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.


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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.


    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?



    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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?

    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.

    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?"

    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

    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.

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


    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...)


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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!.

    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.



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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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!

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


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


    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.

    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.

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

    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.


    Error (5.00 / 2) (#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 / 0) (#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.

    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 / 2) (#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.


    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.



    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."


    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
    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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).

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    "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.)


    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.  


    *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)


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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

    Statement by Senator Hillary Clinton on the Seating of Delegates at the Democratic National Convention

    "I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.

    "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election, and so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. I know not all of my delegates will do so and I fully respect that decision. But I hope to be President of all 50 states and U.S. territories, and that we have all 50 states represented and counted at the Democratic convention.
    "I hope my fellow potential nominees will join me in this.

    "I will of course be following the no-campaigning pledge that I signed, and expect others will as well."

    My emphasis.  I don't think this position has changed.

    Thanks kid (1.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Newt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    I've held back from posting here, even when I'm furious that women on this list say they'll never vote for Obama because of sexism or elitism or because they don't like the attitudes of Obama supporters.  Yikes!  We're talking about the POTUS here, not some popularity contest.  The leader of the free world.  Millions of women across this country voted for Obama, many of them educated and middle class.  Like me.  We're not all noodle heads fainting at his appearance.  Some of us actually trust him more than we trust the Clintons.  So what if a few young people are stupid about politics, or thoughtless or disrespectful in their online comments, or think he's a rock star?  There are millions more of us who have carefully thought this through, who have weighed the chances of both candidates, and who have trusted our gut feelings, our women's intuition about which candidate is more honest and more likely to help us reclaim our government and our country.  And we thoughtfully chose Obama, with a full understanding of his weaknesses and mistakes.  

    After all these years I still can't say I know the real Hillary.  I cringed over Bosnia sniper fire.  My rose colored glasses fogged up at the word "obliterate." Today she's relying on that weasel Karl Rove's analysis of her potential in the GE with electoral votes.  Her "popular vote" claim excludes twelve caucus states.  The citizens in those caucus states voted!  I actually believed her until I realized the statement was a trick play on what casting a vote means.  I don't want to be tricked by a Democratic cadidate.  But even if she gets the nomination through what I would call trickery or deceit, I will still vote for her.  Even if she offers political positions in the new Clinton administration to delegates, I will still vote for her.  Because the alternative would be to allow Republicans to continue ruining our beautiful country.  


    This is all well and thoughtful (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:03:05 PM EST

    Did you cringe over any of Obama's misstatements or lies?  For every one of Clinton's he has one as well.  

    Do you cringe whenever you hear Obama praise Reagan or Nixon?  Do you cringe when he says "anything and everything is on the table" when it comes to the use of military force?

    Do you cringe when Obama's popular vote count does not include Michigan and Florida?  Does it bother you when the media reinforces this narrative or are you only concerned with caucus voters? Because millions of people voted in those states.

    Do you cringe when his campaign and the media continually utilize such meaningless milestones as "will have won a majority of the pledged delegates" or "leading in number of states won"?  Because we all should know by now that those are not valid metrics.  I believe these things are equal amounts "trickery and deceit" as you claim to be so concerned about when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

    I think we all need to be more balanced in our discussions.  That said, Clinton has my vote locked up, but if and when she decides it's time to bow out of the race and support Obama then I promise to you that I will do the same.  


    Excellent, now we're talking (none / 0) (#194)
    by Newt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:36:04 PM EST
     Yes, I cringe when Obama doesn't count the popular vote in MI & FL.  And I cringe when my Jewish friends in PA say they voted for Clinton because of her obliterate comment.  But to be fair, Hillary needs to make a different kind of statement than Obama just because she's a woman.  Obama has plenty of negatives, and it's going to take people like you to help mitigate them if he wins the nomination, because Obamabots can't see his downfalls.

    I have some ideas on how to win over the Obamabots if Hillary wins the nom, but if she appears to "steal" it by getting supers to switch via future political positions in the new Clinton administration, we've got a big problem with the youth vote.  And clearly AAs will be furious if the electability issue continues to be based on racism.  I know on this list that issue has been worked over to many posters' satisfaction, but many Obama supporters would rather see a black man lose the GE to racism than have superdelegates switch out of fear of racist voters going for McCain against their own best interests.  I know how to win over slightly racist and sexist voters, like my father and his generation.  Money talks, and eventually they'll bite the bullet because McSame will only offer them a worse economy.  And I'm very sure educated women from my mother's generation will vote for Obama in the GE, even after voting for Hillary in the primary.  But I don't know how to get the Hispanic vote, or how to hold on to the AA and youth vote, or more importantly, their newly found political energy, if they think their candidate got cheated.  

