home

Dean on Final Primaries and Superdelegates

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:37:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Howard Dean said:

[Superdelegates] have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election. . . If it's very very close, they will do what they want anyway. . . I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.

I hope Howard Dean is wrong. While it is true the super delegates have the power to vote by any criteria, I hope they respect the will of the people as demonstrated by the popular vote (the pledged delegate count is NOT a reflection of the will of the people.) I know Jeralyn disagrees with me, but calculating who is more electable and ignoring the will of the people is simply wrong in my view.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Rasmussen PA Poll: Hillary Better to Beat McCain | Friday Night Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dean on Final Primaries and Superdelegates | 213 comments (213 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I disagree with you BTD (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:43:18 PM EST
    it's like this...

    The threshold numbers are set for a reason and if any candidate reached the threshold without 'super' delegates, game over.

    Once it requires 'super' delegates, there are no restrictions on them, and they can only vote how they decide to vote.

    If they choose to place their vote because of most pledged delegates or most popular vote or most likable or whatever, they only need explain their vote to their constituents - if they are elected. Otherwise, all bets are off

    I really think if they are close (none / 0) (#163)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:13:37 PM EST
    as they are now, superdelegates do what they like.

    They are separated by about 120 delegates now.  If you count Florida and Michigan (including superdelegates from those states, and say give all the uncommitted to Obama), Hillary comes with about at least 50-60 more delegates.  The difference then? about 60 delegates out of a required 2208.   Assume the remaining states break even.  

    60/4414= a bit over 1% (1.35%)

    Tiny by any standard.  

    The reality is that superdelegates are NOT bound by any criteria, no matter what we think.  Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are not going to change their votes based on who wins the popular vote, and neither will Bill Clinton.


    [ Parent ]

    In other words (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:45:59 PM EST
    Dean thinks Hillary is going to win the popular vote...

    So then Dean must believe... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:18:21 PM EST
    that Obama is somehow better suited to defeat John McCain.  That is the part of his statement that makes no sense if we are to assume he wants to block Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Dean sounds spooked (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:46:10 PM EST
    and, like many SDs, is beginning to see the cracks in the Obama Campaign.  After the Debate in PA and his humiliating defeat in the Primary, Obama seems rattled and just OVER this race.  Not exactly good qualities to display if you're the GE candidate running against McCain who's spent the last billion decades -- or so -- in the public spotlight.

    Maybe Dean has fallen a little out of love with Obama and is signaling to the SDs that it's okay with him if they fall a little out of love, too?  

    I suspect Barack will offer them a kiss for their vote, but I don't know how effective that'll be.

    as in the joint fundraising event with DNC? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    I suspect Barack will offer them a kiss for their vote, but I don't know how effective that'll be.

    I think you're on to something.  The timing of the announcement for the joint fundraiser could not have been coincidental.

    [ Parent ]

    you've piqued my interest (none / 0) (#148)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:45:31 PM EST
    explain what you mean, if you don't mind.  A joint DNC fundraiser?  With who?

    I look forward to your response.  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama and DNC Joint Fundraiser Agreement (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
    "After a series of discussions, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have decided to file papers with the Federal Election Commission establishing a "joint fundraising agreement." Under the law, such a committee can accept up to $28,500 from individuals, most of which would go to the DNC."

    http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundraising-deal/

    I hope this explains the new alliance between Obama and the DNC.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:52:25 PM EST


    I figured you would delete it. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good idea (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:00:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Either way (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by janarchy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST
    I think we're gonna be hosed. If the SDs vote on electability and go with Clinton, all Obama's supporters are going to scream and cry and claim it's back room politics as usual, even if the SDs are looking at things rationally. If they go with the popular vote and give it to Obama, many of us will be p.o'd especially if it seems the popular vote doesn't include Florida and Michigan.

    Even though most of us are intelligent enough to understand the need for SDs as well as the rationale behind them (even if we dont like either!), the MSM and the Obamabots have already painted it as any vote for Obama = OK, any vote for Hillary = evil treacherous politics. I don't know how the hell any of this is going to be reconciled in a good way.

    NOT ALL! (4.00 / 1) (#121)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    Many will say, "I did my best" but you did not (to Obama) now we move on.  I will not sell short the pragmatism of many in the AA community.  It is not just one big blob that moves in unison.  They are individual people with independent minds too. They, like all the other Americans will vote their pocket book. I am sure that many in the AA community do not approve of the Rev. Wright's words or his actions on the pulpit.  I'm sure we will be seeing more candidates after Obama who would have learned from the mistakes of Obama.

    A good candidate like Hillary will listen to their concerns and talk to them like people who would share her views, her analyses of the problems facing the country and her proposed solutions.  This is how she survived the MSM attack network--by going directly to as many people as possible. She's a real champion.

    [ Parent ]

    the black vote (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:09:59 PM EST
    I will not sell short the pragmatism of many in the AA community.  It is not just one big blob that moves in unison.  They are individual people with independent minds too.

