Obama Says He Will Be the Nominee Tuesday

Barack Obama said today the nomination for President is effectively his to claim on Tuesday or Wednesday. I heard him say it on CNN, here is the Wall St. Journal:

Is the long Democratic primary finally over? Barack Obama says it will be on Tuesday. When asked by reporters if the general election begins on June 3, Obama gave a one-word answer: “Yes.” When asked if he will be the nominee, he said “I hope so. I believe so.”

So, to Obama, the one plus million voters in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana are irrelevant to the outcome. He perpetuates the myth that the nomination is decided solely on the basis of pledged delegates when the superdelegates can consider pledged delegates merely as one factor, also considering the popular vote totals, electability and the electoral map.

There simply is no requirement that superdelegates vote by the pledged delegate total in their districts or state. Obama may not have 2035 or 2210 (or whatever number in between it turns out to be)in pledged delegates by Tuesday. [More...]

The Michigan and Florida decision on Saturday pertains to delegates. Once they decide to seat any delegates in accordance with the January votes in the state, I think the popular vote totals have to be adjusted to award Hillary the votes she got in both states and Obama the votes he got in Florida. If she ends up on June 3 with the majority of the popular vote, there is nothing that says the pledged delegate total trumps that.

The delegates needed to win the nomination are not the majority of pledged delegates, but the majority of all the delegates.

This race isn't over until he reaches that number or Hillary says he's the winner and suspends her campaign. Until then, there is no nominee

Comments now closed.

< Ricky Martin and Others Call on Puerto Ricans to Vote for Hillary | SUSA MI Poll: More Support For Unity Ticket >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Then why doesn't he tell them to seat (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST
    MI and FL?  I am so confused by the stuff coming out of his campaign and out of his mouth.  I am sorry but I think Obama is a poser.  He has not shown one iota of leadership during this campaign.

    I agree he is a poser (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:34:23 PM EST
    Not only that but I think he is once again trying to game the media and the voters here. He doesn't know what is going to happen on Saturday and he doesn't know what will happen between now and August.

    He can make any claim he wants but he can't control Hillary and he can't control the supers or voters.


    He has secret inside information I bet you (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Saul on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:28:58 PM EST
    He probably has been told exactly what will happen on Saturday.

    I am not convinced the Committee knows what (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bjorn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:30:22 PM EST
    will happen. So I am not sure how he can know. I think he might have the SDs, but why not just wait until the 3rd then?

    If he had the SDs... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:02:34 PM EST
    then why would they have waited this long to hold out for him.

    The Superdelegates are in an extremely powerful position right now. If I were one I would milk this thing as long as I can. Get wined and dined. This is the opportunity they've been waiting for. To actually use the rights they've been given. This is their 15 minutes (or months) of fame.


    He is salivating looking at the big cake (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:34 PM EST
    inside the store window.  But he does not have enough in the beg to go in and get it.  So he is window shopping, day dreaming and salivating, fearing than Hil will get and eat what he thought was his cake.  

    I'll sure open the Champaign when the cake will be given to Hillary in Denver. .

    There no other outcome possible in my mind: we go the Denver and get it there


    Yeah, it's like he's (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:13:33 PM EST
    shopping for something to make him feel good.  He's like those people who are addicted to plastic surgery and such.  He's addicted to campaigning for office, but he has no follow through.

    So Obama (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by talex on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:34:05 PM EST
    thinks he will have the magic number of delegates needed to secure the nomination on Tuesday? How does he think he will do that?

    Without the votes and delegates from enough of Tuesdays primaries, PLUS the votes of enough Supers who cannot vote until the convention there is no way Obama can secure anything.

    he is going to look awful foolish declaring victory if Clinton gets the nod from enough Supers.

    Going to look foolish? (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:45:38 PM EST
    In my book he's been looking foolish since the screaming for Hillary to drop out started prior to TX & OH.

    It is possible (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:50:37 PM EST
    If Clinton blows him out in PR 62/38 that would split the dels about 34/21.  He supposed to win MT and SD, let's say he breaks even and splits those dels, he gets 16.  21+16=37.

