Pledged Delegate Majority Is Not Enough

Bumped: Yesterday I presented a report by Peniel Cronin on the disparity between the caucuses and primaries this year. (The actual report is here, pdf.)

Today, it's time to examine pledged delegates and remind everyone that pledged delegates are only part of the equation in a superdelegate's decision who to vote for.

Superdelegates were intended to act as brakes on a system run amok. That's what we have here, and it will be further derailed if rumors about only seating half of Florida's delegates are true.

The pledged delegate total is one argument for nomination. It is not a qualifying event. By itself, a majority of pledged delegates is not enough to win the nomination. This year, in particular, the legitimacy of the pledged delegate count is uncertain.

Here is a second graphic and fact-filled, number crunching report (pdf). [More...]

(The report is by John Norris, a businessman in Los Angeles, California. with an undergraduate degree in economics and an MBA from the University of Florida. He has never served a federal campaign in any official capacity , however, he is a devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. It is being reprinted with his permission.)

Some points:

  • The super delegate system adds discretionary judgment to balance out quirks in the mechanical”pledged delegate system.
  • They are intended to be “thinking delegates,” and their decision process is free of rules, guidelines or measures.
  • They can wait until the first ballot on the convention floor to make their decision; and their endorsements are non-binding.

The nominee must win a majority of all delegates to clinch the nomination, not just the pledged delegates. Super delegates comprise about 20% of the total number of delegates.

  • 33.9 million people have voted in 49 elections so far. Only 1 million of those were in the 15 caucus states.
  • The Primary-only pledged delegate spread is less than 1/10th of one percent.
  • The caucus-only pledged delegate spread on the other hand is 2:1, and gives Obama a 136 delegate advantage. Obama's win in the caucus states account for almost all of his pledged delegate lead.
  • Caucus voters amount to 2.9% of the voters but account for 15% of the pledged delegates so far. In other words, one caucus vote counts for the same as five primary votes.
  • In four states, ME, NV, IA and WA, we don't even know how many people showed up because counts weren't performed. Combined, the four have more than 13.4 million people (nearly 5% of the U.S. total) – yet we will never know the precise vote. All we have are estimates from Real Clear Politics.
  • In the states that held both primaries and caucuses, attendance at caucuses averaged 40% of the primary turnout. This is an invitation to distort the results. Consider two examples:

    Washington (34%)
    238,000 Caucus turnout
    691,381 Feb 19 2008 State Primary

    Nebraska (41%)
    38,571 Caucus Turnout
    94,905 May 20 2008 State Primary

  • Obama won all of the ten states with the least voters per pledged delegate. Clinton won seven of the ten states with the most voters per pledged delegate. The ten states with the least votes/pledged delegates were all caucus states. The ten states with the most were all primary states.
  • Obama’s performance decreases substantially when the same state caucus is tested by a primary -- Washington and Nebraska are examples of this.

Caucus bias distorts voter intent and creates a false inevitability factor for superdelegates. If the superdelegates were to act on the basis of a caucus-biased pledged delegate total, we would end up with alienated voters and a weakened party, not to mention the wrong candidate.

It's up to the superdelegates now to put on the brakes.

< The DNC Rules Committee 5/31 Meeting Materials | New Puerto Rico Poll: Clinton By 13, 19 Among LVs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you for the well researched (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:16:53 AM EST
    and thoughtful post Jeralyn. It gives us plenty to think about and dovetails nicely with Clinton's memo and letter to every super today re: her own electability.

    Hadn't heard about her sending (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:41 AM EST
    the SD's a letter. What do we know about that?

    The Page (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    has the cover letter as well as the accompanying memo.

    We know she shouldn't have to because the (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:52:43 PM EST
    SD's are supposed to know exactly what their job is and the parameters, as laid out in the article.
    You HAVE to believe that they will do what they are supposed to do, especially if their vote is by secret ballot. I believe it increases Hillary's
    of winning since there does seem to be a cowardly streak in DNC and the SD's.  We need to stay positive and let this play out.  Damn the press and any idiot who pays them any mind.  They are NOT the deciders.

    Excellent summary of the situation (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    Maybe, armed with the facts, Clinton can reverse the spin cycle that unfortunately Obama has won so far in the media- this idea that SDs voting for her is somehow overturning the will of the people and stealing the nomination.

    Maybe her narrative as comeback kid working class heroine will overpower her narrative as cheating, conniving, calculating she-devil.

    Unfortunately it is up to the press to decide.


    Screeeech! (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Lil on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    I wonder if SD's read TL. I hope so.

    The SDs now have this info (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    As pointed out by americanincanada.... The Page has the letter and the memo sent out by the Clinton camp.  The SDs are not in the dark.  The Clinton's are fighting back against the media blackout with regards to polls etc.

    Has a report like you report on been (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    sent to anyone in the media or more importantly, the SD's? Or, if the fix really is in for Obama, is there anything to change it around? Maybe we should "tie" the SD's onto a rr track and see what happens to their decision (imo).

    contact for SDs (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM EST

    Too much traffic (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:41 AM EST
    Too much traffic to get on.  I hope it is not purposely being overloaded by the camps.  I will check back later.

    Before contacting any SD's make (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    sure you know who they are committed to already.

    WA state went Obama in caucus and primary, but both senators are committed to Hillary, and many of the reps, also. They don't need to be contacted.

    Here's a list of who the SD's are supporting:



    Thank you! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    This is interesting and may explain Kerry's (none / 0) (#171)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:55:09 PM EST



    Great report - and Gallup has an assist today (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nulee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST

    All superdelegates should be taking a hard, hard look at the facts Jeralyn presents here and the kinds of numbers Gallup is serving up that practically document why Hillary is the candidate who can win the WH and should be nominated.


    the internal pessimist inside me says no (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM EST
    I don't think they are looking at anything other than Obama's press releases at this point.

    I really don't know what else we can do, outside of pressuring the SD's who are elected officials. It is very disheartening to see the constant flow of babble from recently decided SD's who claim nothing but 'hope and change' as their reasons for going with Obama, when they should know that's standard rhetoric every 4 years.

    Even more disheartening is how they have all seemed to forget how good the Clintons actually were for the party. Obama has done little for our party more than hijack/destroy it in the name of his movement.


    Gee, I love this site. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    It's so lawyery.  

    Oh, I am sorry. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    This seems OT.  In my head, it wasn't.  I think you an BTD are arguing for Hillary and BO respectively from the stand point of a lawyer arguing a case.  If I were ever in trouble, I'd want you to be my lawyer.

    Where has this been sent? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    I hope to the SD's.   Do you think Lou Dobbs might show it? Anyway,thank you for the post.

    Incontrovertible, but does it matter? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by fctchekr on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    Your last paragraph, but that's exactly what they intend on doing!

    He's going to claim the nomination after the 31st because he will have banked supers come out for him. What can she do then? They are still trying to push her out NOW with threats from the black community, Carter, others; that will increase after the 31st..according to the media, she will  be completely black balled before she could take this to the convention...which seems her only option at this point....