    Yup, that's why Obama gets 80 to 90+% of the AA vote in every state that's voted so far.  Yep.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you realize (none / 0) (#130)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    that your hatred of Obama just caused you to accuse the entire AA community of being lemmings going over the cliff chasing an idiot candidate?

    Have you paused for a minute to consider, that maybe, even though you believe HRC to be better, that Obama might just be a great candidate too?  Or have all 14.7 million of us who pulled the lever for him been duped?

    [ Parent ]

    not better enough to justify 90%+ voting (none / 0) (#132)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:28:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's block voting (none / 0) (#137)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:31:49 PM EST
    It is what it is.

    [ Parent ]
    Can we then conclude (none / 0) (#140)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:36:18 PM EST
    the same thing about HRC's base, white women?  Or are white women smart enough to be able to make a sound judgement while AA's are not?

    [ Parent ]
    No, because women are voting differently (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:46:30 PM EST
    than AAs.  Women are voting about 55% for Clinton, about 45% for Obama (the latter including, of course, a lot and maybe most of that 90% of AA voters).

    Women are not voting as a bloc.  AAs are.  If you don't know those numbers, then you haven't been paying attention here.  Or if you do know the numbers, then you're just trying to stirring up trouble.  

    And then the next question is:  Why do you want to do that?  

    [ Parent ]

    I think her (none / 0) (#154)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:56:31 PM EST
    white female split has generally hovered around around 65-35.

    So what is the magic number where it transforms from "making and informed judgement" to "blind block voting regardless of qualifications"?

    [ Parent ]

    Source? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:24:03 PM EST
    And then look up the previous percentage of women voting Dem.

    [ Parent ]
    90% :) (none / 0) (#173)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:27:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    90% of women think for themselves (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:30:48 AM EST
    and thus do not agree on anything by that much.

    Ask any mother and daughters.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    Just answering our new friend's question (none / 0) (#187)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:01:12 AM EST
    But hey, I do suspect that 90% of women could agree that Dick Morris is a pretty disgusting creature.

    [ Parent ]
    Yea, the numbers are hard to ignore (none / 0) (#135)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    Time to look at the statistics and drop the double standards if we are to analyze things as they are, rather than how we think they should be.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by janarchy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:00:51 AM EST
    Many will say, "I did my best" but you did not (to Obama) now we move on.  I will not sell short the pragmatism of many in the AA community.  It is not just one big blob that moves in unison.  They are individual people with independent minds too. They, like all the other Americans will vote their pocket book. I am sure that many in the AA community do not approve of the Rev. Wright's words or his actions on the pulpit.  I'm sure we will be seeing more candidates after Obama who would have learned from the mistakes of Obama.

    I wasn't referring to the AA voters at all but to the Milennials/Creative Class that I've been fighting with (including friends) for the past 3-4 months. If you've seen any of the comments anywhere today in regards to this, it's the same vitriol, lies and b.s. about the Clintons will do anything to steal the election, the Clintons are liars/disingenious etc. The whole 9 yards. It just seems to me that they are so deeply entrenched in their own reality that there is no way to reconcile a Clinton nomination for them. It reminds me of the 2000 election all over again where even supposedly rational thinking people were screaming about Gore stealing the election and buying the Republican version of the story.

    There are so many cheerleaders of this in the MSM along with all of Air America (I gave up listening ages ago), and even people like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. How do we find a way out if Hillary gets the nom after all?

    I don't pose the question in the opposite direction because I honestly don't want to be a part of a Democratic party that doesn't want me as a member anymore. As someone said in a letter to Jack Cafferty yesterday "it's the older women who are ruining it for us - they are just crazy old women who shouldn't be allowed to vote, just locked in a room to play with their cats".

    [ Parent ]

    and the Rocky thing, turned out to be a winner for (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:31:47 AM EST
    her.She capitalized on the perception of the underdog and America loves an underdog.

    Obama boasting about all the money he was raising actually helped her also imo bcz he lost the glitter that attracted so many of his followers. He was the populist candidate, rags to riches, yada yada...

    And Hillary has those doe eyes. How can you not vote for her? :-)

    [ Parent ]

    It appears (none / 0) (#181)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:47:06 AM EST
    there's not going to be an answer to that.  The party is split.

    So 1/2 will, indeed, be unhappy.

    [ Parent ]

    Tricky situation (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:54:34 PM EST
    So if some devastating news comes out between now and June about either of the candidates (a video of Obama sitting in the pews nodding his head while Wright says something crazy like "the Italians were behind 9/11") then the superdelegates should just ratify the disaster and go with the popular vote leader?

    There are so many scenarios where being too stubborn about the principle of superdelegates going along with the popular vote or pledged delegate leader is a DANGEROUS ROAD.

    But you know what, maybe in this Democratic Party that is no longer a problem when we have a group of leaders who seem perfectly willing to lose on purpose as long as they can push aside the Clinton family.