    Perhaps some of you have ideas that could bring us together as Democrats and we can start talking about that and stop blaming the other camp for all of our candidate's problems


    are you another... (none / 0) (#180)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    are you another one of the paid commenters from Obama central?

    We've been infested recently... all of them using the same old tired talking points (I guess it doesn't bother you when Obama LIES about single-payer health care in a debate.... or when he talked about invading Pakistan?   But I guess being on the Magical Unity Pony means never having to admit that you're a hyporcritical shill...)


    Nope, I'm just a cook (none / 0) (#190)
    by Newt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    Well, to be precise, I'm just a mom.  That cook thing was from a Steven Segal movie.

    I'm not with the Obama campaign, I haven't even volunteered to stuff envelopes.  And I'm just as mad at Obamabots for their rudeness as I am at Hillary supporters who say they'll vote for McCain.

    If we could get past the differences here, we might be able to come up with solutions to unite most of the party.  I follow blogs on both sides, and I'll be damned if I'll watch another Republican get elected because democrats are eating their own.


    Great (none / 0) (#169)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:27:35 PM EST
    That doesn't change the fact that you keep making demonstrably false statements and running away when called out on it, all the while making self-righteous speeches about how important the truth is to you.

    If you were here to debate facts, you'd admit that you were wrong to claim that "Obama did not campaign in any sense of the word in Florida," given the citation to the DNC rules I provided in this comment.  But, as with so many others who claim nothing but a high-minded devotion to the Truth, your real agenda seems to be something else.


    I would say (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:14:28 PM EST
    The DNC is working closely with the Obama campaign.

    I would say that, yes.


    I agree with Edgar (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by rnibs on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    And what was that a few weeks ago where he was trying to pay off her campaign debts to get her to quit?  The DNC should have really been furious about that, but not one peep.

    It's called "taking a dive" (none / 0) (#110)
    by goldberry on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    Then Clinton would have been a washed up nobody working as dockworker on the waterfront moaning, "I could have been a contender."

    And most accurate would be 2200-plus (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    if the DNC really follows its rules and reverts to what they were when FL and MI legislatures set their primary dates, when the penalty was losing half of pledged delegates -- prior to Obama super-delegates' amendment afterward to strip states (and only some states of those that went too soon) of all delegates.

    GOP LEGISLATURES *WILL* DO THIS (none / 0) (#156)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:09:54 PM EST
    GOING FORWARD...sorry for the caps, but I feel like I just can't say this enough.

    If the DNC does not seat these states, then God help us come 2012 and subsequent elections.  GOP legislatures in any state - currently they control 14 of them, which in addition to Florida include electorally important swing states Ohio, Arizona and Missouri - will simply monkey with primary schedules in order to throw the Dems into chaos.

    They'll also use primary dates as leverage to get other pieces of legislation through, such as in the case of Florida this year.  

    Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't live in a state full of malignant Republicans who've been trying similar tactics (lightning-rod social issue ballot initiatives, anti-gay marriage and abortion tropes, and similar) for the past few years.  

    I just don't get why nobody at the DNC is talking about this, or apparently even thinking about it.


    Precedence (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:18:27 PM EST
    Picture it:  2012. Obama is ending his first term.  It has not been a successful term, so there are actually Democratic contenders going up against a sitting president. None who would probably actually win the election, but one or two who could possibly win the nomination. There are strong Republican contenders waiting on the other side.

    The primary season is about to get underway,and several states with Republican-controlled legislatures move their primaries up.  These are states where President Obama has strong support, and he needs every delegate / pledged vote to win renomination.

    What does the DNC do?  They are already on record for overpenalizing states 100% (and no supers).  But, if they do this, they hurt an incumbent President and give the Republicans a chance to take back the WH after 4 years and possibly use coattails to win big in Congress.  If they don't, they will be viewed as hypocrites and will spend all their time defending why this situation is different than 2008.  What they won't say is this all derived from the power structure's hatred of the Clintons and really had no rational basis to begin with.


    too bad clinton did not have the (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:24:19 PM EST
    foresight to take her name off of the ballot in nc, oregon, wi, iowa, and choose two or three others. then "the math" and "the roolz" would be even more complicated.  the bottom line on obama, ko, is that obama as it stands now is a vote disenfranchiser and as such he has pursued a consistent strategy of not counting votes. we can argue about whether this is smart politics or "good for the democrats" but i (speaking for me only) find his tactics in mi and fl morally outrageous and a betrayal of, among other things, the civil rights movement.

    but i'm glad you've got the delegate count straight. kudos.