    Keep fighting Hillary....

    Publicise this! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by DEM on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    Great report! It's so easy to read. How can we get this into the hands of those auto-delegates, Jeralyn?  They need to see this as well as today's Gallup report about Clinton's GE advantage in Swing states.

    If Winning The WH Was The Most Important (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    criteria, Hillary would be the nominee. Unfortunately, this is the HOPE primary season. From all indications, Dem leadership have decided that Obama will be the nominee and they will HOPE he wins the GE.

    My outrage started w/Nevada (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    caucuses,when I started to learn how they were run. Regardless of how well Clinton did there, I started to see that they were the furthest thing possible from a democratic system in an era where  populations greater than that of small towns are involved, and we have the technology to do primaries instead.

    Jeralyn I agree with (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by DaytonDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    all of your points, but I fear that the Tom Haydens of the party screaming about blood in the streets if Obama is denied will rule the day. The sad part is they will blame Clinton when we lose in the GE.

    jearlyn i agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    Tom Hayen has no creditbity in this process as he is one of the leaders of "Progressives for Obama" is former SDS leader Tom Hayden, who wrote a letter to a communist Vietnamese official during the Vietnam War hoping for a "victory" over the U.S.
    Several SDS officials and the SDS itself had connections to the Communist Party USA.
    The SDS openly promoted communism, the regimes in Hanoi and Havana, and condemned alleged U.S. "imperialism."

    Oh my goodness, Tom Hayden (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    Could there be a more pathetic holdover from the '60s? I seriously doubt that Hayden speaks for anyone but himself and, perhaps, his wife.

    Who is is wife? (none / 0) (#109)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    What do you say to people like me (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:48 AM EST
    who voted and caucased in Tx and saw questionable legalities in those caucus. What do you say when complaints were filed w/Hillary's campaign, and some on its own merits and the state of tx rejected investigating any of them. Is that counting the votes or caucusing better?

    demographics (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    not organization.

    Obama has problems with workers, and does great with people who can spend half a day yelling in a gym.

    In actuality I can show leaders receiving fanatical support from a movement do poorly.


    Bye bye (none / 0) (#185)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    Your name is not fooling anyone, especially with that last line.

    Wow, they're out in full force today aren't they?  I mean, if Obama has this all wrapped up why are they bothering?!


    So? The supers are nominating (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    our candidate.  Duh.  They don't have to go with the guy who had a good caucus stretch.

    Wow. (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    Obama won 284 delegates (and Clinton won 148) as a result of his winning 15 caucuses where only 1,000,000 people voted?

    How can anyone say with certainty that he will win those states in November?  And he's lost primaries in much-needed states.  Can he even win those at this point?

    Most electable?  Not enough evidence.  He's certainly doesn't have her qualifications or experience or staying power or willingness to fight and represent all of us.

    He's a poor second, frankly. And I really doubt he can unify the party by November.

    He doesn't even give pretty speeches any more.

    The qualified part is my biggest problem (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:03 AM EST
    with him.  I don't see the resume for President, and we deperately need someone prepared for the job.  Best I can see he was a US Senator for 143 days before running for President.  He had a part-time job as a state leg prior.  I still see no evidence of a full time job.  Even if he could win, he's not qualified, IMO.

    We've been saying for (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    months that this country has huge problems and will need much repair after Bush.  We need someone who knows how to get things done, not someone who's barely gotten his toes in the shark-infested waters.

    This is no time to be trying out a newer model, and he's said and done nothing that's convinced me he's ready for the challenges.

    The unity pony is limping badly and hope and change are just nice-sounding words.  We'll get change no matter who gets elected, but hope is questionable.


    This is my biggest problem with Obama too. (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    I see nothing that says he's qualified to do the job.  

    I don't see "commitment" written on his resume.  What has he ever committed himself to (other than being Michele's husband)?  I would love to see 20+ years working with the Big Brothers organization or anything like that.  Instead, I see 20 years of attending Reverend Wright's church.  

    Let me put it this way:  If I owned a small business with 200 employees, I'd have a hard time hiring him to run my business.  


    Rebut (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by DEM on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    1.  Very recent polls have shown that African-Americans would vote for HRC in the general should she be the nominee.  Frankly, I'm getting tired of all this threatening and concern trolling over wild-eyed Negroes setting fire to the country.  But maybe that's just my brown-person sensitivity talking.

    2.  People weren't loudly complaining about caucuses before because: a) no primary race in recent memory has been THIS.CLOSE, so the primary/caucus issue hasn't mattered so much; b) a hell of a lot of people had never experienced caucuses.

    3.  The point of the report is to point out that the race is very close and that the talk of "inevitability" is based on ephemera.  Thus, it invites superdelegates (and media pundits, perhaps) to be very careful in their decision-making.  Superdelegates are obliged to vote any way they damn well please.

    I don't hear (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    any singing.  It's not over and he hasn't won.

    Today's Trolling Points Memo: prepare for the loss (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:34:13 PM EST
    Really, pesky voters, ignominious peons, within days Teh All Powerful Math -- that the Obama campaign still can't produce -- will rule us all but in lieu of answering hard questions, ambassadors will help "prepare" us for our loss.

    And here's a Whiskas for the unherdable cats: Sen Clinton was a great little whatever and no one blames us for supporting her blah blah blah so let's move this along shall we?


    interesting (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by ccpup on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    because what I'm hearing on the street -- I divide my time between NYC, Los Angeles and Paris -- is that if the DNC crowns Obama despite the Electoral Map staring them in the face, A LOT of people will vote for downticket Dems and not for President.  Many believe an experienced McCain is miles better than an inexperienced Obama.

    I'm basing (none / 0) (#73)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    my opinion on the number of people (real people, not bloggers) who have told me they won't vote for Obama ever.  These are people who have voted solid Dem for decades.  And it's not like I ask them--they just tell me.  A few have even surprised me, because I figured they would never not vote for the Dem nominee.

    I used to think that there wouldn't be enough disaffected to make a difference, but now I feel certain that there are.  I, myself, am one of the people who would never vote for him under any circumstances.  I just didn't realize I had so much company.

    I don't doubt that there are Obamites who would never vote for Hillary in a GE, but I haven't heard any long-time, core-constituency Dems say it.  


    Solid dems (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    are fully capable of staying home or leaving the top of the ticket blank.

    Not voting for Obama does not always mean voting for McCain.


    Obama stole the nomination (none / 0) (#173)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    by gaming the system - focusing on undemocratic caucuses and rich-delegate red states that will still be red in Nov.
    Although Kerry told us to vote for Obama BECAUSE he's a Black man -
    all Dems will not obey the Washington and media establishment that has sold us Obama.

    That is true (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    and I do blame her and her campaign for that.  That said, she remains the best candidate for the GE, and would make the best president.  SDs know this information like they know their own names. Over to them.

    Florida and Michigan. (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by pie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    There also appears to be some serious problems with caucuses this time - people taking part who weren't residents of the state, for one.

    There's been a bunch of hanky panky here, and many of us support her because she's a better candidate.