    I want to belong to a party that wants to win and knows how to win general elections.  But I never fully embrace the Republicans due to their tolerance of bigotry.  So I am feeling left out now.  Independent and disillusioned.

    I've been having similar thoughts about this, (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:08:12 PM EST
    and have to think there are people who have already voted in early primaries, who might like to have a do-over now that they know more about these candidates; it's one argument for a long primary season, and it's also an argument for the SD's to consider electability.

    It was always my understanding that one of the reasons the SD's came into being was to be able to save the party from itself in order to put forth the most electable candidate - and I think that might happen this year.

    I look at it this way: in many presidential primary seasons, the nomination has been decided before many of the states even had the chance to hold their primaries, so there goes the will of ALL the people, huh?  

    And I think when you start looking at it this way, it becomes clear why there are no rules about how a SD decides to cast his or her vote.

    [ Parent ]

    The McGovern in the Room (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by blogtopus on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    I think Dean just noticed it.

    Being Very Picky About His Statement (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:04:20 PM EST
    Why didn't he say that the SDs have every right to ignore the popular vote or the delegate count? Hillary's argument is popular vote. Obama's is delegate count. I'm may be getting hypersensitive about the so called leaders sticky fingers in all this, but I don't like the wording.

    It doesn't really matter (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:09:03 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure he'll back off tomorrow and explain that he didn't mean what he said at all.  (It's that sort of year.)

    [ Parent ]
    You Have A Point n/t (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:17:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah like (none / 0) (#201)
    by Fredster on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:34:04 AM EST
    You misunderstood what I didn't say...


    [ Parent ]
    He didn't say delegates because he's (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Radix on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:50:22 PM EST
    afraid of Obama's supporters. He did intimate it though.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    [ Parent ]

    He did say "or anything else" (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:24:40 PM EST
    What that does is make the popular vote sort of more important, which is interesting.  And then he tells them not to vote on any other category-basis like that.

    This way, people might say, "Whaddya mean we can't go by the popular vote ???"  

      It's called siding with the opposition and then they start arguing the opposite.

    [ Parent ]

    Florida and Michigan remain the problem (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by LCaution on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    I agree that the popular vote makes the most sense, but it does not appear to be a simple matter to identify, given "the rules".

    1. Counting Florida is easy.  Both were on the ballot, Obama had nationwide ads running.

    2. Michigan. Yes, I know Obama chose not to be on the ballot because, I suspect, he knew he would lose. (The primary equivalent of his Illinois "present" votes.  This guy really is a coward at times.)

    We could give him all the uncommitted votes, which is probably more than he would have gotten if he and Edwards had been on the ticket. And it is also probably more than he deserves, since he is responsible for the lack of a revote.

    But, at bottom, there doesn't appear to be a universally accepted or even a generally accepted way to count the Michigan votes without a revote.

    So, Michigan alone makes any attempt to call the popular vote decisive troublesome.

    3. The caucus states.
    In a lot of blogs, esp. the pro-Obama ones, there are various ways of allocating the popular vote to the caucus votes.  Given the very low turnout in caucus states vs. the inherent unfairness of caucuses, I don't know how we come up with a generally accepted method of counting votes in these states.  (It seems equally unfair to me to deny these states any role at all in the selection.)

    I'm not happy about the idea of the SDs choosing the winner on electability since, no matter how one calculates chances, it is inevitably little more that a gut guess.

    And now, of course, we have Obama funding the DNC which sorta, kinda, looks like bribery.

    Unfortunately, I don't have a solution.  And my gut tells me that Obama will go down in flames. Hillary might very well lose, too, but she's got a lot of "irrelevant" older women voters behind her and can count on them going to the polls in the GE.

    Florida and Michigan will be problems only if (none / 0) (#127)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:10:57 PM EST
    OBAMA, not CLINTON, is the nominee.  These two states know that Hillary was fighting to seat them and besides she alrady won in those two states. Clinton as nominee, reflects the will of the people in Florida and Michigan.  Obama is the only one who will have a problem.

    [ Parent ]
    So why then (none / 0) (#133)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:28:46 PM EST
    does the latest poll from MI show Obama +9 and HRC -2?

    [ Parent ]
    Which Poll Was That? (none / 0) (#144)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:41:12 PM EST
    From what I can tell neither Obama nor Clinton have ever had any numbers to brag about in Michigan.  When they're up, it's not by much and they aren't always up.  Here's a list of polls.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm searching... (none / 0) (#157)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:07:15 PM EST
    when I find it I'll cite...

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (none / 0) (#162)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:13:31 PM EST
    had it backwards.  BHO +2, HRC -9.  All apologies.