    Very nice post! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:30:56 PM EST
    Thank you!

    Accuracy/Tactics/Honesty (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Paladin on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    How often do we hear this canard that "so-and-so candidate" said something earlier in the campaign and now says something different today, implying that the candidate is a hypocrite, or impugning their character. That's what campaigns are all about.  Strategies shift as the situtation on the ground changes. Neither candidate should be held to earlier statements as the ground shifts beneath them (I'm referring to day-to-day campaign TACTICS ONLY in this context; I certainly expect candidates to be held to the truth in a general sense).

    The most accurate way to put it is that (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    the DNC has deferred to the primary candidates, stating there will be no resolution of FL and/or MI as to revote unless each candidate agrees.

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:21:37 PM EST
    Your schtick of pretending to be a Hillary supporter while coincidentally spouting every pro-Obama talking point in existence is really, really tiresome.

    The 400 (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    I wOnder hOw much mOOla it pays tO be One Of the 400.  Where's my pony?  

    HillRaiser (none / 0) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    joined today and made over 30 comments.  He-she would be classified a chatterer if anyone were to bother reporting it.

    Tempted. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    I've been here very nearly 30 days and am still trying really hard to keep comments under 10 per day.  

    Perhaps we should assume this new person is ignorant of site rules, but I vote for some type of censure, since many of us here are trying to play by the rules.


    The roolz, the roolz (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:29:21 PM EST
    This has been beaten to death at this site.  The real rules always allowed a re-vote.  Obama blocked the re-votes as he would lose.  I absolutely blame Obama.  It's just another reason I would never vote for him.

    Obama isn't playing by any rules.  He's using lawyers and sleazy tactics to manipulate the system and screw the voters.  

    But hey, let's unify. pffft.


    What Did You Expect (4.66 / 3) (#129)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    Obama isn't playing by any rules.  He's using lawyers and sleazy tactics to manipulate the system and screw the voters.

    from the man who won his first election by having all of his opponents tossed off the ballot?

    From the Chicago Tribune; April 3, 2007:

    The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

    There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

    This man hasn't a clue what it is to run a hard race.  That's why we see such a sense of entitlement from the Obama campaign.  It's also why they seem so angry at Hillary.  "How DARE she oppose us?"

    Democracy has little to do with it.  Gaming the system (see FL and MI), deceiving the voters (see Wright, Jeremiah) and insulting opponents (see "racism) is the stock in trade of the Obama campaign.


    Why attack Obama personally (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:56:09 PM EST
    why not attack the DNC? Are they or are they not demonstrating leadership? The posts here sound like they are written by a bunch of 12 year olds. How about coordinating a letter writing campaign to the DNC? How about marching to demand that popular vote mean something in this campaign? What I see here is a lot of trashing of Obama and his supporters and not a lot of trashing of Hillary, which goes agains the grain of all of the arguments. As an Obama supporter, I don't like the FL - MI silence. I don't like that the pop vote is very close and he won by 600k in Illinois, which tells me there is a problem with the true popular vote. I don't like that he will no longer debate when I think he has been inferior in every single debate (more so to Edwards when he was in). What I don't like is the DNC leadership being too mum. But what i really hate are the personal attacks on Obama and his supporters. If the collaborative behavior is that of name calling and beligerrence, I am game.

    I speak with my vote (none / 0) (#157)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:10:36 PM EST
    I have been active in politics for quite a while.  I continually contact my reps.  Guess what?  I have contacted them for years and still they don't represent my issues or values (gasp).  I'm not voting for Obama because I don't want him in office.  It has nothing to do with the actions of the DNC in this situation although they are an abysmal lot.

    Letter writing campaign, really?  I have years of evidence that will have absolutely no effect. I expressed my views to the DNC and was underwhelmed by the non-response.  I could care less about the DNC.  So yes, I write, and I call, and I speak with my vote.  


    and you are not alone (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:16:27 PM EST
    I have years of letter writing as well, so what? I don't find it in my heart to bash a candidates integrity or intellect, (GWB notwithstanding). Calls and letter work with the FCC, if they were organized better they would work with pols as well. The righties have that down to a science, RvW is still standing but the appointed justices may take a shot at that. The far right zealots never try to win the war, they try to pick up as many battles as they can and historically speaking, they have done pretty darned well.

