MORAL way to do it.

    Stop the press (none / 0) (#220)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:27:24 PM EST
    the polls are showing Obama has a bigger lead in NY over McCain the Clinton.  If she can't pull out her home state she should just drop out.  I like this game it's fun.

    Thread Cleaned, Comments Closed (none / 0) (#249)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:50:05 PM EST
    Off topic comments are deleted, comments over 200, this thread is closed.

    Flyerhawk, thanks for your thoughts but you need to stop trying to dominate the discussion by making the same points over and over.

    Obama has a solid base of support (none / 0) (#250)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    of at least 33%, so do Hillary and McCain. To expect any candidate at this point to spiral downward below that is wishful thinking. Obama and Clinton will end roughly tied in national polling. Both will also end essentially tied with McCain. No one's going to pay much attention to these meaningless polls. The established and consensus narrative is that supers will focus on the following:

    1. States won
    2. Pledged delegate leader
    3. Popular vote leader

    Whoever is ahead in all 3 or 2 of 3 will be the nominee. FL and MI will not figure in this calculation because those elections weren't sanctioned.

    The Race is Open Until it's Not (none / 0) (#252)
    by peter jackson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:51:26 AM EST
    And then it's not. This is a trial for the American left. The left has to decide whether they want to be democratic or not. The race is close. The race is just that, a race. A contest, a game. I'm sorry, but that's what it is. The winner wins, no matter how close. The Game is far more important than any single outcome of any single iteration.

    Good luck.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#253)
    by peter jackson on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:06:48 AM EST
    ...what that means from a practical perspective is that there should be no do-over in MI or FL. Yes, they are disenfrachised within the jurisdiction of the Democratic Party, but those were the rules the Democrats argeed to amongst themselves before their game commenced. If you change the rules after the fact, you taint the game at best, and ruin it at worst.

    The superdelegates should vote for who wins the electoral game. The superdelegate system was designed as a last line of defense against rascals and scalawags. You can say what you want about Obama or Clinton, but it's clear that neither of them are a rascal or scalawag.