    EPIC-MRA poll from Apr 3-8
    MOE +/-4

    Also in poll was favorable rating:
    McSame 59
    BHO 55
    HRC 45


    [ Parent ]

    I have a rough solution. (none / 0) (#167)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:39:50 PM EST
    Based on RealclearPolitics, and this totally cool link, from  Jay Cost :

    Michigan (Hillary): 328,309 (55%)
    Michigan (Uncommitted): 238,168 (40%)
    [Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson were not on the ballot]
    Margin between Hillary votes and Uncommitted: 90,141

    RealClearPolitics estimates the Obama margin from four caucus states (IA, NV, WA, MA) to be  110,224.  RCP does not state how it came up with this margin.

    These two margins are close to each other. Further, the Michigan margin for Hillary is underestimated b/c you cannot assume that all Uncommitted votes were for Obama.  The difference between the two numbers (Michigan margin, and four caucus state margins) are a mere 20,000 votes.

    So I propose the clean solution of assuming these two numbers cancel each other out.  So, I think the number we should take as the measure could be:

    Popular vote total (including FL): Obama +206,000  [assuming the Michigan margin cancels out the 4 caucus state margins).  


    [ Parent ]

    The problem is the Process lacks integrity so any (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:05:57 PM EST
    measurement is meaningless, Obama would not have a lead in pledge delegates if the DNC had not incorrectly disenfranchised the Fla and Mich delegates, Obama's momentum is a faux result of that blunder, Obama also would not be ahead in the delegate count if all States that broke the same rule as Fla and Mich were stripped of all delegates and on and on.  The SD's should make the call that's why they exists to decide based on electability and live with the results pretending there is math or a rational is just chicken doo.

    He put more weight on status near end-time (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:28:24 PM EST
    That was interesting.  I don't remember the wording, but it seemed he is suddenly giving more weight to what the situation looks like toward the end of the wondering period.

    [ Parent ]
    Montana and South Dakota (none / 0) (#152)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:50:48 PM EST
    are the last two primaries on June 3rd. Senator Obama right now looks good to take both, which would help him end the season on an "up" note. The fact that both those states will probably go to McCain in Nov will be overlooked.

    [ Parent ]
    Superdelegates will want (none / 0) (#218)
    by andrys on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:26:47 AM EST
    or, they'll tend to want the same thing Dean now says to consider -- the one most able to beat McCain, which is in their own best interests (with the exception of Pelosi, who would no longer be Queen Bee).

      The big states are huge there, and polls already show Clinton would beat McCain there while Obama would lose by quite a margin -- people will remember how hard he fought counting the votes there where it is known the Republican legislature voted down an amendment to get the primary moved to February 5.  

      The exit polling already shows how much of the working class voters Obama would NOT get even if he is busily telling reporters that he could get any state that Hillary won, automatically.  He's clearly wrong, but he's being a salesman.  Obama has not won a large primary (as opposed to the limited caucuses) since February.  That has to unnerve them.

      If she loses Indiana, then that will severely weaken her argument. If she wins it, it will just fortify it.  She seems strong in at least 3 of the others.  

      At any rate, the focus on Who can Beat McCain is a sea change from weeks of Dean and Pelosi saying they should just rubber stamp whoever was in the lead with delegates when neither could get the 2025 gold ring regardless of popular vote or ability to be elected, due to various problems surprising us.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you see (3.00 / 2) (#147)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    how many ifs you need to make the case.  It's kind of funny.

    I have a few more for you.  If she hadn't run a lousy campaign based on inevitability and if she hadn't ignored on the caucuses and small states that were on Feb. 5 if she hadn't ignored all the states after Feb. 5 and and if she had worked harder to develop a larger donor base then she'd be winning.

    I'm guessing you don't like my ifs.

    [ Parent ]

    One more "if" (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:22:11 AM EST
    If, in addition to his home state, Obama could win ONE BIG BLUE OR POTENTIAL BLUE STATE -- such as MA, OH, CA, NY, PA or FL -- he could have closed the deal and all this discussion would be moot. He has the resources. He has the press. And he still can't do it.  It would be kind of funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


    [ Parent ]
    What are you up to here? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:48:51 PM EST
    Comment after comment that I see here is cause for the question -- polls without sources, etc., no replies when asked for the sources. . . .  Odd.

    [ Parent ]
    So is any dissent unwelcome? (none / 0) (#159)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:08:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Of course not. But unlike many blogs (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:29:39 PM EST
    there is a way to argue your point here, support it with evidence, etc.  Not just asserting unsourced info as fact, not chattering (see faq) just to cause more comments to take up bandwidth without making contributions that actually lead to discourse and learning.  If you have useful info and well-founded opinion that furthers the conversation, fine.

    [ Parent ]
    Check my above post re MI (none / 0) (#166)
    by mbuchel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:36:16 PM EST
    I cited the poll.  Happy now?