    When does Obama take responsibility for (none / 0) (#167)
    by Mari on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    his actions? I don't understand how so many liberals can blithely support the disenfranchisement of voters. If the right to vote and have the vote count is casually discarded, we've lost more than an election to the Republicans.

    Actually, many groups ARE (none / 0) (#179)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    organizing letter-writing and email campaigns to the DNC.  They are also criticizing the DNC for its lackluster leadership throughout the campaign (there have been whole threads on the topic here, which I'm familiar with even though I've only been reading this site about a week).

    When you run for President of the United States, your character and personality matter.  They are largely fair game.  That is even more true when your record of public service is thin, because people don't have much else to judge you on.

    Have there been personal attacks on Obama that went out of bounds here?  Well probably, as this campaign has evoked very strong opinions and feelings across the board.  But that is not the overall weight of this site.  Most posts keep to facts and analysis.  The name of the game is not name calling and belligerence.


    To be fair to Obama (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by tree on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    we have to hold him to what he said as well. He said back in September, 2007 that he would do "what was right" by the Fl voters. So it was always in his plans to include the votes from Fl.( And by the ground rules HE set out, 2210 is the number.) Its just that counting Fl now might cost him the nomination, so he's not so interested in doing "right" by the FL voters anymore.

    How conveeeeenient for you. (none / 0) (#115)
    by goldberry on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    How inconvenient for those pesky old voters and all the other Clinton voters who cannot win without Florida and Michigan's critical mass.  The rules committee might have penalized them by half but then they wouldn't be hanging out there, untouchable until the very end.  If we didn't know that the DNC and Obama's campaign are completely without sin, we might almost suspect that it was deliberate.  

    question for KO... (none / 0) (#175)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:36:45 PM EST
    I read somewhere that the Obama campaign now has a couple of hundred people being paid to infest pro-Clinton blogs with Obot talking points?

    Are you one of them?  Or do you do spew these talking points for free?

    (oh, and another question?.  How does it feel to support someone whose campaign hss been all about denigrating the only two-term democratic president in living memory?   Is that what you define as "unifying?")


    Obama's misogny (1.00 / 0) (#177)
    by Mari on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:43:09 PM EST
    trumps any Roe vs. Wade scare tactics. Obama has indicated during this primary season that he is wishy-washy on pro-choice issues. Frankly, McCain and Obama are equivalent on this issue.

    This is an (none / 0) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:48:34 PM EST
    unbelievably ignorant comment.

    John McCain is staunchly Pro-Life.  Has been for at least 25 years.

    Barack Obama has an absolutely pro-choice record.


    Let's be factually accurate (none / 0) (#184)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    Which McCain position are you talking about? Because here is the position he has now:

    Official Latest Answer

    And here is an article stating how he has been all over this issue:
    Flip Flops

    BTW it is not an ignorant argument, it is just one you don't like. Misogyny for many people trumps just protection of reproductive rights. Let me put it this way (and this is an extreme example): "I hate everything about women, but I strongly will protect their right to control their reproduction."

    Not very strong imo.


    What part of (none / 0) (#189)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:04:22 PM EST
    John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

    Do you consider to be anything but anti-Roe v Wade?

    So we are moving the goalposts to a discussion about misogyny?  Well given the comments he is purported to have made towards his wife, I have a hard time seeing John McCain as being a big fan of women.  Let's remember this is the guy that laughed at the "How can we beat the B**?".


    I am sorry, who are you arguing with? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    I didn't say anything, I was just correcting the facts. He has been all over the map as far as his position on Roe v Wade.

    Also I was pointing out the flaw in your argument that woman should support anyone who is for protecting Roe v Wade, regardless of what they think of that person.


    I didn't say that (none / 0) (#203)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:42:32 PM EST
    I never even implied anything close to that.  Women can use whatever criteria they want.  If they want to vote for McCain because they like septuagenarian white guys with a bad temper, then have at it.

    But if choice issues are a big deal to you then there really is no comparison between the two.

    Mari said that McCain and Obama are no different on choice issues.   That is absolutely ridiculous.


    You are absolutely right... (none / 0) (#1)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    there will be no victor tonight.

    Too bad Obama is going to declare victory anyway.