    There's going to be trouble in November, thanks to the Obama campaign and the DNC.

    Hillary's Case (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    Never before in the history of the modern primary system have we seen a nominating
    contest go down to the wire like this.

    The race will be decided by automatic delegates, with no candidate getting the
    majority of total delegates needed. When the primaries are finished, Hillary will lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries. Hillary Clinton will finish the primary season with more votes, the lead in public opinion polls as to who is best able to turn the economy
    around and be an effective Commander-in-Chief, and with the better chance of
    putting together the electoral map to win in November and take back the White

    The  Memo

    Letter to Automatic Delegates

    Well, there are several (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:19 AM EST
    demographic reasons that caucuses were more inclined to Obama no matter what Hillary did, but I digress.  I fail to see your point.  The supers are nominating our candidate.  Neither can win the requisite pledged delegates for the nomination.  Hillary has a case to make, and she's making it.  

    So if you (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    really support Hillary, then why aren't you contacting your SD's and explaining to them that Hillary is the only one with a chance in Nov.

    Doesn't seem to helpful here to be spouting Obamabot talking points.


    This Is Your Tenth Comment Of The Day (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    By TL Rulz you as a new commenter have taken your limit for the day. As an advocate for following the rulz, I hope you will abide by this one.

    hillary (none / 0) (#179)
    by tedsim on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    She just picked up one of ob delegates today.

    You must have missed, somehow (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    the debate for at least seven years by states like Michigan, senators like Levin, calling for an end to the dominance of such atypical states as Iowa and New Hampshire.  There is a backstory to this DNC action this year against Michigan, especially, and to Obama's alignment with the DNC's current Dean/Prima Donna power structure, in Obama's  posturing by pulling his name off the ballot (and Edwards' posturing by going along) in Michigan.

    Some has been explained here; see archives.  Much else, including much media coverage, can be googled.  I have found, for example, some fascinating coverage by Iowa media for years now, organizing resistance to the last gasp of outdated rural dominance, etc.

    Get Real (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:08 AM EST
    Your comments exactly contradict your name.  You join just today and discount Clinton's arguments to the SDs.  It's transparent and annoying.  Honesty?  and in three parts no less.  Get real.

    Obama planned poorly (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    He had no strategy to get himself to the end of the primary process looking like he had a snowballs chance in he!! of winning in November.  The guy looks like a complete failure in the polls.  People keep running different desperate scenarios of how they can get this guy to win in November.  It's very telling there isn't one.  Keep your head in the sand and ignore the facts.  Each and every day, he's chances look worse.

    Talk about do overs.  Obama supporters keep whining... 'make it stop, everyone's picking on Obama.  If Clinton doesn't drop out Obama looks worse, make it stop, I can't stand to look at the train wreck, make it stop.'


    Do you (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    want another Jimmy Carter? Another President so inept that the Dems lose over and over again? Obama can't ever make a stand on anything. The SCOTUS argument is bogus.

    SCOTUS argument is bogus?! (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by magster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    John Paul Stevens is 88 years old.  

    I've switched to lurking because the comments on this site are so absurd, but your statement cannot pass unchallenged.

    And yes, I'd take Jimmy Carter over John McCain in a heartbeat.


    Better re-read Obama's take on (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    appointment judges. Move to a new talking point, please, we've heard this one ad nausem! Thanks.

    No its not (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:07:54 PM EST
    Its for real.

    Because the GOP has placed more justices on the court since 1968, It is going to take longer to reach a point when an election is "safe". Stevens is 88. Ginsburg is not in the best of health.

    The most obvious place where this will be felt is Roe, but it will also effect workers rights and civil rights.

    I can only assume you are uninformed or do not care, if you seriously think the SCOTUS argument is not real.

    I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you of this quote from a wise Democratic woman:

    Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a "terrible mistake" for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. "Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

    "I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama

    I will vote for Hillary, I will vote for Obama. I will not sit this out, I will not vote for McCain. It is that important.


    Please look up Obama's stance on (none / 0) (#166)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:47:42 PM EST
    appointing judges. Don't be so sure all is safe.

    I've seen it (none / 0) (#169)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    I am surer of Obama, than I am of McCain.  Apparently so is Hillary. I'll stand next to her on this.

    You are unsure about Obama. Are you unsure about McCain? Because if you are, I can help you here. McCain has been very clear he will appoint more Scalias.

    Don't kid yourself on this. You can't afford to. Neither can my daughter or grandchild.



    Women, like me, fought hard to (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    get and keep laws like Roe v. Wade and to be treated fairly and equally. This was against all odds. If young women today, decide that history does not matter, then by electing Obama w/o really vetting him, ya get what ya get. Hillary is for protecting reproductive rights, she has never waivered, he has. If I'm o/t then so be it. I'm so tired of that argument. Throw that page away.

    I am glad you fought the good fight. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    Your argument here ignores my points

    1. Hillary says Obama would be better than McCain
    2. YOU may be personally unsure of Obama. Are you equally unsure of McCain? I am not. I know where he stands. He has flat out stated he will appoint more Scalias. Nothing to guess about there.

    Hillary  says Roe (and other important Supreme Court issues would be safer with Obama than McCain. Do you or do you not trust Hillary's judgment? I do.

    I am not throwing this argument away. Its too important. I will vote for Hillary; I will vote for Obama. I will not vote McCain; I will not sit out the election.


    Here we go again (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    I see you are new.  There have been many posts on this....  SCOTUS doesn't work with Obama.  He voted for Thomas Griffith, he did NOT want a filibuster on Aliton and he wanted to vote FOR Roberts.  

    Also, I absolutely don't trust Obama on Iraq.  He hasn't the experience, his advisors are flip-floppers compared to his stated positions.  He has no plan nor committment to ending Iraq.  I still want to know what friends he has that have business deals going in Iraq.  


    Serious answer (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by samanthasmom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    If all of the current information available to us says that Hillary will easily beat McCain and Obama has only a small chance of winning, why devote any time to pushing Obama across the finish line? Those of us who are still pulling for Hillary to win the nomination are trying to prevent a McCain presidency.

    Again get real (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    I don't need to refute your argument.  So what if all of those things happened?  Doesn't matter!  Get over it.  

    The FACT is neither have been strong enough to get themselves over the finish line.  They BOTH need superdelegates.  Yes, Clinton made errors.  So DID Obama.  He's tanking at the end and crawling to the end of the primary process.  

    The superdelegates can pick Obama if they want.  The superdelegates can pick Clinton if they want.  Deal with it.  Obama supporters will just have to 'get over it' if the SDs decide they want to win in November by selecting Clinton or lose with the guy who has taken a dive at the end.


    MTforHillary (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    Today is your first day here. As a new user, you get 10 comments in a 24 hour period. You are at 7. Also, it seems you are a chatterer, see the comment rules.

    Seriously, good campaign equals good White House? (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    This is your argument? George W. ran a great campaign. Want to comment on his White House?

    Carter's a good comparison also. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    Ha! (none / 0) (#175)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:14:26 PM EST
    There are numerous examples of this over the years.  A good campaign does not equal a good White House.  

