home

KY, Oregon and Delegate Math

Polls close at 6pm ET in most of Kentucky and 8pm PT in almost all of Oregon.

There are 200 superdelegates who have not yet declared. Superdelegates can change their mind up until the convention. In addition to pledged delegate counts, they can consider electability in November, the electoral map, the popular vote and anything else they deem significant in arriving at their decision.

But, since the media is so focused on delegate math, here are the numbers from an article in today's Washington Post.

  • Kentucky has 51 pledged delegates, Oregon has 52.
  • 200 Superdelegates have yet to choose a candidate.
  • Both are closed primaries open only to Democrats.
  • The remaining primaries are: Puerto Rico on June 1 with 55 pledged delegates and Montana and South Dakota on June 3. Montana has 16 pledged delegates and S.D. has 15.
  • Hillary's campaign says the number of pledged delegates necessary to win the nomination is 2210, including Florida and Michigan. Obama's campaign says it's 2025 because FL and MI don't count.

More....

Hillary will hold a campaign event tonight in Louisville, KY. Obama will be in Iowa this afternoon. Both candidates go to Florida tomorrow.

There will be no victor tonight. Media outlets say Obama currently has 1901 or 1915 pledged delegates. Even if he won all the delegates in Oregon and KY, he would not reach even the 2025 number.

This is not an open thread, please keep your comments on topic.

< Ted Kennedy, RFK, Progressive Values and Jack Newfield | NY Times on Hillary and the Blogs >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    May 31 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    Obama is currently right, technically speaking. As things stand with the DNC, the number is still 2025, because FL and MI do not count at the moment. Now, after May 31, I expect the "magic number" to shift somewhere inbetween 2025 and 2209.5. I don't think the DNC will give the delegations full seating--I think what's likely is a 50/50 delegate split.

    Now the question is going to be this. I have Obama still needing 107, with the two endorsements he got earlier today from SDs. He won't hit the number tonight by any means, but it looks like he might get about 50 delegates tonight. That would leave him needing just about 25% of the remaining supers.

    Could we see a wash of supers in the next 11 days (roughly 5.15 a day) that would get Obama to 2025 before the rules committee meets to change the number on May 31?

    he still wouldn't win it (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    because the DNC has said it will seat the delegates, it just hasn't said when or in what numbers. So the number will not be 2025 in August, when the votes are taken.

    The 2025 number now is meaningless, unless one candidate wanted to drop out based on it, saying the other candidate has reached the necessary number. That's not the case here.

    [ Parent ]

    The rules penalize the delegates at 50%? (none / 0) (#96)
    by LadyDiofCT on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    Don't the rulz say that 50% of the delegates are seated?  Isn't the argument that the voters didn't disobey the rules (the rupub state congress changed the primary date) and therefore the punishment of 50% is also unfair and the entire delegation should be seated?

    [ Parent ]
    He is only about 50 pledged (none / 0) (#113)
    by cannondaddy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    delegates from having a pledged delegate majority even with FA and MI seated as certified.  Depending on the results from today, he could reach that by picking up the remaining Edwards delegates before May 31.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but who cares? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM EST
    The pledged delegate majority is all made up and doesn't mean a thing. If we are going that way I want to add the my own yardsticks to the race. How about "whoever won the most registered democratic vote?"

    [ Parent ]
    Very unstable numbers (none / 0) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:19:12 PM EST
    if Obama is going to count the SD's as a guaranteed delegate for himself. They are not obligated to anything: not the will of the people, not their endorsement, and not what the media tell them to do.

    They are obligated to use their own good judgment in selecting the candidate they truly believe will win the WH for the democrats.


    [ Parent ]

    I don't think she's trying to outdo him (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    in pledged delegates, just come close enough to be able to make the case to the superdelegates that the other factors are just as important. Puerto Rico should help as well, both in popular vote and in delegates.

    Google (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    If you're watching the race, MI has proposed a split of 59/69 - add them together.

    Florida has lots of delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    he took his name off (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    because he knew he was going to lose.

    [ Parent ]
    Making the case (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by rnibs on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    Two more guys (life-long Dems, though they're young, so it hasn't been that many years) just told me they just can't vote for Obama in the GE.  

    Do the SD's really realize how many core Dems have been turned off?  You always get a certain number of Dems voting Republican or not voting in any given election, but these are core Dems.  People I have known to vote in every election, and they're not.  They actually seem saddened by the fact that the Dems couldn't come up with candidate they could vote for.  

    All I can think is that the DNC plans to lose this GE in hopes of drawing in new voters, and then these core Dems will come back in 2012, for whoever the nominee is then.  I also think they like his money.

    But I think it's foolish.  I believe HRC could win this and start eight to maybe 16 years of Dems in the WH.

