What's The Magic Number?

Jonathan Singer cites Marc Ambinder's declaration that Barack Obama needs 283 delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. I like the concept but I question the number.

Ambinder assumes the magic number is 2025, which excludes Florida and Michigan. That is simply unacceptable. 2209 is the magic number, which means Obama is 468 delegates away from the magic number. Clinton is about 600 delegates away. Florida and Michigan must be resolved before we declare that someone has clinched the nomination.

By Big Tent Democrat

< New Obama Surrogate Joe Andrew Goes Negative Right Out Of the Chute | The Nomination Path >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Florida and Michigan. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan must be resolved before we declare that someone has clinched the nomination.

    Thank you!

    Hear that, Howard?

    Absofrakinlutely (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    When I hear Dean say, "The FLA and MI delegates will be seated," without saying when or how, what I hear is this:

    1. The DNC will declare Obama the winner at 2025, and then and only then will the DNC "seat" FLA and MI.

    2. This, of course, is not "seating" the delegates. It is merely providing them with a chair on the floor and a hotel room.

    Clinton should stay in the race until, at a minimum, MI and FLA are resolved.

    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    That's when he's getting ready to declare victory. The goal is to permanently disenfranchise FL and MI.

    The Obama mantra: "not our problem!"


    Actually It Is Very Much Obama's Problem (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:34:27 PM EST
    He just doesn't realize it. The concept might just sink in after the November elections.

    Actually It Is Very Much Obama's Problem (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    He just doesn't realize it. The concept might just sink in after the November elections.

    Sorry For The Double Post n/t (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    Makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    Both times.Ha. Maybe the Powers that Be just assumed a Dem would easily win the WH and so they thought they had wiggle room to control this. But a Dem should have won in 04 too when GW showed that he was a terrible President. Aw, but the people decided differently. For whatever reason, half of the country decided to stay with what they know. We know that without Florida, a different outcome for Gore and without Ohio, a different outcome for Kerry. I don't understand why the Supers D's don't put these two things together. If you get some of the base blue states to turn red, then it does not matter how many little red states you turn blue. They need a NCIS slap.

    Too bad, he caused it (none / 0) (#72)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    He has blocked revotes, and he took his name off the ballot in MI, to poison the well.



    Not if Obama gets to 2209 (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:29:54 PM EST
    I expect that he'll get to 2025 (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    and the floodgates will open.

    A pretty ridiculous way for this to work, I htink.


    floodgates of Clinton voters to McCain will open (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    that may be true.

    Howard hears ya (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Claw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    He's becoming (it seems to me) increasingly frantic about the whole thing.  
    I hear you too.  I'm still pretty upset with Obama's behavior RE: FLA, MI.

    Today (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    my cynicism baromater is up to max.

    I don't think the Dem Party will resolve FL and MI.

    I think they will shove Obama down the throats of Democrats and say........

    "Him or McCain."  Pick.

    It's the ultimate insult.

    ...oh, well in that case (none / 0) (#49)
    by soccermom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM EST

    I can't do that (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    I can't vote for McCain, no matter what my ambivalence about Obama.  McCain is no maverick, no independent, no straight talker. He's Bush on steroids -- on the war, on foreign policy generally, on the economy, on taxes, on reproductive freedom, on civil rights, on the Unitary Imperial Executive, and yes, he's even been pandering lately on torture -- and if you think that Obama's posture as a post-partisan is hypocritical, McCain is Obama on exponential steroids.

    Support Hillary, try to to speak the truth about Obama, but please, don't vote for McCain.


    Nah, (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by mm on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:30 PM EST
    McCain isn't scary.  He'll be fine. It'll be like a re-run of Eisenhower.  

    Mr. Hope and Unity says we shouldn't demonize the Republicans, so I'm taking him up on that suggestion.


    A re-run of Ike? (none / 0) (#123)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    We should live so long.  McCain is not a moderate, as Ike was.  Ike accepted the New Deal.  McCain does not.  And Ike wasn't a hot-tempered warmonger.

    Ike appoint Earl Warren to the Supreme Court. McCain will appoint more Scalias, Alitos, Robertses and Thomases.