    When I made this point about ... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    caucus voters having more say in the primary process some months ago, I used the term SUPER VOTERS.  Thus suggesting that they were like mini super delegates.

    I also said that if they were physically as large as the power of their votes in selecting delegates, they be from 50 to 90 feet tall.


    I think it's a catchy way to get people to see the manifest unfairness of the caucus process as it relates to delegate selection.

    And if were found out and proven that (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    caucusers came from other states to caucus illegally, would you still want them to count?

    Yes (2.00 / 0) (#113)
    by dogooder on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    And now all we need are the superdelegates, which correspond to roughly tens of thousands of primary or caucus voters, and who stand rougly a mile tall, to overrule Obama's 200 pledged delegate lead. Unfairness to the MAX!

    Shall I (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by Evie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    compare thy delegate lead to a summer's day?
    Thou are more misleading and more unrepresentative.
    Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
    And media darling status hath all too short a date.

    My goodness (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    Kudos to our TL bard for that amazing comment.

    The dissenting vote (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    and comments came from Don Fowler, a Clinton supporter, from what I saw in watching the video of the entire meeting.  What is your evidence on that claim?

    As for the rest, stop misstating history -- and stuff the threats.  Or fine, go ahead and destroy the Dem convention and thus the launching of your candidate's campaign.  It will make good tv, since this has become just a spectator sport to me.

    And then no Dem will win, period.  And that will set back the hopes for change, for a future candidate of color.  But don't think long-term or think about the Dems or the country; enjoy the fleeting moment.

    Thanks for injecting (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:10:05 PM EST
    race into it.  Typical.  It has nothing to do with Obama being black, and it has everything to do with the fact that many on this site don't want to see the Dem party shoot itself in the foot and lose the WH in Nov, when it should have been an easy win.


    Jeralyn, you've made excellent arguments (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Anne on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    for both the end of the caucus system and for the superdelegates to do the thinking that their position was meant to require; unfortunately, it seems like the Obama campaign has - with the able assist of the media and a few of the blogs - been allowed to set the parameters and metrics in whatever way they need to in order for Obama to prevail.

    The short-sightedness of their thinking is massive, in my opinion, because all it does is take them over the line from candidate to nominee, and pays no attention to Obama's ability to prevail in the last leg of this marathon.  

    I wish I could say that I have some confidence  - any confidence? - that superdelegates will spend even one-tenth of the time and brain power that you - and others - have expended on this subject, but I have not seen much indication that I have any reason to.  I think the DNC is going to make a half-assed decision on Saturday, the pressure will be on the still-uncommitted SD's, and I'm guessing that Obama will roll out the rest of the SD's he needs just in time to obscure what I think will be a big win in Puerto Rico for Clinton.

    I am as depressed about how all of this has transpired - and where I think it will end up - as I am about the constant disappointment the Congressional Democrats have been.  While I will be very pleased to be proved wrong on any of this, I have begun to shut down a little, back away and view all of this as beyond my control, and therefore in the realm of "things I can let go of to keep from going insane."

    If you can get this and your other posts on this subject into the hands of all of the superdelegates, that would be a good thing, although I would probably not bother putting Donna Brazile on the distribution list.  

    Honesty (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by samanthasmom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    would be choosing a name for yourself that wasn't deceptive.

    You mean the old women, (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Kathy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    Jews, Hispanics, and working class folk who are supporting Clinton?

    the most reliable and loyal of all democratic constituencies

    By percentages (2.00 / 4) (#135)
    by MKS on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    African American voters are the most loyal.  They vote for Democrats upwards of 90%.  That is just a wildly unrealistic number.  To get 90% of any group to agree is virtually unheard of.

    Obama, as others here have noted, has jumped through every hoop demanded of him.  He played by the rules.  All the candidates knew the score on Florida and Michigan when this race started.  The stripping away of the delegates was in part the brainchild of Harold Ickes, Hillary's own campaign strategist--it was not some secret plot hatched by Obama supporters.  He played the hand that was dealt him.

    Now that he has run the course and won the most pledged delegates, Hillary supporters want to overturn that result because of current polling data in head-to-head trial heats with McCain.  No matter that the Republicans have been praising Hillary for weeks and blasting Obama for weeks.  Yes, the Republicans would really continue to praise Hillary in a general election matchup with McCain....Chuck Todd said last night that her poll numbers are artificially inflated due in part to Obama's not having run anything against her in three weeks....Based on poll numbers, you want to take away the nomination from the first African American Presidential candidate with a real chance to win?

    The polls that say that African Americans would vote for Hillary have been conducted in the context of Obama having been presumed the winner, and being charitable to Hillary comes without cost.  Take this nomination away from Obama, and the polling would look much different.

    One must also consider the argument of Hillary herself about her strength among "hard working white Americans."  Even her staunch supporter Charlie Rangel said that was the "dumbest thing he ever heard."  The current Newsweek article shows that many of the recent pro-Hillary voters have scored high in racial resentment....Taking this nomination away from Obama to run a candidate that runs better among this category of voters will look racially motivated regardless of the benign intent involved.

    Take this away from Obama, and kiss getting 90% of the African American vote goodbye.  Many African Americans are quite conservative socially and do not favor abortion or gay rights.  At some point, African Americans could easily start to vote in greater numbers for Republicans.   A 60-40% split, akin to the Latino vote, would seem perfectly reasonable. The only reason Democrats get 90% of the African American vote is out of sheer loyalty.  That would be gone.



    sounds like (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:17:51 PM EST
    they are more loyal to obama than they are to the party.

    You earned a 1 with a lot of work (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    putting together one of the longer, larger piles of untruths and misinterpretations I've ever seen here.

    did the rules state - (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    it was OK for Obama to conspire with other candidates to take their names off the MI ballot for the purpose of making Hillary look bad in Iowa?
    Of course not! but cons are known for these type maneuvers.
    Obama's deceitful and untrustworthy character is a major reason my Dem family won't vote for him.

    so you would rather have 90% AA support (none / 0) (#182)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:49:42 PM EST
    while losing every other group and lose the election?



    No, it is about (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    not snubbing an African American candidate who has won a majority of pledged delegates because he supposedly has a problem with low income white voters.  You can't take it from him based on that....

    If Hillary were ahead in pledged delegates, she should be the nominee....


    You don't win the nomination (none / 0) (#195)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:59:37 PM EST
    with a majority of delegates

    It requires 2210 combined elected and super delegates


    Ban him (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    Sorry, but the racism of that post is too much.
    It's not about Obama being black.

    Why is it not just as deeply (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    heinous to take the nomination out of the hands of the first serious female candidate?

    Especially when she is clearly more electable, is peaking at the right time and is a superior candidate in the eyes of at least half the party?


    You would have a point (2.00 / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:06:21 PM EST
    if Hillary were ahead in pledged delegates and the superdelegates decided to take it away from her because she was not polling well with male voters in current general election polling.

    Heh! (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Daryl24 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    I thought it was just me.