    [ Parent ]

    Why are you using that name, Obama (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    supporter? To purposely irritate the Clinton supporters here would be my guess. Your "concern" is touching.

    [ Parent ]
    no I do not think that (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    Hillary has done nothing to insult Obama voters.  Obama on the other hand has insulted and lost large constituencies of the Democratic coalition.  In addition the "working class" voters he has insulted are swing voters and vote republican sometimes anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    My candidate has been an angel but your candidate has been evil.  That about right?

    [ Parent ]
    You're underestimating the anger (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Mari on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    of the different demographic groups who support Clinton. These are the core democratic voter groups (women, older, etc) and groups that can swing either way (Latino, white working class). Obama has not shown any ability to change his message and style to entice these groups and continues to alienate them. There's very little reporting on the building backlash against Obama and this neoliberal democratic party. The media rarely catches the trends.

    [ Parent ]
    As it stands now (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    Obama is not "winning" fair and we feel quite strongly that, should he take the nomination, he TOOK it, it was not won.

    Go through old threads to find out why.


    [ Parent ]

    Obama claims enough 'new' voters to dump us (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:30:42 PM EST
    In fact, the imperious behavior of TeamObama, Donna Brazile and the Dem leadership have made it clear that Obama's attraction to 'new' voters makes the (ludicrously) stereotyped and hastily profiled "typical" HRC supporter disposable.

    Well good luck with that. I've repeatedly heard that my support is no longer required. So be my guest: win the nomination, the general election without me.

    And as for bullying, guilting, shaming or blaming voters such as myself?

    You're not entitled. You called your shot. Now do it.

    Speaking only for me! SOF'M!

    [ Parent ]

    There will be millions regardless... (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    the question is, where will these millions be?

    Obama's millions will be in concentrated in Deep Red States.

    Clinton's millions will be found in swing states.

    Obama supporters are so narcissistic that they don't realize that just as many people voted for Clinton as Obama.   They can only focus on their own bitter disappointment, and cling to their unity pony, and this nation goes to hell in a handbasket under the leadership of right-winger McCain or grossly unprepared Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll match your two with my two (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by HelenK on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    Do you have any idea how many people just can't vote for Hillary? I met two of them today, our new IT guys.

    "They actually seem saddened by the fact that the Dems couldn't come up with candidate they could vote for."

    So why won't they vote for Hillary?  

    The party is divided and both candidates have loyal supporters and both candidates have people who won't vote for them.

    I know that Hillary supporters are absolutely sure they are right and so are the Obama supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    And (none / 0) (#61)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:21:19 PM EST
    let's hope Obama (if he wins) can also win fair and square - by seating MI and FL when it matters.

    [ Parent ]
    If I understand this (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by HelenK on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    then Hillary's strategy now is that even though Obama may have won in pledged delegates (which is the how the system works) she wants the Supers to overturn the will of the people?

    I understand that Superdelegates have that power and that is the point of Supers in some way, but this is what she is expecting. Because Karl Rove told her she had a better chance in the General?

    Or the other strategy is to spend the summer weakening Obama so the Supers HAVE TO SWITCH TO HER.

    Is that about right?

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    The DNC's bizarre pledged delegate system hardly equate to the "will of the people."  There's your faulty assumption right there.

    [ Parent ]
    But that is the system (1.00 / 0) (#193)
    by HelenK on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:34:35 PM EST
    I am not saying the system doesn't need to change, it clearly does, but under the system as it is today, Hillary's strategy is unpleasant at best!

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:05:16 PM EST
    Superdelegates are just as much a part of "the system as it is today" as the pledged delegates.

    If you look around some of the pro-Obama blogs, by the way, you'll find that superdelegates just became a much more awesome part of the system now that they've been going for Obama of late.  It's a "coup" if the superdelegates vote for Hillary, but when Hillary wins WV by 40 points and Sen. Byrd endorses Obama, hooray for superdelegates!  Snore.

    [ Parent ]

    Another tired argument (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    Please define "will of the people".

    Are you saying that when she ends up with more, you know, actual votes, that those shouldn't mean anything?

    And I know you also know that the supers would not be "overturning" anything.  Funny how before Super Tuesday, all we heard from the Obama camp is that super d's should follow their constituents.  Now that Hillary will have more votes, has won more Congressional districts and more counties - in other words - she's the choice of the people- Obama's camp is now hollering for those darned delegates.  The supers can consider delegates, but they could also consider who has better hair - they are not bound by any rules. They could all vote for me on the convention floor and it wouldn't be "outside the rules".

    But you knew that.

    [ Parent ]

    so more people vote for her (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    but delegates are equal to the will of the people?

    D'OH!