    McCain will not be fine. And I am not going to stop demonizing Republicans.


    unDemocratic Party leaves me no choice (none / 0) (#87)
    by soccermom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    because their nominee will not be legitimate.  Caucus?  Texas "two-step?"  Ignoring FL and MI?  Party leaders clearly propping up the weaker candidate?
    I don't want a candidate who jobs the rules.  (Bush and SCOTUS, anyone?)  Either the voters decide the winner or the DNC leadership does.  If he is chosen fairly, I could hold my nose.  Any other way...not so much.

    So if it was Bush instead of McCain (none / 0) (#126)
    by ChrisO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    you'd vote for him too? Because they're not that far apart.

    I don't think we'll have that choice (none / 0) (#94)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    I decided a long time ago that if Obama wins the nomination, I'm sitting this election out that national level. I'll support Charlie Brown, who has a chance to take a seat that has been right-wing forever, but I won't emotionally or financially invest in the Presidential election. I simply don't think that Obama can do it. Yes, McCain is bad, but that never stopped the right-wing machine before and it won't now. Obama can't win. He has a glass jaw. Whenever the slightest scandal comes up, his support drops 10% overnight. All the right has to do is come up with some pseudo-scandal right before the election and we're done for. And they will.

    And... just to keep this on-topic... the delegate count supports this. For all of Obama's hype, for all of his willingness to attack Clinton, for all of his charisma, he has not been able to pull off this election. He should have had it a long time ago. He has been getting the best press imaginable, while the media have been attacking Clinton mercilessly. His campaign has been tearing apart anybody who supported Clinton. But superdelegates still are moving to her, voter's still vote for her, donor's still give her money. Even though it doesn't seem possible for her to win more delegates than Obama. If Clinton can hold her own against Obama in spite of the odds against her, what do you think will happen when McCain, who is beloved by the media, goes up against Obama?


    I don't think this is true anymore (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    "He should have had it a long time ago. He has been getting the best press imaginable, while the media have been attacking Clinton mercilessly."

    Certainly true at first, not so much lately...

    Which probably has to do with his inability to put this thing away.  Just an observation.


    That's the problem (none / 0) (#106)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:31 PM EST
    Clinton or McCain get bad press, her approval drops a couple of points and rebounds by the next cycle. Obama does not seem to rebound as quickly, probably because the public is not very familiar with him and they are reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    He says that Clinton has been attacking him, but she hasn't. She has been pulling her punches because she is a loyal Dem and doesn't want to hurt the party's chances in the general election should Obama win. She has been hammering him on basic topics: Experience, mostly, although she did throw in a cheap shot about Ayers. The right will attack him constantly.


    Harder To Give Him The Benefit Of The Doubt (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    when he keeps changing his stories and keeps contradicting himself.

    Nooo, it isn't (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    2209 is the magic number. Now and until FL and MI are resolved.

    The number is SO magic. . . (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    that it appears different to different people.

    I have the real magic number in a lock box (none / 0) (#119)
    by trublueCO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    and I'm not letting it out Obama and Clinton announce that it would be in the best interest of the party to have Jon Stewart as the nominee!

    2025 is only the goalpost (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    for people who believe that FL and MI will have no meaningful input.

    In other words, to be assured of a win, Obama needs to keep MI and FL off the table.


    Or, as BTD says. . . (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    reach 2209 without counting them.

    Which can happen two ways (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    1. He wins more states by overwhelming margins. (not gonna happen.

    2. The SDs rush to him.

    The question then is, as it has been, what will make the SDs rush to him? I'm thinking that he needs to put on a big show of declaring victory at 2025. It's an open question how many SDs will buy it.

    A lot of them. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Faust on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    Bet on it. The Supers will follow dominant media narratives like a herd of buffalo. The media will have NO PROBLEM with the 2025 number. Indeed it has been the only number they have ever used in all their displays.

    Clintons chances now rest on big margins in Indianna and an upset in NC. That's a narrative the supers will listen to.


    Um, no (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    FL and MI still exist. Obama can't walk into the convention and win a majority with 2025 if FL and MI are seated unless he convinces the SDs to ratify his "win."

    If they do that without allowing FL and MI to have meaningful input, there's going to be open warfare within the party. Heck, I'll throw the first bottle.  

    To win, Obama needs to win even if FL and MI count.


    There will be blood (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    If the leaders of the Democratic Party decide a winner without FL and MI, I think the the nominee will be seen as chosen by the few.  Because I feel very strongly about this issue, I know I will stay home come November if the DNC choses to invalidate FL and MI.

    You are not alone. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    I will not belong to a party that disenfranchises voters.