    2025 (current artificial goal) - 1979 (per RCP) = 46
    46-37= 9 left.   He could very well have 9 SDs to come.  Seems likely.  I'm sure the media will do all they can to spread his false meme of the pledged delegates.  Expect tingly legs all around (and a lot of nausea from those of us that have to watch it)

    Obama supporters are going to be very confused when it isn't over because Obama says it is.


    Why is this at all controversial? (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by Y Knot on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:55:15 PM EST
    Most candidates, if asked, would say they hope and believe they'll be the winner at the end of the contest.

    I can't imagine Clinton would give a different answer if asked the same question today.

    And anyway, using the current 2025 number, (and no, I don't think he knows what will happen Saturday, but that's where we are right now, 2025)  He's only about 45 delegates away.  At the rate he's getting supers, he can probably predict being in the high 30's/low 40's by the end of the week.  That means he needs less than 50% of the remaining 86 delegates.

    I think that's a reasonable projection of what will happen, but even if not, it's not crazy for him to hope and believe he'll get them.  It's not crazy for Clinton to hope or believe the same.


    He is trying to depress turnout (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by ajain on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:36:30 PM EST
    in the upcoming primaries. Thats all.
    He wants people to know that their votes do not matter. He will be the nominee no matter what.

    I agree (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:15:46 PM EST
    Obama did this before in KY.  Remember!!  I got an urgent email from Clinton campaign as Obama supporters were calling KY voters and informing them they need not vote, it was over.  It is their tactic, their thing - suppress voters, discount voters, millions of them. That is how he could win.  

    And that worked SOO well. (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
    Maybe Hillary can win PR by 40 pts too.

    Didn't he say this last Tuesday? May 20? (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:36:55 PM EST
    Actually no. His campaign announced that he would be saying this on May 20. Then on May 20 they watered it down, he delivered a sort-of victory speech.

    Yep, and now we have to sit through (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:54:24 PM EST
    another one -- well, not me -- I stopped watching and/or muting him since NAFTAgate.

    I stopped last summer after the Pakistan speech. (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:55:13 PM EST
    touche' n/t (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:57:32 PM EST
    Samantha's powers explanation (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:19:18 PM EST
    of "conventional wisdom", which explained Obama's gaffe, should have been the moment when intelligent people recoiled in horror at the thought of making Obama President.

    Do you read corrente (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:34 AM EST
    Lambert has started Obama golf.  They wanted to add rules.  One was 'what is a mulligan'.  I don't have an account there, but an Obama gaffe is a media mulligan.  Sad but true.   It's not that he's teflon, it's that people look away... like someone on here writes... oh look, a shiny penny......

    Obama Golf at Corrente


    Thought Pakistan was merely a gaffe (none / 0) (#152)
    by catfish on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:43:19 PM EST
    he made it into a whole speech? Missed that one.

    and Wes Clark says... (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Josey on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    Hillary will take it to the Convention!  so - there!

    When did Wes say this? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    Do you have a link?

    Clarke was on (none / 0) (#112)
    by MonaL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    Dan Abrams show tonight where he said she may take it to the convention.

    Oh bummer (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:55 PM EST
    I avoid MSNBC like the plague these days. They haven't had Wes Clarke on in what seems like forever because, of course, he's not part of their all-Obama, all-the-time schedule. I'm glad to hear he spoke up.

    I'd be a happy woman if there was a Clinton/Clarke ticket (a girl can dream, right?).


    I hope he did (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:47 PM EST
    I'd love a Clinton/Clarke ticket.

    Clinton/Clarke!! (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:11:03 PM EST
    that's a dream ticket for me.

    I'm very selfish feeling about Clark these days (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:11:05 PM EST
    The military and its resources are a complete and total shambles.  He has to be Sec. of Defense for awhile.  It's all so "F"ed up and we can't afford to have all these different commanders on their own separate page like they usually are trying to straighten this business out and make it into something that works again.

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:18:41 PM EST
    I agree.  You can have him for her Sec. of Defense for a while, but he'll have to help her come up with another good VP choice.

    Clark Retired From The Military In May, 2000 (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:51 PM EST
    and cannot become Sec. of Defense unless Congress legislates to by pass 10 year requirement.