    [ Parent ]

    So tiresome. Please check archives (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:46:04 PM EST
    for answers already covered ad nauseam, so we can move the conversation here forward.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    No, sorry (none / 0) (#196)
    by HelenK on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:41:08 PM EST
    I have been reading posts here for YEARS and certainly during the primary season, I don't need to go to the archives.

    Even if Obama has the magic number to win, after the resolution of MI and FL, the strategy is still to weaken him all summer and then hope that the declared supers will all switch to Hillary in Denver. I believe that is the plan, yes?

    [ Parent ]

    There is an earlier thread (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:17:01 PM EST
    That BTD wrote giving a very solid description of how the "will of the people" is not represented in the pledged delegate count.

    It's very informative and easy to understand.

    [ Parent ]

    The primary process is odd (none / 0) (#197)
    by HelenK on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:44:33 PM EST
    I have never paid such close attention before and the rules do seem very strange.

    I would prefer that the popular vote decides the candidates AND the President. If it were popular vote I think we would have many more DEM presidents more easliy.

    But this year we are stuck with the system as it stands. So, delegates rule, just as electoral votes rule and I really think that needs to change. Most people move many times during a lifetime, not like in the old days where if you lived in Virginia you would never move to another state. Maybe then it made sense for States to have power instead of people, but that really seems antiquated now.

    [ Parent ]

    HelenK (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    you are new here and way over the comment limit for new posters. Please come back tomorrow, no more than ten comments a day.

    [ Parent ]
    About 110 (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    as currently constructed.

    [ Parent ]
    Uncommitted delegates can vote however they wish (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by sister of ye on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    But Obama's surrogates campaigned here in SE Michigan for voters to turn out with the understanding that delegates elected in the area would go for Obama.

    To be specific, his supporters RAN ADS before the vote. It simply amazed me that Obama's people spent money on ads for a meaningless "beauty contest" that they agreed didn't count for anything. Guess they didn't have anything better to use it for.


    [ Parent ]

    Obviosly we have to wait until 5/31 (none / 0) (#25)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    to find out -- any speculation right now is just speculation -- the DNC hearing is on 5/31.

    [ Parent ]
    In The Meantime, We Should Continue (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:12:35 PM EST
    peppering the DNC with emails and phone calls telling them of our displeasure with their ineptness.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm with you there, honey (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    as I've told y'all before -- I sent a letter to Howard Dean with my torn up DEM voter's registration card enclosed, informing him that I had switched to "Indep." because of their inept handling of FL & MI and that if they didn't seat FL & MI in a way that allowed them to have a hand in selecting the nominee, then they would lose my vote in Nov. And I mean that -- speaking for myself only, this is much bigger then "getting a Dem. in the WH" for me, this is a protest vote to the DNC to tell them that they cannot disenfranchise voters while simultaneously stand by silently while sexist attacks are launched against the first viable female candidate in the history of our country and expect to get my vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Right On Ms Angie...Give 'Em Hell (none / 0) (#205)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:47:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Crunching the Numbers (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:03:24 PM EST
    I give up.  I've seen the numbers crunched so many ways I can't count 'em.  

    The only numbers that count will be totaled in Denver.

    What Cuomo said on Sunday (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by lambert on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:06:10 PM EST
    Here:

    In its design, it's supposed to go through to the end to a convention, and at the convention is the only place where the votes count. Most people don't understand that all the counts that have already been-- all the contests that have already been held did not produce votes. They produced pledges, which probably would be lived up to at the convention.

    Dem's Teh Rulez. The rest of it is Obama creating his own reality.

    [ Parent ]
    lol...creeper...it is mindnumbing after awhile (none / 0) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:14:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    HillRaiser, Whatthehell Is It (none / 0) (#140)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:00:56 PM EST
    with you, anyway?  Where is there anything troll-worthy in my comment.

    Jeralyn, here's another one we don't need.

    [ Parent ]

    Rather than have Obama declare (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    anything I would like to see a rousing, unifying speech.  He needs to start his "get the working class" strategy tonight.  I was impressed, very impressed with Hillary's WestVA speech, hopefully she can match that tonight.  Two great speeches, that is what I am hoping for...well, I guess I am still hoping for an upset in OR too!

    If it was meaningful... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lambert on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:08:48 PM EST
    ... it would already have been done.

    I mean, why not appeal for Appalachian votes on precisely that basis to begin with?

    Why ask for their votes when it makes no difference? (Er, because that way you don't actually owe them anything...)

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh. I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    That's why it's my opinion that Obama has no intentions of trying to get HRC's voters. He hasn't tried to do so, and has insulted and dismissed them in many different ways.

    I just don't see any reason to believe that Obama will suddenly become a unity guy after all this time. And if he tries, he will have a hard time getting past his divisive tactics in the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, he's lost Appalachia and the working class (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by goldberry on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:25:38 PM EST
    But that's ok, he doesn't need them anyway.  