    The big loser (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    in the Democratic rush to support Obama and his money-making machine will be long-time Democrats such as myself.

    I'm obviously one who was naive.  No more.

    I don't see the Democratic party as any more principled now than the Republicans.

    Latinos?  Sell them out.
    Media bias?  Don't be fair.

    I have so gotten the message.

    And I'm moving from "Independent" to angry.

    I may well make sure this new Democratic party gets a swat from me.  That could be in the form of a donation to someone who is not in this party.

    But one thing I can guarantee.

    The Democratic Party lost my support.  

    I keep repeating.......over 30 years.

    I'm so dumb.  Like they care?

    They hope I just die soon.

    That's obvious.


    Dem Support (none / 0) (#101)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    I could never vote for McCain. But by the same token I am reluctant to vote for Obama. I don't want to have to deal with telling myself for the next 4 years that, "Hey you helped put him there". Fortunately I guess my vote really won't have much impact. I'm in Illinois, and he certainly will carry the state without my help.

    I'm just curious. What do the Illinois voters (none / 0) (#120)
    by derridog on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:52:35 PM EST
    think about Rezko and all the accusations of corruption? don't they care?  Or are they just used to it?

    And threats will not mean a thing (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:42:44 PM EST
    This is not Russia where a few choose the winner. And if it takes a loss for the Dems to finally get their heads out of their posterior and start understanding we are important, then so be it. I have been a loyal Democratic voter all my life but I can not vote for someone who I believe would not make me proud. They would not miss my vote anyway. They have all those new voters now and I am sure they will not miss my money.

    Well, at least it (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    won't involve bowling.  And, the milkshake metaphor doesn't fit well.

    Maybe we can reissue catch phrases from previous years.  E.g. "The perfect Storm."*

    *For the record, this is the first time I have ever referred to or used this trite phrase.


    That asterisked aside (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    was funny.  And I needed a laff. :-)

    The magic number will be... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST
    Obama's % of white voters in North Carolina and Indiana on Tuesday.

    And also how the AAs vote is affected by (none / 0) (#63)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:54:32 PM EST
    the discussion on "Obama's Race Neutral Strategy" that is going on at the Black Agenda Report site

    One of the most interesting discussion about black political analysis I have red in a long time


    Agree (none / 0) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    Think"Obama's Race Neutral Strategy" on The Black Agenda Report should be required reading for everyone.

    That sounds sooooo tacky. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Fabian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    But the demographics rule the elections!

    It is tacky (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    We're having that "honest discussion about race" that everybody seems to think is so important. Personally, I could do with a bit less honesty and a bit more diplomacy, but the decision was shoved down our throats when Obama decided to start using race as a blunt instrument to attack his opponent, and now we have to have it.

    And one of the most important parts of that discussion is "What is racism?". Is it racist to acknowledge that Obama is getting 90% of the black vote? If not, then how can it be racist to acknowledge that the black vote is skewing the election so heavily that whether or not Obama wins will depend on how he does with white voters? It's uncomfortable talking about this, but we can't really avoid it.


    Discussing demographics I am okay with. (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Fabian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:17 PM EST
    What I would like to do is to discuss current race relations with the exclusion of past race relations.

    It's too easy to throw up the Tuskegee Experiment or slavery as a distraction.  Those things are important - but they aren't what is happening right now.  Now and the Future are what is truly relevant.  Let the scholars study the past.


    We all need to remember the past (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    But we need to make sure that we don't let the past become more important than the present. Problems arise when people live in the past, reliving past grievances over and over. Slavery was evil. But we can't change the fact that it happened. We can't compensate former slaves: they are all dead. Japanese people were treated horribly during WWII, but they don't wallow in it. They focus not on how they were held back but on how they can move forward. Chinese people were treated little better than slaves as late at the early 1900's, but they don't hold it over white people's head - they work hard and prosper in our society, to the point that some white people resent their prosperity. And not all black people focus on the past. A lot have moved on and are prospering. They don't all live on a diet of Wright-flavored resentment, any more than all white southerner's live in resentment of how they were treated after the Civil War.

    We can't forget history. We need to learn from it even as we move past it.


    Did you notice in Obama's presser... (none / 0) (#116)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    he seemed to throw Black Liberation Theology under the bus as well, just a little bit.  

    without 90% black vote (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    Pennsylvania would have been a blowout of historic proportions.  Watching that election night map on CNN showing the margins in the rural and suburbian areas of the state was SCARY for our prospects with Obama.