    [ Parent ]
    Does Harry Reid have something to do with this? (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:10:16 PM EST
    Unlike Dean and Pelosi, who seem to be pretty in the tank for Obama, Reid hasn't really indicated where he stands, has he?  But yesterday, he joined the other three in saying that they would draft a joint or individual letters to the superdelegates after the last primary. He also said that at least one of the remaining senators is very close to making an endorsement while the others are holding back. Reid is one of those people whose words have to be analysed carefully because he's good at saying and not saying.  So, here's what he might be saying:
    1.) If the final primaries point to a clear frontrunner, they will draft a joint statement.  
    2.) But if Harry sees a different frontrunner than the others, he will draft a separate letter.  This says to me that Harry is already supporting a different candidate.  And it ain't Obama.  
    3.) The senator he mentioned as almost ready to endorse is someone whose opinion would carry a lot of weight.  Harry is threatening to use this senator as leverage to get Dean and Pelosi to hold back the pressure they are applying to the supers.  I'm guessing that the senator is Jim Webb.

    To sum it up, Harry sees that Hillary is gaining credibility among the electorate and her senate colleagues as being a preferable nominee and he has enough clout to push more superdelegates in this direction if Pelosi and Dean don't back off and let the primaries finish.  To make sure they know he's serious, he convinces Dean to put out this statement.  

    Or maybe I should up my meds.  

    I heard that Hillary was in DC (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by katiebird on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:14:24 PM EST
    yesterday and the night before and was spending a lot of time in earnest conversations with Senators and Congress people. .  .  . ?

    [ Parent ]
    The plot thickens (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:33:52 PM EST
    They were all there for the vote on retroactive equal pay.

    But if Clinton was in meetings with some big cheeses, it makes sense that Obama suddenly sent out a mailer to every single delegate today, to make a case for his ability to win according to state/map graphings they made.

    There is also the matter of big-money fund-raisers who visited Dean the last time he was calling for a quick decision that would have benefitted Obama and was unwilling to fix the Michigan/Florida problem, which would have just been majorly bad at election time.

    They probably are still not giving money until they see results.

    And so Obama is suddenly freeing up his own funds "for the party"  (uh huh).  

    Who needs a mystery novel?

    [ Parent ]

    I just read that story -- HRC met with (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:33:51 AM EST
    a lot of super-delegates in D.C.  And then this from Dean.  Interesting. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    If the SDs support Clinton that would be because (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:34:42 PM EST
    she has the support of the majority of the Dem Base and Independents like myself who respect her for her exemplary record of service to our country, her obvious ethics and her inspirational empowered leadership.  And she has a much higher likely hood of winning the White House for the Party in Nov..

    [ Parent ]
    Those party leaders want a winner. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:16:10 PM EST
    if they sense that the wind is blowing in favor of Clinton, they'll be on her side, e.g.:  lead in popular votes (even without Florida and Michigan) practically tied with Obama in pledged delegates (again without Florida and Michigan) then it becomes obvious that if the DNC makes the common sense decision that seats the Florida delegation at least which puts Clinton ahead, then the decision is made. There would be no doubt in anybody's mind that Clinton is the better candidate.  Then all of Obama's baggage will enter into the calculations.

    [ Parent ]
    don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:39:03 PM EST
    Obama's staggering inability to make any in-roads -- despite his bottomless bank account and seven long weeks of one-on-one campaigning -- into her, and the Democratic Party's, core support.

    His unmitigated, no-two-ways-about-it failure to do this must have a lot of SDs scratching their heads in frustration and confusion.

    Add to that a series of pitiful debate performances and the beginnings of what one might consider ungracious or whiny behavior post-debate failure, and it becomes even more of a challenge for a truly experienced SD to seriously imagine putting Obama up in the General against McCain.

    Plus it really is downright impressive how Hillary keeps winning when her back is against the wall despite the Media standing impatiently with shovel in hand to bury her and having to dig deep beneath the seat cushions for enough change to run just one more issue-oriented ad to fight the onslaught of Obama's ten or fifteen attack ads.

    [ Parent ]

    Up your meds (4.00 / 1) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:39:23 PM EST
    not Clinton.  Rumors (around the net) are the undecideds are in Obama's camp and are just undeclared until June.

    [ Parent ]
    WTH...rumors around the net. What does that mean? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:50:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There have been (4.00 / 1) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM EST
    small pieces that 'suggest' that media has talked to insiders who have talked 'off the record' etc, etc.  I think a couple have been referenced here... that superdeez lean Obama.  I forget if it was Politico or where the heck.... nothing 'official' just 'rumors'

    My opinion is there is no way Obama doesn't get the nom.  If Clinton gets the popular vote, they go with the delegate count.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I saw one of Hillary's longtime friends and (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Angel on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    supporters who is a huge part of her campagin about 10 days ago and he said he was "dead serious" that Hillary was going to win.  So who do you want to believe?  This was before Pennsylvania I might add.  I know that my source would not have been so adamant if he didn't really believe that.  And I've known this person for well over 20 years so I know when he's telling me the truth or just spouting some crap. I think he's right.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh yes... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:21:31 PM EST
    because rumors on the nets are always right...as are Politico and KOS. Come on.