    [ Parent ]
    the "unity" candidate and the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    dumped the white working class, boomers, Hispanics, and older white women for Blacks, Kidz, and the wealthy.
    Bill Clinton was able to attract them all.


    [ Parent ]
    Whatever he says (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    you can guarantee the media will proclaim it the best speech evah!  Yes, even better than his other best speeches evah!.

    [ Parent ]
    yes bjorn, a huge, ginormous, humungous, (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    bigger-than-life, never-seen-before upset would be beautiful.  Would wipe the smirks right off obama and his funky bunch's faces.

    GO HILLARY!!!

    [ Parent ]

    could not have said it better! (none / 0) (#48)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Lovely, but unlikely (none / 0) (#76)
    by goldberry on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    Oregon is full of the latte swillers, I hear tell.  But it's a mail in primary so who knows?  You can do it in the privacy of your home without any external pressures.  That might make a difference.  We'll see but I wouldn't get my hopes up.  

    [ Parent ]
    Probably more older voters (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    In a lot of ways this election is the reverse of the small-state caucuses Obama won.  Not only do you not have to show up at a specific time and sit through hours of meetings, you don't have to show up at all.

    Hill may do better than some would believe.  Here's hoping.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, we Oregonians do love our coffee (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:39:05 PM EST
    We all swill lattes, even Hillary supporters. Best coffee in the country here in Oregon. Also, best microbrew beer.

    [ Parent ]
    What the heck (1.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Newt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    Why are you calling Oregonians latte drinkers?  Isn't that a right wing code word for liberals?  Are Oregonians who vote for Obama just idiot latte drinkers?  C'mon, let's not do the Republicans' work for them.

    [ Parent ]
    If so (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by hookfan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    then how is Obama going to win the GE? One would think that he and his followers would be pursuing this vigorously. Obama has no qualms pandering to Evangelicals, Reagan and Nixon worshippers, and Conservative independants. But where is the beef toward working class peeps, older voters, and even Hispanics? Lots o'luck winning without significant support from those groups.
      The latte libs can be as haughty and demeaning as they wish towards those groups. But there are gale warnings out. Obama is sailing his ship into the teeth of a fierce storm and a course correction is required for survival.

    [ Parent ]
    Unifying the party (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    I'm sorry but unifying the party is not completely Hillary's responsibility, in fact, as BTD has stated many times, this responsibility will rest on Obama's shoulders no matter what.  Hillary will do what's right and that does not involve bowing out before all the votes are counted.  She has the right and even the duty to stay in at this point.

    And I am quite sick of hearing about this "coalition" of Hillary supporters planning on backing McCain.  I am 100% a Hillary supporter and I will never vote for McCain.  I don't even think it's us on the blogs that we need to worry about, if we're here and that passionate about politics then I do think most will come around.  Some may not vote but I doubt many will vote for McCain.  It is the so-called uneducated, white working class voters that we need to be worried about -- the ones trashed in the media and by Obama supporters -- the Reagan Democrats, or more aptly, the Clinton Democrats.

    It will not be the horror of horrors if this thing goes to the convention.  It will not be the first time.  And as you can see, the tone of the race has already changed.  Hillary knows what she needs to do, does Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    Uprated (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:04:43 PM EST
    HillRaiser, your 1 on this comment was un-called for.

    But then, so are most of your ratings and comments.  You're not fooling anyone here with your name.  

    Go play with that poster in the blue dress.  Best to leave now before you get tossed.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't even know what to hope for (none / 0) (#23)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM EST
    at this point.

    I guess I hope that the DNC seats MI and FL before the National Party selects the nominee, and that the SD's give HRC a real shot to make her case, factoring in both popular vote and electability.

    If they pick Obama anyway, so be it.

    [ Parent ]

    By the way (none / 0) (#143)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    If he truly needs Hillary's help to do this, then I think you'd have to admit that she should be the first person he should ask to be on his ticket as VP.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup, HR, can't expect Obama (none / 0) (#158)
    by tree on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    to give a unifying speech. Just because he's campaigned as a unifyer is no reason to expect him to actually try to unify people. That might be too hard. He might just show the voters that, despite his rhetoric, he can't "unify" himself out of a paper bag. Better to demand that Clinton do the unifying.  Sigh. And you wonder why people have reservations about voting for the man?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's Yes We Can movement (none / 0) (#182)
    by Newt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    is already unifying.  As I posted earlier, we're not all young, inexperienced followers of Obama.  I doubt the Obamabot comments on blogs represent the ideologies of most of the Obama supporters.  Many of us are educated, middle aged people trying to do what's best for our families and our country.  