    The Secretary is appointed by the President by and with the approval of the Senate, and is a member of the Cabinet. By statute the secretary must be a civilian who has not served in the active component of the armed forces for at least 10 years (10 U.S.C. § 113 - Note that Congress had passed a law to allow George Marshall to be appointed in 1950 despite having only been a civilian since 1945). The Secretary of Defense is sixth in the presidential line of succession. wikipedia

    Well blow my HIGH! (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    Where else in the cabinet can he sit and dictate to the Pentagon?  I guess Cheney did okay doing that for awhile.

    He can't be... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:25 PM EST
    Last I heard there's some sort of rule against Generals being SecDef...not sure if there's a period of time thing or something else.

    Not so fast on Gen. Clark (none / 0) (#132)
    by wurman on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:23 PM EST
    He has to be retired for 10 years before he can be SecDef or any other Pentagon type post.

    VP is the ticket.

    Then he can advise Pres. Clinton on the best choice for SecDef.


    I think he wants State. (none / 0) (#184)
    by lorelynn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:21 AM EST
    My impression is that he, Bill and Hillary plan on hitting the mid=east with everything they've got and ending the conflicts there. Clark has some decent mojo with Muslims because he went to war on behalf of Balkan Muslims against Christians.

    I think they're gonna find some governor for VP and that person will have tremendous ability to get work done on domestic issues while Clinton and Co straighten out the mid-east.


    But, but (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:43:39 PM EST
    I thought he was already in GE mode -- he even hired a consultant to help him with his VP pick. I'm so confused! /s

    Grrrrrr, I'm so sick of the bull (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:47:49 PM EST
    It's going to convention so get a grip on your nasty ole self Andrea Mitchell.

    He's just so arrogant (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    I guess he figures the more he claims it, the harder it will be for the Supers to take away.

    Can't wait to see how that works for him in Nov.

    HRC like Ted Kennedy (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:48:54 PM EST
    should take this all the way to the convention. Take it to the wire. She should not withdraw in June. The moment that I start to waiver and think that I might be able to pull the lever for Obama in November, he says something as arrogant as this. Just hardens my resolve to have nothing to do with whether or not he is elected if by some misfortune he gets the nomination. When he loses to McCain, Dean, Brazile and the rest of the Democratic hierarchy should be banned from the party not just fired.

    If HRC is going to (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MonaL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:14 PM EST
    succeed, she needs campaign cash. Don't forget to contribute what you can.

    Yes, because (none / 0) (#66)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:09:16 PM EST
    it has worked out so well for us in the past when we've taken our nomination process to the convention.
    I love Teddy, and Reagan probably would have won anyway, but the convention fight in '80 certainly didn't help.
    I know it's fashionable to think Obama the anti-Christ on this blog, but if he's that bad, what does that make a President McCain?

    The thing is (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by phat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    it's fashionable to think that convention fights are dangerous.

    There is plenty of history to think the opposite.

    FDR wasn't nominated until the 4th ballot.

    Carter had plenty of other issues to deal with and even you claim that Kennedy didn't cause Carter's loss.

    There is little evidence to show either way, that a convention fight is bad or good for the eventual nominee.

    That's just conventional wisdom, which is not normally valuable. Pun not intended.


    They are terrible things... (none / 0) (#89)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:19 PM EST
    when the wrong candidate wins.

    what does that make a President McCain? (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:19:08 PM EST

    But Ted K. was 900 delegates behind (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:09 PM EST
    Carter and he still took it to the floor.  Here, this race is so close and many who voted for Obama would not today, post Rev. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Auchi etc.  And 1980 did not have the complication of FL/MI disenfranchisement of millions of voters.    

    Not so much the convention fight in 1980 (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:57 PM EST
    It wasn't so much the fight in 1980, but Teddy's refusal to really throw his support behind Carter after the nomination was decidede. I remember Teddy reusing to shake Carter's hand and Carter pretty much chasing Ted around the stage to get that handshake. I love the Kennedy's as much as anyone does, but Teddy was a very poor loser.

    I didn't hurt FDR (4.25 / 4) (#84)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:42 PM EST
    and considering that HRC is on par with FDR (whereas Obama & Carter are NOT), if she ends up with the nomination then I'd put my eggs in that basket.

    Wow (none / 0) (#117)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:23 PM EST
    Where to begin.  You see HRC on par with FDR already?  And they say us Obama folks are sucked into a cult of personality.
    And as for those that are going to use the FDR-4th ballot nomination as evidence that convention fights don't hurt, you may want to take note of how things went down for us in '68 and '72.  Or how did '76 work out for the R's?