    No, but really (none / 0) (#114)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    That's going to be the story don't you think?

    Green State Papers shows . . . (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by wurman on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    Sen. Obama has 1797 of the 2209.
    Sen. Clinton has 1786 of the 2209.
    Sen. Edwards has  19

    711 are still available

    Using the other definition:
    Obama has 1725 of the 2025.
    Clinton has 1593 of the 2025.
    Edwards has  19

    711 still available

    Using the ever-shifting term "pledged" delegate:
    Obama has 1490
    Clinton has 1336
    Edwards has  19

    Using the term "unpledged" delegate (as of yesterday, with some changes today):
    Obama has 235
    Clinton has 257

    303 are still available (but some may not be)

    Thanks! I needed a memory boost. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    A useful site to know; thanks (nt) (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    BO's run was over in PA and needs a transfusion (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    Obama has burned through his reserves

    • freebie "benefit of the doubt" goodwill
    • bandwaggoners wanting to be part of Teh New Coolness but not necessarily do the dog-work
    • low attention span media in their usual pathetic role of preferring to be part of the "winning" "side" (bandwagon or witch-hunt) than do their frickin job
    • backroom support of chickensh!t Dems who prefer to push forward an ill-prepared, shallow, uncredentialed candidate than show leadership and wisdom themselves
    • suckup points from patronizing exploitive Repug overlords
    • being the newest, flashiest Clinton(s) basher and inviting new and exciting pile-ons

    Obama is not an ENGINE to power the train, he's delivering his speech promising to be a power source on the CABOOSE of the Bush / Cheney train wreck.

    The ride ran out of fuel in PA (millions spent not to make a DENT there.) It's still screeching to a halt and will do so in Indiana or NC. It won't start up again.

    One (closely watching) woman's opinion. I've become a supporter of HRC after groaning that she was in it, but I'm neither a Dem nor attached to any individual campaign.

    (The extent of my political involvement in '08 is that I've sent some love to several worthy candidates and neutral GOTV and voter empowerment groups. Oh yes, and the ACLU. I want the Constitution back and the Rule of Law back on it's, er Throne.)

    But you forget... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    ...that Florida and Michigan will be resolved after Obama gets the nomination and benevolently chooses to seat their delegations. After that, all of the people of these states will be so grateful to him that they will gladly give him their vote.

    Ha ha ha - (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    Stop, you're killing me

    Nancy Pelosi said (none / 0) (#96)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    That FL and MI would only be seated if doing so would not change the result.

    In other words: we're only going to count your votes as long as your votes won't count.

    It's a farce.  It makes a joke out of democracy.

    Prominent Dems think they can strong-arm Hillary out of the race undemocratically and then present Obama as a fait accompli.


    Which (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:36:06 PM EST
    is why I'm Indepedent today.

    I totally commit to my own decisions.  I will vote Republican "down ticket" if their positions are palatable.

    I commit once I commit.

    And I'm committed now to being Independent.

    Democratics have lost me.  I'm done.

    They are history to me.

    In fact, frankly, they have lost my good-will.

    I would view any Democratic comment with a great deal of skeptiscism.

    But.......I do not consider myself way out of the norm.

    The Democratics "sluffed" off my niche of voters.

    Women....over 50.

    We're just not important.

    That's fair.

    And they can deal with the consequences.

    Let's hope those teenagers show up to the polls.

    In the meantime, I'm going to vote.

    But I have a very good idea about how I will vote if Hillary isn't the nominee.

    And believe me......it's not Democrat.

    They have dismissed me without blinking.

    I will dismiss them in the same way.


    you write really long posts (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    You are certainly entitled to your opinion but if you could stop doing the spaces in between each line it would be easier to read and scroll.

    The sad part... (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    ...is that this idea is being supported by people I trusted. I felt very let down by the Supreme Court when they essentially said that we had to stop counting the votes in Florida because if we counted them and they showed that Bush didn't actually win it would undermine his Presidency. This was so blatantly wrong that they didn't even try to pretend taht it was anything but a political decision. Now I find members of my own party making the same kind of irrational decisions in the name of political expediency. When I think of the words I've wasted defending Pelosi, it makes me sick.

    Magic Number (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    I'm OK with this Magic Number business.  It's a baseball term.  Obama will make a great bookend with last year's New York Mets.