    [shakes head in disbelief]

    I don't think he will (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:55:54 PM EST
    They have backed off that. Their new position, according to the Wash. Post article:

    In an interview on CNN's "American Morning" program, Daschle, the former Democratic Senate majority leader, said Obama needs only 15 more pledged delegates to reach a majority of those delegates in this year's primaries and caucuses, a threshold he is expected to cross tonight.

    While reaching that milestone represents "a tremendous new accomplishment," Daschle said, it does not mean the race against Clinton is over. Important primaries remain to be held, he said, "and so we're going to play this all the way to the end.

    I think their new phrase will be not that he has won, but that he is unbeatable.


    Is unbeatable the same as (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    inevitable? 'cause it doesn't seem all that new of a message to me.

    Hee! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    I don't think it's new, either. Seems like the same old numbers argument to me.

    Just for fun - other "unbeatables" (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    * Goliath; * 1980 Russian Hockey Team; * The Bismark; * Achilles.

    and icarus was (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    flying pretty high too at one point, i hear. but somehwere over new hampshire. . .

    Which constituency will he diss this time? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by lambert on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    That is the key question....

    Or will be intensify the "nice" offensive? If so, look for lots and lots of "some say," just like in Philly.


    I like that -- the "'nice' offensive" (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM EST
    as it so offensive and demeaning.  And Obama is talking that way to his supporters, as if he was talking to his young daughters about other friends under 10.  

    I find it telling that he takes that tone with his base -- and that none of them seems to mind.  Ugh.


    Did you know that (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    Puerto Rico is a neighbor of Arkansas?  Also, no one has ever heard of him there. I think tonight we will get another geography lesson from Prof. Obama.

    It's not as amusing as his classics lectures, but it will do.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    Sounds like the plan is exactly the same, only they've learned from their trial balloon not to bill it as a "victory speech."

    LOL... (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    but I think it is a bit different than before...they are admitting that it's not over yet.

    It was my impression that they were not even going to admit that much at first.


    They admit it's not over (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    every time they focus their guns on Hillary.

    How'd you like that op-ed from the Obama supporters arguing that Hillary once interned for a radical law firm back in the 60s?  You'd think a light would go on and say "hey, this isn't the kind of argument people bother with if an election has really been decided already."


    Managed to miss that one... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:31:55 PM EST
    but I thought HRC was Republican-lite?

    Now she's a radical lefty of some sort?

    So confused, so confused. ;-)


    IMO it was hooey tailored to 2-day pre-vote play (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    I know, it is to laugh!

    Were there any substance to this, it would have been flogged to death during the height of the CDS witch hunts in the '90s and CDS-redux from pundits just dying for those carefree say-anything days. (How bad is the current derangement? A CDS critic on Fox, presented as a legitimate commentator on politics, speculated that Sen. Clinton had a rival's cat ("Fluffy") whacked to extort silence. Even THAT's sensible compared to some of the 90ies stuff I dimly recall.)

    I call the "liberal radical" nonsense as targeting any conservative voters in KY (esp GOP women) in an attempt to depress the vote.

    Additionally, it sends a message to Oregon voters that she abandoned her liberal, anti-racism roots.

    Oh and in case no one noticed, sheeeeeeeeeee's OLLLLLDDDDD.

    And the story is hhhhhoooooooooeeeeeeeeyyyyyyy.


    Won't matter (none / 0) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    It only matters what people hear in the news tomorrow and the next day and the next day and so on...

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#7)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    that's definitely a little better than what he was going to do before. :-)

    I Still Believe Something Is Afoot. obama SOP (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST
    is to backpedal when things aren't going is his way...as for Daschle aka Casper Milquetoast, who cares what he says.  His time as senate majority leader was atrocious and he couldn't even keep his senate seat.  He would not be my go-to guy for advice...just saying.

    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.

    Superdelegates can indeed change their mind (none / 0) (#74)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    And this should worry Hillary supporters. All of the switches are coming from her superdelegates, moving to Obama. I expect that this trend will continue as we get closer to the convention and more elected dems want to be on the side of the nominee.

    The DNC has a (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by rnibs on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:49:26 PM EST
    trend of nominating losers (except for Bill), so I'm not heartened by the fact that the SD's are supposedly rushing toward Obama.  I'd say that's the best indication that they should be rushing the opposite way.

    I Don't See Any Stories (none / 0) (#93)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    about turnout.  Does anyone know if it's especially heavy in Kentucky?