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by phat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST
    There isn't enough evidence to show that the convention fights, aside from '68, were bad for the eventual nominee.

    '76 for the Rs is a specific example. How anyone would think that Ford had any chance from the beginning is a mystery. He wasn't a good candidate and he was suffering from Nixon fatigue.

    And '72 is not a good example, either. McGovern lost the union endorsements and hedged his bets on young people voting.

    No, not enough evidence.

    Find me some numbers that show this and I might agree. I haven't found them and I've been looking.


    HRC as FDR? (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by diogenes on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:09 PM EST
    For crying out loud, she's the JUNIOR senator from New York State.  Her legislative experience consists of eight years of bet-hedging to set herself up to run in 2008.  Her executive experience consists of setting up a horribly organized, dissension-ridden campaign.  Obama at least set up an effective, drama-free campaign organization.  Effective, drama-free executive staffs are not a Clinton strength in the 1990's or now.

    Good campaigns and good candidates (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:43 PM EST
    are different things. Obama's campaign is run on the Bush model: tight message discipline, little variation in the stump speech, avoidance of detail when talk about policy---oh, and code words too.

    Clinton gets stuff done. Obama doesn't. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by lorelynn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:17 AM EST
    After Obama graduates from law school, he has very few accomplishments to his name and virtually none of them benefit anyone besides himself. Clinton, otoh, whether she is in or out of office, first lady or no, is putting together projects that serve other people.

    I, too, expect that she has a chance of giving FDR a run for his money, and god knows, we need a great president now.

    But it ain't gonna be Obama. He has an absolutely mediocre career as a legislator, and as a civil rights attorney, he could not find a single civil rights case in Chicago to champion in his own name. He never lead any cases. Nor did he tackle any social service projects outside of his law office. Obama is, by far, the least accomplished candidate to make it to the final tier of the primary in modern history. I'm expecting that if he should win, that he will be the worst Democratic president since Buchanan - and for similar reasons as well.

    Hopefully, Hillary will win and she'll pick him as her VP. He'll have eight years of having the Clintons' bust his chops to get stuff done (just like they've put Bush Sr. to work) and when she's out of office, he'll actually be ready to do something.


    And I repeat (none / 0) (#144)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:33 PM EST
    in case I didn't make myself clear the first time -- it didn't hurt FDR -- you can ramble on and on about '68 & '72 yadda yadda yadda and it doesn't matter to me because the fact is that not only is Hillary Clinton the best candidate in this election season, she is the best candidate to ever run in my lifetime. So yeah, I'm putting her on par with FDR.

    Obama (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:49:56 PM EST
    buys his own copy.  The man is out of touch even with himself.  These kinds of statements WREAK of elitism and entitlement.

    So g'head Obama.  U do that.  And you can just as sure as hell know that Hillary will come and school you so quick you won't know what hit you.

    Anyone up for sending Hillary some (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:50:48 PM EST
    green love? They're doing a match and Sat is the last day of the month. Let's help her fund raising go up. Would be funny if his is continuing to decline . . .   ;)

    I'm in! (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    Did it (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:05:06 PM EST
    this morning!

    My apologies... (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by MonaL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    I didn't see your post before I posted above, but have and will.

    Thankfully or regrettably, site rules prohibit (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by magnetics on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:51:59 PM EST
    the frank expression of my sentiments.

    click on my info (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:58:03 PM EST
    and go to my blog.  you can say whatever you want there.  not for the faint of heart or the meek in spirit.

    (shameless plug doncha know)


    Are you the guy who posted the stuff (none / 0) (#190)
    by magnetics on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:14 AM EST
    about how the Tejano elders might rip the DNC a new one?  Awesome stuff, and I hope you're right!

    geez.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:52:26 PM EST
    is anyone else feeling pre-nostalgia for the primary campaign yet?

    I mean, no more primaries to look forward to, and speculate endlessly about?  

    Are we going to have to talk about legal stuff here all the time like in the old days?   What fun is that? ;-)

    I'm feeling an impending sense of doom (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
    In other words, no change since February.