    Yes it is. You are totally out of bounds. (none / 0) (#114)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    You're wrong (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by SarahinCA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    BTD and many posters here have been talking about the supreme unfairness of caucuses long before Super Tuesday.  For you to think that just because we are Hillary supporters means we have no independent thought regarding the scam that is a caucus is beyond insulting.

    why is a non-vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by SarahinCA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    a vote for McCain?  I don't think Obama represents my democratic values, anyway, so whether or not I hold animosity toward him really matters little in how I feel about his "policies."

    I won't vote for him (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    because I believe he's a neo-liberal and I intensely dislike neo-liberalism as much as I do neo-conservatism. Different sides of the same coin.

    What you describe is a process corrupted by (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Salt on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    its own rulz that will never turn out a candidate we as a country can gather around, no no it must be a Dem is not a rationale to vote for someone you believe is totally unqualified for the position who would be co enabled by a Congress of the same Party. The republicans made this mistake and look what happened as a result.... I am really still amazed at the comments here today, could it possibly be that Democrats honestly believe the Country will still support an Obama candidacy IMO that's no even an possibly anymore for exactly the same reason outlined in this report, he never had the support of most of the Base, and Independents like myself have walked at the sheer incompetence on display by Party Leadership and Process..

    It should be a secret ballot (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Sunshine on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    The superdelegates are so afraid of making the blacks in their district mad that they will not vote for anybody but Obama if it is not secret...  That is why the women need to boycott the presidential vote if they nominate Obama...  Maybe if women had as much power as the AA's, they would treat Hillary better...  The next best thing if we keep getting treated this way is to stop voting for men the same as they won't vote for women, just go down the ballot and pick out the women names, maybe they will understand if enough women did this to make a difference....

    secret ballot (none / 0) (#163)
    by tedsim on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    What a great idea,and I am a male.

    If anyone's interested, (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by WillBFair on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:26:16 PM EST
    I wrote to support@lobbydeletgates.com. Everyone should do this. Here's what I said:

    Dear Super Delegate,
    I think popular vote is more important that delegate count. And qualifications and governing record should weigh most heavily on whom you support.
    Barac Obama has almost no governing experience and less understanding of policy issues. Throughout the campaign, he seldom rose about empty rhetoric and only recited liberal cliches that will do nothing to solve current problems.
    By contrast, the Clintons are the greatest policy experts of our time.
    Hillary Clinton played a major role in formulating the national legislative agenda of the Clinton administration: which reversed damages of three republican administrations, turned deficit into surplus, created a massive economic boom, and improved nearly every statistic in the book.
    Considering the serious problems we face, the Clinton's vast knowledge and flawless reasoning are needed now more than ever.  
    For all these reasons, I urge you to vote for Hillary Clinton in your role of Super Delegate.

    Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by tedsim on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM EST
    One of ob superdelegates defected to Hillary today.The dam is about to break!!!

    SDs CAN Change Their Minds (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:47:41 PM EST
    What's really funny is he was originally a Clinton delegate who switched to Obama and is now switching back.

    Who is that super delegate? (none / 0) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    Personal note from the author (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by pcronin on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    Yesterday, Jeralyn published my research report on a comparison of primaries and caucuses. "Caucuses vs. Primaries : A Report"  
    I hope it is acceptable to add a personal note about why I undertook this research with such a fervor.

    My passion about this caucus info is because I've had a disability for 40+years... since a car accident when I was 12 in 1965. I was a kid then and out of school for 2 years because back then *nothing* was accessible. No curb cuts. No ramps. No accessible buses or school buses. No accessible school. For two years, I was isolated and "home bound" / "wheelchair bound" ... (that's where that old terminology comes from). So, I know what's it's like to be locked-out of the mainstream ... out of full participation in what others simply take for granted.

    I know that's its "politically incorrect" and increasingly politically-charged to liken any situations with the trials and mistreatment of African Americans in the US. However, Jesse Jackson Sr. had the wisdom in founding the Rainbow Coalition to understand that when one in any minority is left out through discrimination of any kind, then all are left out and the whole of society & humanity is weakened. I too believe that in my whole heart.

    So, I will point out that there are relevant parallels between minority groups and our struggles and desire for full civil liberties and equal rights. For example, in the 1950s, Rosa Parks was treated as inferior by being told to go the back of the bus ... and nearly 40 years later in the early 1990s, people with disabilities still couldn't even get on a bus.

    The former was addressed by peaceful activism, determined solidarity and by the Civil Rights Act and the latter was addressed through activism and the ADA.

    I will never know the horror of being a slave... or even anything remotely close. But, I know what its like to not get on an inaccessible bus, not attend an inaccessible school, not get a job for which I was highly qualified because my physical disability could not be disguised and mindless, stereotypes and overt job discrimination dismissed my validity. I know what its like to be locked-out and treated as an inferior citizen and person. Its one reason I started my own company.

    So, to me, research and this journey is personal.  Because just like the Jim Crow laws used to suppress the African American vote were morally dead wrong, so too are the caucus regulations & restrictions - with no accessibility enforcement or legal remedies and no alternatives like absentee ballots - which just as surely bar people with disabilities from voting [as well as suppressing the votes of millions more]. Awareness, mass activism and the Voting Rights Act addressed the Jim Crow voting injustices - where is the outcry against this horrible, massive voter discrimination now? Why should one be less that the other?

    Even after several months of researching and writing, honest to God, I still shake my head in disbelief. How in ever-lovin hell can this still be happening in 2008 America? How could we collectively and consciously have missed this gross injustice and discrimination for so long?  How can the rights of a Political Party continue to trump the fundamental individual liberty to vote freely - free and equal access to the ballot?  

    I don't care if I come under fire for challenging the caucus system and its IMO fraudulent distorted results... or if am called a racist for making these parallels to the insidious discrimination against mainly black citizens to stop or diminish their vote -- their voice ... or for forwarding this argument, because there is precedence in how to resolve this problem. It is through awareness of the problem, activism to fight against it and legal recourse to stop it.

    And, my goal is to expose the injustices and flawed nature of this caucus system and its distortion effect on democratic elections ... to drag this unnoticed & undiscussed damnable white elephant out of the shadows and fully expose it!  

    If my research can awaken the public to this injustice AND show the distortion effect on Democratic elections, then maybe with that twofold impact ... just maybe ... things will change. If that happens, then imagine the good that will come from this. So, after fighting for rights all my life this is personal ... its become bloody personal!
     -- peniel cronin

    Thank you many times over (none / 0) (#199)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:09:27 PM EST
    for your great research.  I have learned more this election cycle than I thought possible about the unfairness of caucuses.  After this year, I hope the process can be reformed to be more equitable to everyone.

    Authorship (none / 0) (#200)
    by john norris on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    Dear Peter,

    With all due respect to your terrific work, I nonetheless feel compelled to bring to your attention the fact that I, not you, am the author of the report referenced within this thread.

    Certainly it was an unintentional mistake on your behalf to claim otherwise.

    Best Regards,

    John Norris


    The System hasn't run amok. (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by marqpdx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST
    The system hasn't run amok. Hence, no need for SD's to do much different than they are doing now.