    Undeclared supers are just that, undeclared. And not only that but the ones who have already endorsed can change their minds and may do just that if it looks like me might actually lose the whitehouse because of stupid reasons.

    I don't think anyone knows what the supers will do.

    The important part of Dean's statment to me was that it will be decided on electability in the lasy 6-8 races.

    [ Parent ]

    which all, save for NC, (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:51:18 PM EST
    are demographically super-strong for Hillary.  

    If she's able to win Indiana by a handy margin (say, 8 to 10 points), cut into Obama's lead in NC and get a loss in the single digits and then win the majority of the remaining States (even lessening Obama's showing in Oregon), she has a strong shot at getting the nod.

    Not sure what the current Polls say in OR, but will be interesting to see how the PA debate and primary loss as well as the interview with Wright and Clyburn play with those Undecideds who aren't quite in love with Barack yet.

    [ Parent ]

    They always go with the delegate count (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:51:54 PM EST
    That's the rule.  The iffs are Florida and Michigan.  

    I have two guesses with superdelegates.  The 50 superdelegates for Obama was a mere bluff.  Either superdelegates are supporting Clinton, but waiting for a good moment to come out, or more likely, they are just hedging their bets.  If they were pro-Obama, they would have made it clear before Texas and Ohio.  

    My guess is that they are waiting for one of these two to knock the other out, and in this case, it has been a true neck-and-neck horserace.

    [ Parent ]

    That's the rule? (none / 0) (#186)
    by Prabhata on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:01:10 AM EST
    Where is that rule? Is that the Gary Hart rule?

    [ Parent ]
    The rule (1.00 / 2) (#190)
    by ghost2 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:06:24 AM EST
    that whoever gets the majority of the delegates (pledged plus superdelegates) wins.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that is innaccurate (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:35:21 AM EST
    the candidate still has to reach the magic number to get the nomination -- whether it be by pledged delegates only or by a combo of pledged & super delegates.  In no case is a simple majority of delegates enough to get the nomination.  If neither candidate reaches the magic number on the first vote, they keep voting until one does.

    [ Parent ]
    Why the heck is this TR-rated? (none / 0) (#217)
    by ghost2 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:28:36 AM EST
    Let me spell this out.  I said, "majority", which, for those who are math-challenged, the same thing as the "magic number".  "magic number" comes from: 1+ half the total delegates.

    At the end of the day, they vote in the convention (with/without MI and FL), and go by either 2025 (majority without FL and MI) or by 2208 (majority with FULL rights to FL and MI) or some number in between.  

    [ Parent ]

    Rumors at BigOrange et al and Drew (4.00 / 2) (#110)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:41:44 PM EST
    That was such an obvious ploy by Elizabeth Drew today that there was no change at all due to Pennsylvania and that they were holding for Obama.

    Tell another whopper.

    On Monday ObamaTeam announced they'd have a "SERIES" of superdelegate pledges to announce after Pennsylvania if they won.

     But he got 2 yesterday and 1 today?

     A couple of hundred are still waiting for some reason(s).

    [ Parent ]

    So is your theory (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:57:56 PM EST
    that the uncommitted superdelegates have decided they want to lose in November?  Obama has zero chance to win at this point.


    [ Parent ]
    Boston- I agree, as should anyone with political (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:16:31 PM EST
    commonsense that there is NO WAY Obama can win the general (barring a total mccain meltdown)- therefore any supers going with him are supporting political suicide.

    [ Parent ]
    When curious, check comments... (none / 0) (#141)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:38:45 PM EST
    I like to use the comment feature when I'm not sure if something is snark.  

    Clinton supporter here.  I knew in Oct/Nov I would never vote for Obama.  He was never a blip on my radar.  Didn't like the little record he has, now I don't care for him personally.

    [ Parent ]

    I've come to dislike (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:52:06 AM EST
    him personally too. But I disliked Kerry and voted for him anyway. Regretted that after he didn't bother to fight for the votes in Ohio.

    I don't support Obama because of the health care issue. I have come to really dislike him for his unrelenting attacks on the WJC legacy. I voted for the Big Dawg twice and those were two of the few times I was able to vote without holding my nose. Attacking the Clinton legacy is the straw that broke this nose-holders back.

    And I also don't see Obama fighting for votes if it comes down to more Republican shenanigans either.  

    [ Parent ]

    good idea, I have little or no snarkdar (TM) (none / 0) (#193)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:23:55 AM EST
    myself. Especially if there hasn't been enough coffee.

    [ Parent ]
    You know sister, (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:44:27 PM EST
    you should get your own 900-psyc line.

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    FL ad MI (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by fronbi on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:14:46 PM EST
    FL and MI must be seated. I am lifelong Dem in Ohio who was raised a Dem and like the Clintons have fought for civil rights of all. The Clintons are the hardest working and best leaders the Dem party have had since LBJ and to see them tore down with race baiting and voter suppression is intolerable. If Obama needed FL and MI the spineless jellyfish we call our leaders would seat them as is; even before Al Sharpton got out his bullhorn.