    This movement is very unifying, especially as we older folks communicate with the younger naïve Obama supporters.  We all want the same thing, and that's to take back our country.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes I have personally been unified (none / 0) (#185)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:54:45 PM EST
    right out of the democratic party. Its working great!

    [ Parent ]
    I'm in Michigan (none / 0) (#192)
    by Emma on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    I don't feel very unified, as my vote is utterly disregarded.  I'm a woman, I don't feel very unified as pundits and Obama surrogates talk about me like I'm a problem standing in the way of the revolution.  I don't feel very unified as Democrats threaten to fail to protect Roe v. Wade if Obama is not elected.  I don't feel very unified as Obama tells me I'm okay so long as I don't proselytize and tells me I have to sit at the table with McClurkin and is "legitimate" views about needing to be cured of  homosexuality.

    Unification by subtraction -- it just doesn't work for me.

    [ Parent ]

    SOME Obamabots (none / 0) (#206)
    by Newt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:41:57 PM EST
    won't consider the loss of Roe v Wade and will sit out the vote if Hillary wins.  But most of us will vote for any Democratic candidate over McSame.

    Please don't make the mistake of thinking that a thousand or so obnoxious posters to blogs represent the millions of people who support Obama.

    McClurkin is a dangerous jerk, but Obama is right to say we need to talk to the other side.  I've connected with many opponents of gay marriage because I'm willing to talk to them about the concerns we share, including safety of our children.  As a lesbian parent, it's easy to break through their church-fed nonsense about gays being rapists.  All they have to do is meet me and see that I'm just like other moms to realize their perspective was biased.  I'm not sure what I'd say to McClurkin if he was at the table, but I'm pretty sure I can reach the people he lies to.

    Both of our candidates say the same thing about gay rights, that we deserve them and civil unions is the way to go.  The reason I think Obama is more likely to effect change is because he brings with him a whole heck of a lot of youth and re-engaged older Democrats who are poised to invigorate politics in ways we can't yet imagine.  He's also less likely to engage the conservative religious base of the Rep party, who despise Hillary with a passion that will bring them to the polls in droves.  Hence, his candidacy is more likely to give us huge wins in the Senate and elsewhere.  

    Finally, Senator Obama has vowed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that the Clintons imposed.  Hillary has said she'll tweak provisions of it, she doesn't denounce it outright as a betrayal of gay Americans.

    I may be wrong, but my gut feeling is that we have a better chance of reclaiming our government and getting equal rights with Obama as president.

    [ Parent ]

    You aren't very unifying when you lie like this (none / 0) (#207)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:09:30 AM EST
    Finally, Senator Obama has vowed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that the Clintons imposed.

    DOMA was  passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. You're either incredibly ignorant of how government works, or just being dishonest in referring to it as being "imposed" by "the Clintons" or even by Bill.

    The law can only be repealed by Congress, just as it could only be enacted by Congress. As late as December of 2003 Obama was against its repeal. He subsequently changed his mind, but he has done nothing so far to work for that repeal, other than make campaign promises.

    [ Parent ]

    I am all for obeying the rules (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:07:34 PM EST
    But it does seem to me that Obama and his campaign are clinging to 2025 because Fl gives them problems and MI well, he wasn't on the ballot. Florida is especially frustrating....

    Of course he has to cling to it (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    He loses his shirt if not.

    But if you are for the rules, then MI and FL should be seated at 50%, the popular vote counts as is,the superdelegates get 100% vote and Obama should be awarded no delegates since he ran an ad in Florida markets and held a press conference.

    That would be playing according to the rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Isn't the 50% (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:04:54 PM EST
    rule for the Republicans? I thought the DNC tried to go for Zero.

    The superdelegates are the ones who should receive punishment, not the delegates chosen by the people.


    [ Parent ]

    that is not playing nicely (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:29:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Should be a good night for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Exeter on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    The media outlets will only have Kentucky results to chew on for most of the night and everybody will have tuned out or gone to bed before Oregon comes in. I wonder what would have happened had Indiana come in all at once and Hillary's NC counties came in first. It almost seemed that part of the media's delusion two weeks ago was that Obama was up by 30-40 points for much of the night until Hillary's numbers came in.

    Maybe not. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    I believe I read today that in Oregon they started counting at 8 am (for those 36% of ballots received).  They will count ballots as they come in today and by 8 pm PDT, it won't take long to count the rest because it is done by electronic counting machines (I think they just have to run the ballots through).

    While it will be way past some of our bedtimes here on the East Coast, we could know by midnight or so (for those night owls)

    [ Parent ]

    I think that is why (none / 0) (#172)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is doing the made up Iowa "victory" event, to blunt the fact that their win won't come until tomorrow for most people.

    [ Parent ]
    Reaching for milestones (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:18:50 PM EST
    I'm sure Hillary could claim some sort of milestone if she reached far enough too. Most delegates by a candidate in a pantsuit?  I don't know.