    You and me both (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:12 PM EST
    I was so stressed out by this whole thing that I wound up with tightness in my chest yesterday afternoon. I swear to God/dess, I am not going to make it till August at this rate.

    It isn't worth getting that stressed about (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:05:55 PM EST
    I don't want anyone getting to that point about this stuff.  This stuff is important yes, but it isn't worth having a health crisis over.  I don't do that to myself anymore about any of this.  Remember to live as well as you can while all this bull is going down.

    I'm doing my best (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    but seriously, it's been hard. I've become a complete pariah socially as all my friends are in the tank and in the tank hard for BO. My family is the opposite but they're so angry about what's going on that it's sort of non-stop hatefest around here.

    I thought 2000 was depressing and upsetting enough but this takes the cake.

    Thank goodness I have enough xanax to keep going for the next 6 months.


    My Obot friends.... (5.00 / 7) (#83)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:14:39 PM EST
    I just keep asking them to make a positive case for Obama, and they can't.  Then they get mad.

    The nice thing about Obama is that its something that my right-wing brother-in-law and I can finally agree on.  


    I ask and I get (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:18:10 PM EST
    told to read his website, read his bio or listen to the book on tape for inspiration. Anything that has to do with facts is just beyond them. Plus a number of them had the Hillary-Hate before all this started so I think they'd have backed a sack of raw potatoes over her anyway.

    It is sad when the only people you can relate to are fellow HRC supporters or Republicans!


    Every time I ask (none / 0) (#130)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:59 PM EST
    an Obama supporter to win my vote, they go all Hillary Hate. Sorry, that will not do it. Obama has to ask me for my vote and convince me that he has better ideas for turning this country around than HRC. Otherwise, he is no better than McCain and I won't vote for either. This is going to be a long hot Summer and Autumn.

    I understand your disappointment (none / 0) (#202)
    by mbuchel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:02 AM EST
    about not getting your candidate, but Obama thhe same as McSame?
    The war?
    Health Care?
    Climate Change?
    Social Security?
    Civil Rights?

    First, it ain't over til its over (none / 0) (#213)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:22:41 AM EST
    so my candidate still has a shot. Second, calling McCain "McSame" is a loser meme -- everyone on planet earth knows he isn't GWB, so if your guy does get the nomination I suggest y'all come up with a better talking point.

    We are all angsty. (none / 0) (#102)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:20:54 PM EST
    Here. I've been collecting inspiring thoughts lately to counter the doom and gloom, and these are certainly appropriate words to remember:

    Bah. (none / 0) (#108)
    by befuddled on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:51 PM EST
    Hang in, and for the love of Pete (none / 0) (#193)
    by magnetics on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:39 AM EST
    don't get sick over it!

    sage counsel (none / 0) (#208)
    by proudliberaldem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:16:59 AM EST
    thank you.  will try to remember your wise words. but like so many others here i just feel awful about all this.  

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by phat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:57 PM EST
    I'm sure you and I will have some interesting analysis to discuss all the way to November. I suppose that may not belong here, so it'll happen at Corrente, as long as you keep posting your stuff and as long as I actually get around to putting together the information I'll have.

    I have to admit, I do miss some of the legal discussions here. At the same time, though, this spot has been a very good place for people who don't have the opportunity to discuss the election from a specific angle anywhere else, at least not without the abuse. I have my wife, a couple of close friends and a couple of blogs that aren't around the bend. Oh, and my in-laws and parents, who remember things that I wasn't born to remember.

    Once this is all over, which may be a long time from now, we can get back to other things, I suppose.

    This really is important. The perspective of this blog must be remembered.


    Granted (none / 0) (#88)
    by phat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:16 PM EST
    I haven't actually "discussed" your numbers with you. I haven't felt I needed to. Your analyses seem pretty spot on.

    I would be happy if Obama goes AWOL (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:05:24 PM EST

    His Uncle seems to be AWOL (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:20 PM EST
    from liberating the work camp now.  Everyone still awaiting official confirmation but it looks like his Uncle was Charles W. Payne and served in the Navy and was not C.T. Payne in the 89th.

    well, that makes Obama a big fat (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:58 PM EST
    L!@r now, doesn't it?
    Very strange mistake to make at this stage of the campaign.