    Hey, Clinton supporters (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by jen on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    Keep sending good thoughts and light to our Hillary. This thing ain't over. She's still fighting and so am I.

    Don't Give Up

    Math? (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    Something looks wrong with that math.  Did you drop 100 delegates somewhere?

    Math is definitely wrong (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:35 PM EST
    Probably for both candidates

    Explain (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:26:45 PM EST
    283 to 2025. 2209 - 2025 = 185.

    you are right 468. and 600.


    You get extra points. . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    for showing your work!  (Can anyone guess what subject my wife teaches?)

    Math? (none / 0) (#25)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    The magic number (none / 0) (#3)
    by standingup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    will be the highest number of popular votes received by either candidate after all the primaries (caucuses if any remain) have concluded.  This talk about the other numbers is a distraction from the Obama campaign.  

    that is so true (none / 0) (#4)
    by snucky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    we have 50 states not 48!

    Again the presumptive close (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    Notice it's the only technique they really have. Clearly at some point they were guaranteed this thing and now are panicking.

    How many undecided superdelegates are there? (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    Will they be able to finish the vote one way or the other?

    Sure (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM EST
    If they all go for Obama, or even if 65% of them do, I think he would cross the threshold.

    They should be able to. (none / 0) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:30:36 PM EST
    Even Howard Dean and Harry Reid are saying that the SD's should decide in June.

    That means AFTER all the votes are counted.

    However, I fear they are going to be idiots and pretend FL and MI never voted.

    We will see how the next round of primaries changes the narrative. The Wright effect will be in full bloom then.


    I saw 237 (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    on one blog I trusted yesterday.  I think it was Marc Ambinder.

    I was suprised it was so few.


    Actually this brings to mind a (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    different MI/FL compromise: do not seat the delegations, but set the magic number at 2209. This way they will have their influence, but how the delegations are split is moot.

    Be true to your school BTD (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST
    I do love that about you ;)

    There's the Wright fallout (none / 0) (#38)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:43:24 PM EST

    Wright (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    is absolutely his death.

    No question.

    I am more angry about how the Democratic Party is acting.

    I officially......abandon the Democratic Party.

    End of my life-long affiliation.

    I'm done.

    They attacked Hillary too much for too long, and I'm done.

    This is the anti-woman party as far as I'm concerned.

    I'm done.


    Yep (none / 0) (#69)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:56:11 PM EST
    I'm considering myself an Independent Clinton voter from now on.  It just so happens that McCain is likeable enough to me.

    Can't quite go that far yet. (none / 0) (#78)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    But, if this does happen that MI and FL are not counted (and that doesn't mean after the fact), then I will reevaluate my position on this.  I do know I won't be voting for Obama (writing in Hillary) and I will be working against Obama supporters - we do have a fairly strong third Party in the Progressives.  

    McCain 47 ....Obama 43 same Gallup Clinton tied (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    The latest general election results show Obama now trailing McCain by a statistically significant 47% to 43% margin among registered voters. Clinton and McCain are now tied in the general election at 46%, as McCain's support in relation to Clinton and Obama has picked up in recent days. -- Jeff Jones

    Clinton can beat McCain (none / 0) (#53)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    Let's have that a unity ticket of Clinton/Obama and take back the White House!

    Note this (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    For those (like Singer tends to do) who say if the two are within 5 and the margin of error is 3, they are within the margin of error.  They are not.

    If the margin of error is 3 and they're within 3 they are within the margin of error.

    Off my soap boxy high horse.


    Sorry Teresa, you are not correct (4.00 / 1) (#122)
    by cymro on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    For a full explanation read the wikipedia article on Margin of Error. For your particular point, see the section on Comparing Percentages, where it explains [my emphasis added]:

    In a plurality voting system, it is important to know who is ahead. The terms "statistical tie" and "statistical dead heat" are sometimes used to describe reported percentages that differ by less than a margin of error, but these terms can be misleading.[8][9] For one thing, the margin of error as generally calculated is applicable to an individual percentage and not the difference between percentages, so the difference between two percentage estimates may not be statistically significant even when they differ by more than the reported margin of error.

    In other words, if a poll has a MOE of 3%, then there is no (statistically significant) difference between a result showing Clinton 49% Obama 44% and another result showing Obama 49% and Clinton 44%. For that particular poll, both of those percentage differences are within its margin of error, which is based on the number of samples contributing to the results.