    When the first Obama SDs defect to Clinton ... (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:27:22 PM EST
    ... I'll really believe that Dean has seen the light. That will be a signal that it's now "officially" OK to not support Obama. Before that happens, I won't trust Dean enough to take anything he says at face value.

    or maybe, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by isaac on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    he knows that sd's are already signaling they're jumping ship and he wants to get out ahead

    [ Parent ]
    He knows that PA opened some eyes. (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:33:10 PM EST
    That's what I think.

    I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be.

    The PA exit polls have made Obama into McGovern -- he got NOBODY but the college people, the AAs, and the wealthy.  He outspent her, he campaigned hard, he got laughed at for trying to bowl, and he got caught being dismissive.

    Dean's got to be looking at that train wreck and wondering if it's too late.  That's how I read those remarks.

    Luckily it's not too late (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:43:10 PM EST
    All those people donating to Clinton over the past 72 hours don't think it's too late either.  She needs a big Indiana win to truly and irreversible turn the tide of perception.  If Obama cannot connect with the working class white voters yet again, it may be too late for him to prove he can.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary Supporters Please Take Note...... (2.00 / 1) (#182)
    by HsLdyAngl on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:49:21 AM EST
    You cite the fund raising efforts of Hillary after her victory in Pennslyvania on Tuesday, but ignore the fact that one of Hillary's premier "Hillraiser's", former Amb. to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon, just defected to Obama today.  Guerra-Mondragon raised nearly $500,000 for Clinton's campaign, according to some estimates.

    "Among the reasons for Guerra-Mondragon to defect, according to one informed source, was he was uneasy with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election."

    Drip....Drip....Drip.....Super-delegates and Fundraisers

    Remember to follow the money......  ;-)

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/25/946650.aspx

    [ Parent ]

    2 ways to guarantee I won't read (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:05:54 AM EST
    Start off a post with "Hillary supporters take note" and then follow that with a link to MSNBC as a source.  Scroll, scroll, scroll...

    [ Parent ]
    double post! (none / 0) (#191)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:07:19 AM EST
    good night.

    [ Parent ]
    2 ways to guarantee I won't read a post (none / 0) (#188)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:05:04 AM EST
    Start it off with "Hillary Supporters Take note" and then follow it with a link to MSNBC as a source.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:50:44 AM EST
    and none of those problems were attributable to Hillary at all.

    All his own making.

    Sending Wright out to "explain" himself wasn't smart.  He can't.  His actions were indefensible.  All he's doing is claiming that he was "wronged."  Baloney.  He's accountable for his words.

    But he's not at all explaining that.

    [ Parent ]

    According to Hardball tonight- (4.66 / 3) (#98)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:19:47 PM EST
    everything is lookng GREAT for Obama; he is way ahead in Indiana and Hillary must drop out after her devastating win!!

    [ Parent ]
    Tonightt's ARG poll says otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:43:38 PM EST
    Clinton leading by 4 or 5 points in Indiana!

    [ Parent ]
    Hardball was using one Indianapolis local poll (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:46:36 PM EST
    ARG came out today showing Hillary ahead instead, by 5+ as Jeralyn, I think, posted, for Indiana...

    [ Parent ]
    The local poll was by an NBC affiliate... (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    and it showed Obama ahead by 41% to 38%. This difference is insignificant, given the poll's 4.4% margin of error, and the fact that they also reported 21% undecided.

    So what was the story? Did they report that the candidates are tied in Indiana, or was Hardball reaching for anything they can use against Clinton, as usual.

    [ Parent ]

    Your last question said it all. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:31:21 PM EST
    I thought it was so crazy and unprofessional for them to use one poll to justify going off on how wonderful it was that Obama was doing so well, and I couldn't believe they said 21% were undecided !

    Thanks for the reminder.

    [ Parent ]

    Is the DNC Planning an Obama Exit Strategy? (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:42:52 PM EST
    In addition to these comments, since Tuesday, the DNC has met with the Clinton campaign to jump start the process of forming a joint committee for the general election.  An effort which had previously stalled over Florida and Michigan.  In addition, while the date doesn't favor Clinton, the DNC did schedule a hearing on the Florida and Michigan appeals today as well on May 31 (via Ambinder).  Also via Ambinder, Clinton spent Wednesday and Thursday meeting with undecided Super Delegates on the Hill.