    There has been a huge number of votes, caucuses, polls, debates. It's been great democracy. There's perhaps been some sexism, racism, ageism. That's our society. Nothing new or surprising there. What is amazing is how well it works. People are voting in droves, paying tons of attention to the elections, following the news. This is democracy in action!! We should be proud.

    Hillary supporters are losing the election. That's the bottom line. Can't lean on FL/MI b/c all candidates agreed to ignore their results; someone screwed up in those states, and should be brought to account. The goal of the primaries is a majority of delegates, period. Obama is winning that score, and that's the only one that matters. That was the agreed upon (by all candidates) method of deciding the Democratic nominee.

    This is not an election run amok. It is one that has been run by rules, with openness and accountability. It's something we should be proud of.

    Hillary has campaigned hard, but did not win enough delegates. Period. Game's almost over and the scores too high for her to overcome.


    It's patently absurd to declare oneself the winner (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    ... merely from being ahead.

    The goal of the primaries is a majority of delegates, period. Obama is winning that score, and that's the only one that matters

    Obama doesn't have the majority of delegates.

    His campaign spin doctors' repeated claims aren't borne out by the record, and rumors of in-the-pocket delegates forthcoming, no matter how emphatic, don't constitute an official win.

    Let's see their public statements and an official count, and a formal declaration from the DNC that Obama is the Democratic nominee for President.


    The maths... (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by marqpdx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    He doesn't have the majority of delegates now, but the daily trickle of SD's, the lack of reason for them to overturn the results of the democracy we have all witnessed the last six months, the lack of a big Hillary win coming up (no SD cares about PR) are all reasons that it's over.

    It sucks to lose, and Hillary's done an amazing job, but she won't be our country's Democratic nominee. The facts on the ground are too loud.


    The supers (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    were expressly created to overturn the delegate count if need be. Why should they act differently than how they were created to act?

    What would be the point of having them if they are just to parrot the pledged delegate count?


    Huevos (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by marqpdx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:11:12 PM EST
    To overturn the candidate with the most pledged delegates and to piss of AA's and Coastal Lefties would require a huge boldness most SD's don't have. If they make that move and lose, their careers are over, b/c they will have tried a Coup against the next president of the US (possibly) and that's not a good idea.

    The momentum is all against the SD's turning over the will of the people who caused Obama to have the delegate lead.


    Hate to say it (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by blogtopus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    But AA's and Coastal Lefties aren't as 'on the fence' as the midwesterners and 'bitter folks' that Obama has managed to piss off and alienate.

    If Hillary were to be declared the winner we would lose no solid dem states and gain several more swing states. Not so much for Obama if he were declared the winner.

    AA's and Coastal Lefties are actually both more and less of a core than you imagine. More, in that they are less fickle than you imagine. Less in that they are a smaller proportion than you imagine (should they decide to bolt for McCain, right?)

    Thank you for playing, come again.


    Particularly (none / 0) (#140)
    by Daryl24 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    since roughly 8 out of 10 of his supporters said they would vote for her if she got the nomination.

    I thought the post from BTD on AA feelings toward Hillary in Mississippi summed it up. They love her. It was nothing personal. See you in November.

    And if Obama gets the nod, then almost 60% of the AA want her on the ticket. Not bad at all.



    I Hope That's True (none / 0) (#164)
    by daring grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:44:30 PM EST
    Since I want a Dem in the White House come 2009, and will vote for her if she's the nominee.

    I think the question will be if Obama supporters see a Clinton win as legitimate or if they see it as something being stolen from him.

    At this point, whatever way it goes, it's going to take some masterful healing on both sides. I'm trying to keep faith that's do-able.


    Perhaps they feel no reason to. (2.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Y Knot on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Electability arguments fall flat because, ultimately, they're meaningless.  Kerry won the nomination because he was "electable."  Look where that got us.

    We've got six months until the election.  Basing your vote soley on what some polls say in May, just isn't rational.  If the SDs are going to flip, they need something more.  That might not be what some people want to hear, but it's the truth.  Right now, Obama has the momentum.  Clinton needs to change that if she wants to win.

    And yes, the front runner often declares victory early.  Heck, Clinton did it in '92.


    Actually Hillary has the momentum. (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Obama lost it in March.
    This race is really unprecedented. Obama got under 10% in some counties of KY---as if he were  a fringe candidate. Hillary's got the momentum with the voters. If the SD's consider this, they should go with Hillary.

    What? (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by katiebird on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:15:33 PM EST
    It sucks to lose, and Hillary's done an amazing job, but she won't be our country's Democratic nominee. The facts on the ground are too loud.

    What facts on the ground?

    This morning, our local (Kansas City) Public Radio station reported on a new Rassmussen Poll (which I couldn't find online this morning) of Kansas matchups of McCain against Hillary and Obama.  

    Obama's popularity here has (apparently) plummeted.  Enough that the reporter is wondering if The Governor will change her mind.  

    Political Science professors were split about the impact one from K-State thought it was a significant down-turn.  The one from KU thought everyone would come home to the Democrat in the fall.

    That's how things are "on the ground" in Kansas.

    The fact is -- no one is legally bound to either candidate.  And buyers remorse could go either way by August.

    I happen to think that if the convention hadn't been moved to the end of August that Obama would win in a squeaker.  As it is, I think Hillary will pull it off.

    Obama's sinking. And ultimately the Democrats will decide they want to win.  (as you say, it sucks to lose.)


    Kansas Dems will come home in the fall? (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:15:42 PM EST
    All 10 of them?

    Facts on the Ground (1.00 / 0) (#153)
    by marqpdx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    Most telling fact is # of pledged delegates. By all measures, Obama is a few dozen SD's away from an outright majority.

    It's like a basketball game, up 20 points in the first quarter is big, but overcomeable. Up 20 points with 3 minutes to go, and Obama's going to win, barring total meltdown.

    Today's polls are like shooting % in basketball. Nice to chat about, but the final score is ALL that matters.


    Super Delegate pledges don't mean much (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by katiebird on Wed May 28, 2008 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    Until the convention. We've still got to get through The Summer of Revelations.

    PS (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by marqpdx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM EST
    It actually makes all the sense in the world to declare yourself the winner as soon as possible. It gets the zeitgeist shifting in your direction, gets fence-sitters to start coming your way, gets big donors to start thinking of you first, b/c you're the winner. Happens all the time. Good to fight till the end, but winning is perception on one hand, and the most delegates on the other, and Obama has both.

    When is Obama's victory speech? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
    I hope it's today.

    Maybe, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    but what good does it do if it ticks people off and loses the GE.  Not so smart in that case.

    HAH! I think Oprah told him to do that (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:49:02 PM EST
    and utilize "The "Secret" (Law of Attraction). She says it always works for her :)

    Hey, it worked for Bush! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by mogal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    Remember the air force one jacket?

    ...but only if you do it the CORRECT way... (2.33 / 3) (#10)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    You know...all this hub-bub reminds me of that South Park episode last PrezElection time in 2004.