    Earl Ofari Hutchinson: win Indiana. (none / 0) (#43)
    by jerry on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Message to Hillary (And the DNC): Win Indiana, And You're in the Money - The Huffington Post

    I've been listening to Earl Ofari Hutchinson since I lived in LA about 20 years ago and he would broadcast on KPFK.  He's always been an interesting person to listen to on all sorts of issues, and I have never been able to place him in some nice box, which of course is very frustrating.

    He has some interesting things to say about Clinton and Obama. Mainly about Obama.  But his latest post (above) is about Hillary Clinton.  I don't know if she has a chance of winning in Indiana, but if she does, I have the (probably ignorant) feeling that Hutchinson is right.

    He has a lot of interesting columns which will ring true for many of the readers at TL.  You can find them here.

    Sigh, not enough coffee... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jerry on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    Oops, posted too soon.  Hutchinson is talking about Indiana, I was thinking North Carolina.  I hope he is right about Indiana, but I'm not as confident.

    If she kicks butt in IN and draws very close in NC (none / 0) (#51)
    by jerry on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    We should hear lots of shouting for Obama to concede....

    The expectation should be that he needs to win NC by 10 points, just as HRC was demanded to win PA by 10 points and that anything less is a loss.


    yeah, but he said that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    Indiana was the tie breaker......if she wins Indiana what does he do then?

    If Hillary wins Indiana, but loses NC (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM EST
    Then the Obama campaign will have to say that although she broke the tie with Indiana, her loss in North Carolina brought things back to a.... wait for it... a tie!  Nah, don't expect the Obama campaign to go with that spin.

    Finished (none / 0) (#89)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:17 PM EST
    here with Obama excuses.

    Moving on.


    Doubtful (none / 0) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    The only scenario where I can envision any calls for Obama to concede is if he loses Indiana and North Carolina and he fails to get over 35% with white working class voters.

    New Mason Dixon Poll For NC (none / 0) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    NC, Mason-Dixon has polled the primary. They find Obama leading Clinton by a 49-42 margin.
    87 percent of African Americans plan to vote for Obama, while 62 percent of whites said they will vote for Clinton. There has been very little evidence suggesting either candidate can cut into those numbers before Tuesday.

    Information at MyDD:

    www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/1/103535/6786  (get this to work properly for some unknown reason)


    New national Gallup tracking poll (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    has Clinton ahead beyond the margin of error for the first time in eons.  And all polls averaged at realclearpolitics.com (click Gallup there to get more on its poll) have Obama down from a 10 point lead less than a week ago to 1.7 points now.

    The graphic there of his drop is stunning.  Super-delegates are out of their minds to end this now, unless the DNC really doesn't want to win in fall.  Which, with those fools, might be what is behind this, so that Dems don't get stuck cleaning up the Bush/Cheney mess.  It's all I can conclude from this DNC mismanagement of the primary season.  But if we lose downticket, too, without coattails. . . .


    Agree With Your Assessments (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    If I were Dem leadership, I would want this race to continue until it was determined which candidate could actually win the WH and how much damage the Wright ads are going to do to down ticket Dem candidates.

    The way it is looking, Dem leadership has priorities that supersede winning the WH or they are under the delusion that the Dems can't lose even though the polls are telling a different story.


    Why? (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:44:57 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan must be resolved before we declare that someone has clinched the nomination.

    Why MUST they be resolved before a candidate has clinched the nomination?

    I'm sure you'll think I'm simply being obtuse but an answer better than "Because" would be nice.  

    It seems abundantly clear that there is no resolution to Fl/Mi that would be acceptable to both sides.  So your position would essentially be that the primary should go to the convention.

    Unless the rules committee changes the magic number it will remain 2024.  

    Just a silly matter of voters being (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    BLATANTLY disenfranchised in a supposed democracy or heck, just flatly stepped on and ground into the mud.  I didn't know the Rules Committee had changed the magic number.  Did they?

    That is going to happen (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    NO MATTER WHAT happens with Florida and Michigan.  There is no happy solution.

    And regardless this notion that all states must be heard before a candidate is determined a brand new concept.  We certainly never used that standard before.

    The OFFICIAL magic number is 2025.  When Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates the number was lowered.  

    The magic number is 1 more than half the total delegates.  If you strip delegates from some states the total number decreases, thus the magic number is decreased.  

    Until those delegates are formally reinstated the number remains 2024.