    Wouldn't it be refreshing if they both just siad 'ya know, I really don't have anything new to say tonight. I'm just going to congratulate Sen. X on his/her victory in X, and I'll see you all in Puerto Rico!'

    Very true. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    I would be mad at Hillary if she tried this stunt too. Everybody should just let it go, fight for MI and FL to be seated and see where we are after everyone has voted.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:23:24 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh.

    [ Parent ]
    Anytime! (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:31:28 PM EST
    I agree with Mario Cuomo - the pledged delegate difference is not going to change appreciably from here on out. It is up to the SDs, and I think the SDs have all the information they are going to get regarding pledged delegates.

    I would love to see Hillary run up the popular vote totals though.  That is what I'll be watching for.

    [ Parent ]

    Error (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    Obama has nowhere near 1900 pledged delegates.  That number includes supers.  Please correct the error.

    He's right. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by tree on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    Obama's pledged delegate number is 1612.5. Hillary is at 1442.5. His "victory" today is that after the KY and OR results he will have over 1626.5 which is exactly half of the pledged delegates(excluding MI and FL).  They are now  170 pledged delegates apart. That separation will decrease significantly if MI and FL delegattions are seated.

    [ Parent ]
    Good math, Jeralyn... (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    ...you just need to finish the thought.

    If Clinton gets 109 out of 189 remaining pledged delegates from the 5 contests, gets 178 pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan being seated, and another 15 MI/FL supers who have previously endorsed her, that adds 302 delegates to her total, putting her at 2022.  Let's assume for the moment that the 55 uncommitteds remain assigned as such by the RBC, and the Edwards delegates either remain Edwards delegates.

    To get to 2210 from there, she needs 188 additional superdelegate endorsements.

    There are 244 uncommitted superdelegates and add-on delegates remaining.  Some of the remaining add-ons will go to Obama, probably around 20.
    The "Pelosi Club" supers will also go to Obama(since he will still be the pledged delegate leader), netting him at least 5 more.

    So, Sen. Clinton needs 188 more superdelegates, out of about 219 available, in order to secure the nomination without going to the convention.  

    In other words, if Obama gets about 40 more superdelegate endorsements over and above the ones mentioned, Clinton cannot secure the nomination without a convention floor fight.

    Obama's total, including FL/MI, is about 1996.  Spot him 80 pledged delegates from the five remaining contests, plus another 20 add-on delegates, plus the Pelosi club supers, and he's at about 2101.  That would put him 109 away from the nomination.  He would need 109 out of about 219 uncommitted supers to support him to clinch the nomination in June.  
    Of course, if the RBC assigns the uncommitteds, or even just most of them, to Obama, he's likely to clinch pretty easily.

    You assume supers won't switch (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by davnee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    Yes, HRC has a very tough hill to climb under current conditions.  But SD's are free to switch right up to the convention.  There is no hard count we can rely on.  Heck, pledged delegates technically could flip too.  Plus all the caucuses have not fully processed yet.  We have no way of knowing what will happen between now and August.  

    Obama has been slumping since the Wright fiasco.  He's lost more than he has won.  He should get a boost out of OR, true, but PR and the FL/MI resolution still loom, which should favor Clinton.  And what happens if another scandal breaks?  He has not been carefully vetted thus far.  It is not that far fetched to think that damaging revelations may yet come.  Plus, he has already shown himself to be gaffe prone.  Take his latest tango on Iran.  At one campaign stop they are no big deal, overrated as a threat.  At another campaign stop Iran is the greatest threat of our time.  You think Republicans aren't going to break out the 2004 flip-flops in earnest?!  That and he, a nuke power guy, didn't know the big waste site when asked.  SD's may well be taking notes and thinking electability.

    Yes Obama is in the driver's seat for the nomination, but he's not pulled away to the point that a big dose of hopium cold feet among a decent chunk of the supers couldn't undo him.  I can't imagine why Clinton would concede at this point rather than ride it out and see what happens.  Particularly if she sincerely believes in herself as the superior candidate for POTUS from both a personal and policy standpoint, and more to the point sincerely believes Obama may very well lose in November.  I'd happen to agree on both counts.  I don't think I'm alone.

    [ Parent ]

    All you need to know (none / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:27:10 PM EST
    About the delegates and the votes can be found at the DNCC's "Convention 101" web site.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Well, you can add another SD to (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by chancellor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    Hillary's total, no matter what happens in KY or OR. MA Atty Gen'l Martha Coakley endorsed Hillary today with the following as part of her statement:

    "Regardless of the outcome of the primary, Mrs. Clinton's energy, stamina, and resolve have changed the course of history for women seeking office, including the presidency, and I dare say, have changed the course of history of Presidential politics in the United States. It is for these reasons that I will vote for Hillary Clinton in August at the Nominating Convention."