    Kyle spends all this time trying to get Stan to vote, and Stan finally does...but he votes for the opposing candidate. Stan says "I thought you wanted me to vote!" Kyle says "Yeah...but for MY candidate!"

    That's exactly what this is like now. It was HILLARY who said "Super Delegates should be able to follow the dictates of their own conscience." It was HILLARY who said "They aren't PLEDGED delegates, they can switch over at any time between now and August."

    And sadly (for her) Supers have been "voting their conscience"...by going to Obama. And pledged delegates have been switching....by and large to Obama.

    I guess Hillary meant to have added "...as long as you change over TO ME."

    Honestly, there IS some realpolitik involved. If you take the guy who has the lead in pledged delegates, the lead in contests won, in states won, etc etc, and then turn around and GIVE it to the woman who has fallen behind in all of these metrics, you will have destroyed the party for years to come.

    But then again, The Clintons and the DLC have alwyas cared about themselves first and foremost.

    Again, it's not that we're upset (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    because of the perceived view that "our candidate is not winning." It is that, in our view, and apparently there are many of us, Sen. Clinton is far more qualified as a candidate (not a woman) to win the w.h. in Nov. Sen. Obama is bleeding and they keep plugging the holes. There are many holes..count the votes, all the votes, fairly!!!

    Oh stop it with the DLC. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:34 AM EST

    Supers haven't voted yet.  They can always change their mind.  This report argues a good case for Hillary.


    Obama's Primary Campaign And Positions (4.40 / 5) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    like putting SS, considering Hagel for VP, a foreign policy like Reagan, Republicans for Sec. of Defense and State, Republicans better ideas on government regulations, abstinence only sex education,  on the table are beginning to make the DLC look like a far left organization in comparison.

    contests won? (none / 0) (#70)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:16:38 PM EST
    It's bad enough you are using the metric of number of "states" won which has never meant anything.  And, Obama supporters like to throw that one in there like it does mean something.  But, now you are actually double counting that metric by adding contests won to it.

    What are these contests won that you are talking about?  Did they throw in some pie eating contests this year along with the primaries and caucuses?  Did the media forget to report the results of these pie eating contests?  How do you know who won most of these "contests".

    You can win 9 states ID, MT, ND, WY, SD, NE, UT, KS and AK and come up with 35 electoral votes
    Or win 1 state like CA and get 55 electoral votes.

    I'd much rather win the one than the 9.  Most states won doesn't mean anything.  You have delegates and popular vote.


    Since delegates are allocated by district (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by cymro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM EST
    ... each district is can be considered a separate contest. Maybe we should start counting the number of districts won?

    No duh (1.00 / 0) (#157)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:29:12 PM EST
    It's bad enough you are using the metric of number of "states" won which has never meant anything.

    Kind of like the popular vote metric, hmmmmmm?


    No duh? (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    Are you 12 or younger?  hmmmmmmm

    I can't understand this constant appeal to SD's (1.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    When they have consistently rejected Clinton's campaign. Again, Obama is now 40 up after being more than 100 down. Do people need to be hit over the head? The SD's don't want Clinton. Nothing is going to change that. Yeah, they are there to act as a brakes, and they've applied those brakes to Hillary's campaign.

    Maybe she's not tall enough (none / 0) (#178)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    to get their attention.  I'm still laughing at that pile of crap from the other night.  :-)

    So a 5' 5" Obama would be the (none / 0) (#193)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    dem nominee this year? Is that your contention?

    The outrage was there..in Tx and elsewhere (none / 0) (#20)
    by zfran on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:15 AM EST

    Profiles in Courage (none / 0) (#22)
    by cygnus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:57 AM EST
    will not be found in the ranks of the superdelegates.  There's no upside for them in supporting Clinton.  If she beats McCain, she'll get the credit.  If she loses, they'll get the blame. Either way, what's certain is that they'll be in hot water with the media and Obama Nation. They'll never take that risk.  

    What (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    is the reward for backing a known loser like Obama? That I don't get.

    Answer (none / 0) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:53:26 PM EST

    Obama is a fantastic fundraiser.


    So they say (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    but that is certainly not translating to the DNC at the moment.

    How much of a shortfall are they facing for the convention?


    who cares...once he loses, the money and the (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    people are gone.

    But his burn rate cancels out his fund raising (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    Really, 2-3-4 times the burn and barely budge his standing with voters has to have his supporters taking a harder look at what he brings to the Dems.

    If it's costing this much just to tread in place, what's it going to cost to press ahead against a serious opposition?


    Money, and also (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    campaigning with the rock star.  

    Exactly (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    Unless the media comes around to at least presenting her side fairly, the SDs will never have the nerve.  

    Agreed (none / 0) (#78)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    They'd rather support someone who, given that he's been losing the race ever since March, would be a lame duck from day one, if by some miracle he happened to win the GE.  Too much like Carter.

    I hope (none / 0) (#23)
    by Punchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:36:35 AM EST
    the superdelegates would recognize the error and switch over to the proper candidate.  Before this gets completely out of hand.

    Jeralyn ... minor typo ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    I think you meant "clinch" not "clench" the nomination.

    Though I think Obama is trying to "clench" the nomination before it's his.

    It's in this section:

    The nominee must win a majority of all delegates to clench the nomination, not just the pledged delegates. Super delegates comprise about 20% of the total number of delegates.

    Yes but (none / 0) (#40)
    by Foxx on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    the problem is the superdelegates are mostly moving towards Obama. I saw a report yesterday that several dozen are expected to announce after June 3. And we know many undeclared who are pro-Obama.

    Since Hillary is obviously the much better candidate and the far more electable candidate, the question is WHY?

    For a number of them, especially the elected ones, the answer may be MONEY. Obama is supporting them financially, and the party as well. That means they are putting personal interests above the good of the country. Surprise.

    So then the question becomes, where does his money really come from and when and why? If both candidates follow their stated policies, Hillary will actually make major changes (healthcare, regulate gas and oil, guantanamo, transparent government, etc, etc) while Obama will hem and haw. Maybe that's why.

    I recall an early article from a San Francisco alternative paper saying that the republicans funded Obama at the beginning. Anyone know anymore about that?

    Another factor is, it seems like some party leaders, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. have been planning this for several years. They seem to be really opposed to both Clintons. Carter does too. Why? CAn it really be as petty as it looks?

    But (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    the problem is the superdelegates are mostly moving towards Obama. I saw a report yesterday that several dozen are expected to announce after June 3. And we know many undeclared who are pro-Obama.

    I don't think we know anything. We only know what the Obama camp wants us to think. there has been evidence that supers are waiting to endorse for a reason.

    They can also change their minds right up until the convention. Technically no one has anything wraped up until and unless Hillary drops out and releases her delegates or they vote at the convention.


    What is the process of a floor fight (none / 0) (#62)
    by katiebird on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    for the nomination itself?

    We've never had such a close nomination season.  

    I remember role call votes (especially 1968 & 1972) but I don't remember the details of the rules.