    KY has 1.8 registered voters (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    but the Gov (I believe it was) projected 20% turnout.  So no, there turnout is not especially high.  Other numbers have popped up.  Jay Cost has projections etc.... I am going with a turnout of 710,000.  (Another poster is going with 750k)

    If Clinton gets a 27 pt spread (my projection) that will get her about 190k.  Just have to wait and see.....

    OR on the other hand, has about a million registered Dems I believe.  With mail in the have a turnout of around 70%.  Need a big spread in KY and a smaller spread in OR to make the biggest gains.  Fingers crossed for me.


    20%??? (none / 0) (#136)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    I hoped it would be bigger.  

    You'd think that a state which suddenly counts, after years of being irrelevant, would do better than that.  


    710k is 39% (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    woohoo!   :(      Ha!

    Since a pledged candidate for Hillary switched to (none / 0) (#103)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    Obama, without remonstrance from the Obama camp, does that mean it's open season on pledged delegates?

    Why yes, yes it did and does (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    as they all are up for grabs now, thanks to that dumb move by the Obamans.  They always were up for grabs and open to switching from their so-called pledges, but this ought to have educated the media (they're slow, but they'll catch up with us soon) that all of their projections are just piffle.

    What has Obama done to insult you? (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    but leave out all the insulting stuff.


    Actually (none / 0) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    If you look at state by state turnout, Hillary has brought out as many, if not more, new voters - especially where the race was close or where she wins.

    There is a link somewhere else on this blog where it was discussed.

    New commentors are limited to (none / 0) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    10 comments per day.

    Hillary Is Also Bringing New Voters (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    to the party. In many states (post primary), recent polls indicate she is getting approximately as many Republican and Indie votes as Obama while holding a greater percentage of Democratic voters. Obama is bleeding more Democratic voters more Clinton.

    The secret to winning the election is to bring in new voters while holding onto the Democratic base. Indications right now are that Obama is failing to hold on to the base by a larger percentage then he is attracting new voters.

    Fact: (none / 0) (#135)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    The candidates WERE told they would probably be seated at the convention.

    FACT:  Obama chose to remove his name, even though he didn't have to and colluded with other candidates to make good with Iowa voters.

    FACT:  Obama's campaign affirmatively encouraged supporters (by running ads and having it in the news media) that they were to vote "uncommitted".

    FACT:  I am arguing with a fool, so I am wasting energy.

    Kerry Lost White Women To Bush In 04 (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    White women were 41% of the vote in 04. Bush won them 55% to 44% according to the exit polls. Roe v Wade was at risk in 04.

    Not all Democratic women are pro-life and not all pro-life women vote for Democrats. If you are assuming that Roe v Wade will garner the necessary percentage of women to win the GE, it is an assumption that is not proven by data.

    Talk to Mark brewer (none / 0) (#153)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    Head of the Michigan Dems.

    You Seem To Want To Ignore The Information (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    that there is an increasing number of Democrats who will not vote for Obama. All we hear over and over again is how we will lose Obama supporters if he is not the nominee. I acknowledge that may be true. What I do not see you acknowledge is that we will lose as many if not more Clinton supporters if she is not the nominee.

    So we can acknowledge it (none / 0) (#178)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    What else can be done?  If someone is so emotionally invested in their candidate that they are willing to see someone from the other party win out to spite, what is there to do?

    I'm Not Sure That It Is ALL Emotional Or (none / 0) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:30:00 PM EST
    candidate specific. Voters on each side believe that they have not been respected. That is something once it has been established is hard to overcome. Also, it seems to me there is a real divide on  the direction the party is going that but up against hard core values of what it means to be a Democrat. I would not consider myself a hard core Hillary supporter but I do not like what I see going on within the party.

    At this point I do not know how the party can come together. What I do know is that it will not come together by members of the party blaming voters. That needs to stop immediately.


    To be clear (none / 0) (#204)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    I wasn't speaking about any specific group of supporters.  When you are dealing with large groups of people they all act largely the same.  

    Perhaps if you could be more specific about what concerns you have regarding the direction of the party that would be helpful.  The only real change I see is that Obama's core is a younger generation.  This is bound to happen whether it is Obama or some other politician in 4 or 8 years.

    I see little value in blaming voters but I see a lot of that happening on both sides.


    hillraiser (none / 0) (#200)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    posted 30 comments today and has been banned previously under 8 different screen names. He's been erased, and all comments deleted.

    If you were referring to someone else, let me know.