    Add to that the wild spinning that seems to be coming out of the Obama camp on the very issue of electability.  I don't take the need to spin like crazy as a sign things are going well in a campaign.  Since Tuesday:

     The Obama campaign has sent out this pathetic cherry picked polling memo to SDs;

    David Axelrod has claimed inaccurately that white working class democrats haven't voted Democratic going back to the nineties (one Democratic presidential candidate won the working class vote, here's a hint, he goes by the handle Mr. President);

    Obama lied about his success with white blue collar voters;

    And Obama campaign manager David Plouffe downplayed the impact Obama's race will have on any November match-up, saying "the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already."  This from the Transcendent One Who Is Supposed To Win Over Republicans and Independents (or as Aeryl at Corrente said "I just find it funny that this is excuse has been used to explain why Obama can't win over Democrats, and before he evens closes the Democratic nomination, he is out explaining why he won't close with Republicans either.")

    Plus, in the middle of primaries they need to win and while they are spending like drunken sailors to do so, they suddenly decide to start up a national voter registration drive.  I can't believe they wouldn't rather wait until June to do this.  But suddenly it has to be done now.

    I don't think Hillary is a lock on the nomination in any way.  And god knows this has been nothing but back and forth the entire time and could change if Obama wins Indiana and does well with whites in NC.  But I do think for now Tuesday changed a lot more than the Obama folks want to admit.  Add in the Clyburn stuff and it almost seems like the campaign is on the verge of meltdown.

    Moving to the GE (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:03:36 PM EST
    I don't think this is Obama exiting.  This is moving towards the fundraising for the GE, getting out the vote for the GE, spinning polls for the GE, they are both in contact with the superdeez (as much as the superdeez can tolerate)... Try to look at it as 'Obama is inevitable' and it looks different.  That said, I hope Clinton overtakes him in the popular vote and gets the nom.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    I Agree (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    But I think it's interesting that the DNC is renewing the effort right after the PA primary.  But then I always loved Kremlinology and admit I miss it.  ;-)

    I still think Obama is the frontrunner, but the spinning coming from his campaign isn't the spinning of a confident frontrunner.

    [ Parent ]

    It's been a while (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    As you know, Obama hasn't sounded like a confident frontrunner since late February.

    [ Parent ]
    PA (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:52:07 AM EST
    was his way of overcoming Texas and Ohio.

    He didn't do it.

    [ Parent ]

    He needs GE funding badly, actually (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:07:49 PM EST
    as Clinton has three times as much from donors set aside for the general election -- she has $24 million, he set aside only $8 million.

    Her problems have been cash flow for the primary, not cash overall.  But he has been spending so exorbitantlly, even to lose big, that he may need some rescuing for the final run if he's the nominee.  

    And the DNC was, you may recall, getting told by big donors who back Clinton to back off from her if Dean still wanted their bucks for the Denver convention.  Some stories said the DNC was short for that, too.

    [ Parent ]

    and don't forget (none / 0) (#196)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:51:04 AM EST
    that people who had previously donated to the DNC like myself, although not "fat cats," responded in no uncertain terms to Dr. Dean's emails soliciting donations for the convention that "until FL & MI are seated in a meaningful way you will not see another red cent from me."

    [ Parent ]
    Obama will not win Indiana. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:07:09 PM EST
    Most of Indiana resembles either Ohio or Kentucky, not Illinois.  The entire party structure in Indiana supports Hillary.  Indiana is largely rural with lots of while, working class voters.  The AA population is less than 9%.  I don't believe he'll win there.


    [ Parent ]
    my head hurts! (none / 0) (#195)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:43:46 AM EST
    Let me get this straight -- according to Axlerod, people who would not vote for Obama based on his skin color are firmly in McCain's camp. But I thought that the people who would not vote for Obama based on his color were firmly in Clinton's camp.  Which is it?


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe those white voters in NC and the remaining (none / 0) (#216)
    by wrkn129 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:31:50 PM EST
    states should read this before they decide to cast their votes for Obama. It's from Obama's book where he explains how to talk to white people  

    And this article on Obama, also in reference to the books he has written, states that some of the people he wrote about deny that things happened that way (his Bosnia?). His third-grade teacher remembers Obama wanting to be president when he grew up...just not sure of which country (that's on page 3 of the article).

    Is this important? If Clinton's lie about Bosnia is important enough for people to call her a liar and make people not trust her, then Obama's lies--right there in print--about the picture of the black man who tried to make himself less black should make people also brand Obama as a liar and untrustworthy.

    Now, I have not read Obama's books (and I am not planning on doing so), so I cannot attest that the material is there. I just didn't think they would give page references if it was not.

    [ Parent ]

    Or maybe the criteria (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    will be whoever can raise the most money for the DNC.  Sorry, but Howard Dean has never been one of my favorites. I don't think he's paving the way for Hillary's nomination.  I think he's giving the Supers permission to choose Obama no matter where things stand when the primaries are over. Especially when this comes on the heels of Obama's fundraising partnership with the DNC.

    In fairness to Dean (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by pie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:50:29 PM EST
    he's trying to determine who's in the best position to win the nomination.  After all the manufactured Clinton hatred (even though Bill was a popular president), I can understand his reluctace to support one over the other.

    Best for the machine not to get too involved, lest they be viewed as...

    Fill in the blank.  I erased mine.  :)

    [