    Is a simple majority enough if it comes to the floor?

    Works like this (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Llelldorin on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    The states are polled, and the votes tallied. Pledged delegates are just that--on the first ballot, they support their candidate. Superdelegates vote as they see fit. After the first ballot, if no candidate gets a majority, everyone votes as they see fit, and the Democratic convention turns into a caucus writ large. Everyone runs around between ballots trying to cut deals.

    Since we've only got two viable candidates left, an extended floor fight isn't likely. (Things would be much more complicated if, say, Edwards, Obama, and Clinton all had around 33% of delegates.)  Someone will get the nomination on the first ballot.

    The question is how the party patches itself back together afterwards. I am a bit concerned that neither side seems to feel that gluing the party back together afterwards is an important step--if enough Democrats stay furious and don't support the winner, we're sunk.

    I'm in the CA Bay Area, for example. If Clinton wins and can't get back the Obama supporters, you could lose the state by only winning in LA and in San Mateo counties. (Alameda and SF counties will see a lot of defections to Green.) If Obama wins, we lose again, because a mountain of support in Alameda and SF counties can't offset an anemic Los Angeles turnout. It would help if we'd stop insulting each other for a bit.


    How would a fight over FL & MI (none / 0) (#142)
    by ruffian on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    work?  Rachel Maddow keeps sying Hillary will take that to the convention.  How does that work?

    The convention IS the rules (none / 0) (#155)
    by Llelldorin on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    To the best of my (limited!) understanding:

    The National Democratic Convention is the body that sets the rules the DNC enforces.

    In particular, the convention can overrule decisions made by the DNC committee, and seat the MI and FL delegations as they see fit. The danger there is that it's the seated delegates that vote, so if Obama has the lead at that point, he'll also control more of the votes on who gets seated.

    If Clinton gets enough superdelegates to have more than 2,025, there's no real issue here—the convention votes to seat the delegations as-is, and nominates Clinton. If Obama gets a big enough majority of the superdelegates so that MI and FL don't matter, there's also no issue—he gets to be magnanimous in victory, the convention votes to overrule the DNC (if they strip the MI and FL delegates), and Obama goes on to be nominated.

    The real danger is if Obama gets something like 2,030 delegates to Clinton's 2,021. At that point, a floor fight is nuclear war: if Obama fights it, angry Clinton delegates walk out, Obama becomes the nominee, and we wind up with two Democratic parties and go down in flames in the fall. If a few superdelegates switch sides and instead seat the delegates, Obama delegates walk out and claim Clinton stole the nomination, and again, we get destroyed in November. Since the superdelegates aren't idiots (we hope), if we're in that situation we'll see crazy back-room politicking to try to negotiate something before we all go down in flames.


    I don't know the details, but ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by cymro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    ... you can probably find them in here.

    The convention is analogous to the supreme court in the judicial system (see Article 2 section 2). Earlier decisions of the "lower courts" (in this case, the DNC and the various party committees) can be challenged when the convention is in session, in which case the convention votes on that issue.

    Someone may wish to refine this very general picture by supplying a more precise explanation.


    "even if she steals it" (none / 0) (#120)
    by DFLer on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:20:33 PM EST
    nuff said

    continued (none / 0) (#122)
    by DFLer on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    nuff said...your position is clear, and nothing said about the process re or SDs or dnc method of apportioning delegates etc. will ever penetrate...stealing is in the eyes of the beholder.

    Jeralyn, one claim you repeat is incorrect (none / 0) (#132)
    by cymro on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:50:53 PM EST
    On slide 6 the report claims that:

    The Primary-only pledged delegate spread is less than 1/10th of one percent.

    This claim, which you repeat, is mathematically incorrect, as follows:

    As shown on that slide, without FL and MI, the total delegate total is 1353+1373, or 2726. With FL and MI, the total is 1466+1447, or 2913. The delegate spreads in these two cases are 20 and 19 respectively.

    Now, one percent is one hundredth, so:
    -- one percent of 2726 is 27.27, and one percent of 2913 is 29.13
    -- one tenth of one percent is 2.727, or 2.913 respectively

    So in each case, the spreads are less than one percent. They are certainly NOT less than one tenth of one percent.

    LOL!! (none / 0) (#181)
    by jen on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM EST
    You think Hillary has been "attacking" Obama? Oh, my. If he's the nominee, you ain't seen nothing yet!  

    Thank you, Jeralyn--another great resource n/t (none / 0) (#186)
    by kempis on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:17:09 PM EST

    Yes, hold your nose, you Great Man (none / 0) (#189)
    by katana on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
    I'd hold my nose and vote for her if she steals it.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    A man so large-souled he'd vote for a thief.  

    I won't speak for anybody else, but for some reason--call me insensitive, call me ignorant, call me one of those Clinton bitter-enders--I can't work up any gratitude for your gracious offer.  (Not that I actually believe you'd follow through on it.)

    Nontheless, I'm sure others here will rush to applaud your tolerance.  After all, whenever you grace us with your presence, you demonstrate that tolerance--often going so far as to speak on behalf of the African-American community.  

    May I ask if you volunteered for that duty, or was it thrust upon you?  If the former, keep in mind that this blog suffers no shortage of African-Americans who can speak very well for themselves and might find your pugnacious, holier-than-thou advocacy a wee bit condescending.  Or ignorant.  Or offensive.  Or all of the above.  

    Please (none / 0) (#190)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:42:11 PM EST
    It would be much appreciated if you stopped using phrases such as "kneecaps".  It's ridiculous and perpetuates a disturbing untruth.  I'm so sick of people like you and the media using these types of phrases.  Twisting the knife, kneecaps, piling on, disingenuous.  I'm Over It.  

    And you want to come to sites like this and get us to support, let alone vote for, your candidate you are going to have to do a lot better.  At this point I have always said I would vote for Obama, and while I doubt that will change, your arguments are not helping the case at all.

    Ho boy... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Rictor Rockets on Wed May 28, 2008 at 07:09:04 PM EST
    If anyone chooses to vote or not to vote for someone based on what Little Me sez, then I truly weep for the fate of this great country.

    Frankly, if I'm strident, it's because I'm tired of seeing the heeps and heeps of abuse that Obama and his supporters have had to take for weeks now. It's too easy sometimes to return kind with kind, unfortunately.


    Our candidate? (none / 0) (#191)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:48:01 PM EST
    Please stop linking us with you, it is unpleasant.

    And if you think winning a caucus is indicative of winning the GE then I fear you might have another thing coming.  

    McCain is preferable to you than Obama? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 28, 2008 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    I can't see any ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton claiming McCain is preferabe after this joke (sic)

    "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

    Or this comment. Or this one

    On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.

    It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.

    It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender.

    Or this one

    Or this one

    As a Hillary supporter maybe you should take note  that Hillary herself says Obama is preferable to McCain.

    And yes I will blame any partisan on either side of the Hillary or Obama debate if they do not do their part to see to it that a Democrat is elected- or more accurately help McCain in any way get elected.  Not this time, not this election. It is too important for this nonsense.