    You know for a fact (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    that the rules committee lowered the number and not just a bunch of bloggers using blog math?  This is blog full of lawyers, and when you hang with a bunch of lawyers that ass u me thing is in full play.  So until I hear that the rules committee changed the magic number and not just that you changed the magic number.......the magic number is 2209.

    Actually, even without FL and MI, its 2025 (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    because it's actually 2024.5 and has to be rounded up -- unless, I wouldn't put it past the DNC, some  delegate, no doubt a woman, is going to count only half as much.

    The other answer (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    is to win without FL and MI.

    This is your answer to, ahem, WTSBWQ.


    Which is virtually impossible (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    unless the party leaders simply select one candidate or the other via superdelegates.  Even then it would be unlikely.  If Obama splits the remaining states he would have about 1900 delegates.  Even if he received 100% of remaining SDs, he wouldn't reach the 2206 delegate number.

    It would be even more difficult for Hillary.


    Excuse me, but this (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    unless the party leaders simply select one candidate or the other via superdelegates
    Will have to happen no matter what. Let's try this again: Obama will not be able to march into Denver with 2025 and win nomination outright. In order to make that stick, he has to make sure that delegates from FL and MI are either not seated, or rendered meaningless. Only SDs can do that for him.

    If Obama gets 2025 (none / 0) (#90)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:43 PM EST
    delegates in June, the race is over.  BTD, is arguing that this shouldn't happen and that the FL/MI delegates MUST be included before a decision is made.

    How is this going to happen?


    FL and MI have to be made to count (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    in some way or another.

    If that doesn't happen, Obama will have stolen the nomination by a superdelegate coup. (hehe, didn't you guys used to talk about that????)


    Millions of voters count more than Dem rules cttee (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    If you don't get that, you don't get democracy (in every sense of the word).

    I really doubt Team Obama wants to press this self-defeating argument to "win" that stripping millions of their votes as individuals and as Dems was behind his choice to do everything he could not to let their votes count.

    (Hey, who cares as long as Obama's prevented from completing his boring job on the Senate, or boring job running for office!)

    Team Obama's "new" brand of politics, combining unprecedented arrogance with cluelessness knows no bounds. At least the old Uniter had some serious brain matter -- if devious and lacking in a shred of scruples -- but these guys won't even wait until getting on the ticket or in power to destroy the Dems current and future chances well beyond '08.


    All of your hand wringing (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    won't change the situation.  

    These empty threats that Obama better give in or else serve absolutely no purpose.

    This has nothing to do with Obama regardless of whether you wish to paint it as such.  Obama didn't set the rules up.  


    He's failing on his own words, deeds and PLATFORM (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    My hands are my own to wring, as is my ballot to vote, so your empty posture to stomping around about it doesn't count.

    What I do point out is on the record, irrefutable, undiscountable, insurmountable reality. Your admonishment doesn't alter that, nor sways my opinion and that of others Obama will need to survive the primary and GE races.

    Obama's lost his momentum and burned through considerably more than he'll need to get it back. He hasn't lived up to HIS OWN promises. He hasn't delivered a fraction of what he said he will and can't even sustain a day before screwing up again. He's failed every test including the no-brainers that have been set up for him.

    He screwed over voters in two vitally needed states. He's toast. The people on the right currently buttering him up plan to devour him, not follow him on his current path of failure.


    But he did prevent revotes (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    so he is guilty.

    Agree with both views however this particular poll (none / 0) (#71)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:56:59 PM EST
    is always used by the CNN to pump up Obama....and its just another poll Obama is tanking in and it does help to explain Joe Andrews hysteria Obama cover is blown and the DNC and Pelsoi are on the wrong side, what a goof.  I am starting to notice a trend in Dem types who support Obama and those that support Clinton and it's not class it's more needy vs not needy...those that win and those that haven't won maybe, something.

    Dean seems to think that he can get (none / 0) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    them all to declare shortly after the last primary, and nothing that happens after that will affect the SDs, let alone the pledged delegates.

    Yeah. Have fun with that one.

    wasnt obama supposed to have (none / 0) (#125)
    by isaac on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:36:16 PM EST
    anywhere from 20 to 50 super d's waiting in the wings to flock to him?  and couldnt he really use him now?  you know they've been working the phones like mad, trying to end it before he loses any more races and looks bad doing it -- losing badly among whites and latinos -- and all he could muster was a lousy five?  he is done