    Nice.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    Obama knew they would be seated - Hence his campaign and his supporters' campaign to have his supporters vote "uncommitted." He cannot argue he did not know they would be seated.

    Please refrain from using this tired argument.

    Hill Raiser is a very busy commenter today! (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    12 on this thread alone, as of my reading of the thread.

    And Hill Raiser seems to come to bury Clinton, not to praise her....

    She sounds like Alice to me. (none / 0) (#176)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:39:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    We're about sick of Roe V. Wade (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:46:14 PM EST
    being held over our heads. Furthermore if the Senate Dems let it happen then they'd seal their own fate come election time.

    The FEAR boogeyman works for the GOP, don't expect it to work on a a liberal female though, we're made of sterner stuff than that.

    You act as if (none / 0) (#183)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:50:05 PM EST
    Roe v Wade is sacrosanct.  It certainly isn't.

    Replace Stevens with another Alito and Roe v Wade likely becomes ancient history.  This isn't a fear tactic.  It is reality.

    [ Parent ]

    And The US Senate (none / 0) (#195)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    must confirm any nomination.

    The Senate rolled over and Obama, left on his own, would have joined that rollover.

    The Senate that will convene in January 2009 will have a greater Democratic majority than the current Senate.  No need to roll over.  They can force McCain to nominate moderates.  If they really want to protect Roe v. Wade they'll twist his arm and if push comes to shove they can cancel court sessions.

    [ Parent ]

    Lambert, Obama's " NICE OFFENSIVE": (4.50 / 2) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:52:16 PM EST
    Obama can't pull it off because he's TONE DEAF. Which is another way of saying he's out of touch with the concerns of 'mainstream' America. Ergo, he doesn't even know how to talk to us about those things.

    When I saw this VIDEO of the May 19th GMA interview with him and Michelle, I didn't like the way he talked to, and about, his own wife. First, he bickered and contradicted Michelle; then he said public criticism of Michelle is "low class"; and for good measure he added, "Back off my wife!". Charmed, I'm sure.

    Most likely (3.00 / 0) (#6)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST
    Today will be close to a split.  Hillary may see about a 5 delegate swing her way, given the likely results.

    So 49 more delegates for Obama.  53 more delegates for Clinton.

    That would put Obama at 1962 and Hillary at 1773, as per RCP.

    Not likely (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    That Obama will get 49 delegates out of KY and Oregon. That's giving him almost all the Oregon delegates. While he will win there, it won't be close to a shutout. On the other hand, he could come have a huge loss in Kentucky, like he did in West Virginia.

    [ Parent ]
    huh? (none / 0) (#56)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    that is the fuzziest math I have read in a while.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary got (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:23:15 PM EST
    8 delegates out of WV.  She'll probably get about 15 net delegates from KY.  

    Obama will get about 7-10 delegates from Oregon.  Could be more.  Depends on the specific state laws of both KY and OR.

    I wasn't suggesting that either would be a shutout.  They are both going to be deviations from a split.


    [ Parent ]

    He got 8 out of WV... (none / 0) (#70)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    ...even though she won by 41 points.  So, I'd say since he's likely to lose by less than 40 there, he'll probably get more like 16-20 delegates out of Kentucky, and since he seems likely to win by double digits in Oregon, he'll pick up between 27 and 32 there, for a range of 43-52 delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    That is giving him 30 from OR, 19 from KY. (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimotto on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:07:00 PM EST
    That's in line with many projections.  45 is the worst he'll do (28-17), probably 53 would be the best (32-21, very unlikely though).

    [ Parent ]
    Another site's "hard total" (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:09:36 PM EST
    of delegates puts it closer, at 1,136.5 to 1,042.5 -- on Green Papers, within the margin of 100 delegates that some super-delegates have said keeps this wide-open and could work for Clinton.  

    I like RCP's site, too, but Green Papers gives a better idea of how unsettled this is, with its "soft total" and "hard total" -- since, of course, there is no official site that keeps such tallies.  And both are less biased than media sites, also all over the place on this.

    Because, of course, and as Jeralyn says, not only can super-dels change their minds to the last minute -- so can so-called "pledged" delegates, as we saw this week when it had the blessing of the Obama campaign.  

    So even if he tops 2025, or even 2210 . . . until he does so in August at the convention, what we have seen in recent months is just prologue for coming months.

    [ Parent ]

    Bless your heart, but it's what (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    the super-delegates think, and if you had been on this blog before your debut today, you would know that super-dels have discussed the number of 100.

    Btw, you might want to check the rules for new commenters, as I think you're over your limit.

    [ Parent ]

    The DNC has a great delegate (none / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    site with explanations for the differences between what the DNC is using and what the media is reporting.

    [ Parent ]
    73 for Clinton from MI... (none / 0) (#52)
    by goldberry on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    And ~104(?) from Florida.  I could be wrong about that.  She still trails him but it's really close.
    Of course, that assumes that the DNC waives the punishment of Florida and Michigan and doesn't do some politically suicidal split where she doesn't get what she's entitled to.  But if she gets close enough, would it be enough to trigger the remaining super D's to sign on or are they all in the tank for  Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    It would depend (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    on how many delegates they decided to seat.

    If they gave them full seating then the number is 2209.  Obama got about 70 delegates from Florida, Hillary got about 105.  So Obama would then be at about 2030 and Hillary would be at about 1948(105+70 from MI).

    We would still have 55 unpledged delegates and 20 Edwards delegates.  The Edwards delegates are likely to swing towards Obama, a lot of them already did.  

    Now most likely the 55 unpledged delegates would be given to Obama as that would be the only way MI could possibly be seated.  So Obama would then be at 2105 and Hillary would be at 1950.

    Obama would likely get about 40 of the remaining delegates which would put him at 2145 and Hillary at 2000.  

    With about 240 remaining SDs, Obama would need 70 remaining, or 29% of the remaining pool, to get the nomination.

    This all assumes that the delegates don't decide to defect en masse from one candidate or the other.

    [ Parent ]

    The accurate way to put that (3.00 / 4) (#22)
    by kid oakland on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    is to say that the DNC, the organization responsible for the nomination process, currently states that the total to win the nomination is 2026.

    Senator Clinton currently says that the DNC number should be 2210. (She agreed, however, with the DNC in February.)

    Obama is working with the DNC, the Clinton campaign and representatives of MI and FL on a solution that will seat the MI and FL delegations.

    Senator Clinton rejected the most recent MI proposal.

    I think this is all accurate (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:10:01 PM EST
    but you should add that Obama rejected revote proposals in both MI and FL. I mean, you are talking about what Clinton said in Feb, so why not what Obama has done and said in the recent past too.

    [ Parent ]
    And rejected the offers... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by lambert on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    ... when Carville put $15 million on the table, and Obama has more money than God.

    [ Parent ]
    "Currently states" (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    You could also say that the DNC is "currently" hell-bent on losing upwards of five or so million voters, and with them all their hopes of winning the GE.  It would be as accurate.

    (Keep seeing Obama maps on CNN and similar, showing him winning Colorado/Virginia.  Yeah, right.  Why aren't they ever honest in admitting those states haven't gone Dem in a Presidential in 40+ years?  OK, Colorado did - once - in 1992, but after that, bupkus, including Clinton/Gore 1996.)

    [ Parent ]

    I saw these maps last night (none / 0) (#164)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:22:16 PM EST
    They were NOT favorable to Obama in any sense of the word but they were all too happy to gloss over the inconsistencies.  His winning strategy relied on Virginia, Georgia, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico, and even then the numbers were barely favorable to Obama.  Bluntly put, Obama must keep at least PA and MI.  

    They were also quite satisfied to not even bother showing how much better Clinton's map was.  

    [ Parent ]

    *Georgia* (none / 0) (#188)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:03:53 PM EST
    I mean really now.  CNN's corporate HQ is in Atlanta...how in hell do they think they're going to overcome the ten billion white guys with pickups in Cobb, Gwinett, Macon City?

    (shakes head sadly)

    [ Parent ]

    And even more accurate (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:12:28 PM EST
    would be to state that Hillary rejected the "most recent" MI proposal because it wanted to give Obama credit for votes that she got. It would also be more accurate to state that you are clinging to a statement Hillary said in February as some kind of pathetic impeachment of her when all intellectually honest people know that statement is irrelevant.

    [ Parent ]
    Here he is again (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    Funny how Kid Oakland disappears whenever anyone calls him out on demonstrable misstatements of the truth, only to return in a new thread claiming to be an evenhanded spokesman for evidence and facts.

    [ Parent ]
    Steven (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kid oakland on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    I'm only here because I take this blog and the argument that Jeralyn makes, eg. that this nomination contest is ongoing and open, seriously. (And I'm not the only one who does.)

    I understand you don't like me and are comfortable using personal attacks on me, Steven. I get that.

    I've written Jeralyn to make clear that I'm here to debate facts and hone arguments and not to attack comment makers or readers here. When I say I'm here to debate, I mean just that, I don't claim to be a font of truth more than anyone else here.

    However, if, as Jeralyn states, we are in a continued debate about the nomination itself and the process of choosing our nominee, then I think it's part of that to share links and arguments when I have something relevant and respectful to offer.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton's statement per MI & FL (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by wurman on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    Official Press Release

    1/25/2008
    Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at