    Yikes, I just googled (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:21 PM EST
    obama, uncle, and navy -- and don't go there, as it goes straight to Free Republic, and the freepers are having a barrel of fun with this one from Obama.

    But are the media checking it?  Nah.  <Crickets>


    yes I will do more legal posting (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:22 PM EST
    BTD will probably do what he always does.

    Polarizing Obama (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:57:13 PM EST
    I believe Precious will be the one polarizing the Democratic party if he claims premature victory on June 3rd. Unfortunately for Hillary and more than half of the Democratic party, the media and DNC will back him up.

    The silver lining to this is that he'll lose the GE. Of course, I won't like it the day after he loses due to the old man and what that'll mean, but for that one day in November, I will be the happiest I've been all year--the day Obama's bubble bursts

    And all the annoying Obama supporters and especially that self-righteous gas bag, Olbermann will have helped make this happen. And after election day is over, I won't want to just say "I told you so". No. I'll give them the same message Bush supporters told me when Gore lost in 2000--Get over it!

    Obama can win without me. That's the message I'm getting. If he doesn't want my vote now, why should I give it to him in November.

    Chimster (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:59:39 PM EST
    hold still I am going to fetch you a Unity pony.

    Thanks! (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:05:46 PM EST
    I'll drop it off at the glue factory.

    hmm (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:13:31 PM EST
    maybe that's what the pony is really all about...or maybe we're supposed to sniff the glue?  either way...

    Obama will lose by 10 million votes (none / 0) (#170)
    by Left of center on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:56 PM EST
    and Olbermann will be crying about how Diebold stole it.

    Amazing (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:58:42 PM EST
    Only with the 100% cooperation of the media would a candidate consider declaring victory before the rival candidate is prepared to concede.

    This concept of declaring victory solely to push the narrative is, I'm sorry to have to say this, extremely Bush 2000.  Why let the votes be counted, when you can just have the media declare the whole thing over.

    I'm not sorry to say it (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:06:53 PM EST
    the entire Obama campaign has reminded me of Bush 2000 since he refused the re-votes in FL & MI -- his camps writing of the scripts for the msm just confirmed it for me.

    Will it be ok for him (none / 0) (#58)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:06:11 PM EST
    to declare victory if he rolls out enough superdelegates to pass whatever the final number is - 2025, 2209, or something in between?
    Or does he have to wait by the phone for HRC to concede when she's given every indication that she doesn't plan on doing so?
    As some point, if he's got the numbers, I think it's ok for him to say he's the nominee.

    Um, No it isn't ok (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    as a wise poster on this site once wrote: the votes of the SDs don't "count" until they are cast -- and that would be in August, at the convention. You are going to have to keep up.

    So then why (none / 0) (#77)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:11:52 PM EST
    has anyone ever declared victory before the convention?  Kerry over Dean and Edwards, Gore over Bradley, even Clinton declared himself the nominee long before he went over the top in June.

    Dean and Edwards dropped out (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:31 PM EST
    so Kerry could claim the nomination. He didn't claim it first.

    What about Bill in '92? (none / 0) (#131)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:28:02 PM EST
    Lots and lots and lots and lots of statements about math as it pertained to Tsongas and Brown long (especially in the case of Brown) before they dropped out.
    And would it be ok for him to declare himself the presumptive nominee if he gets enough supers to put him over 2209?

    uhhh Bill had over (none / 0) (#153)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:44:52 PM EST
    3300?  That couldn't be changed by superdelegates.  2209 with superdelegates doesn't mean much until the convention and they actually vote because they can switch until then.

    But he was claiming victory (none / 0) (#161)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:51:42 PM EST
    long before he got to over 3000 delegates!  That's my point. Oh the humanity.

    face it, you have no point (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:49 PM EST
    other then to belittle Hillary and prop up Obama -- just admit it -- you know you want to.

    Jesus Mary & Joseph (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    Do you bother to check facts or do you just make it all up? Edwards withdrew from the race around March; Dean was DONE after the "scream heard round the world" and withdrew after Iowa. Gore secured the needed pledged delegates after Super Tuesday. As far as your description of Bill Clinton "declaring himself the nominee long before he went over the top in June" -- that is your flawed description -- and given how wrong the premise of the rest of your post is, I don't give it much credence.

    Wikipedia says... (none / 0) (#151)
    by diogenes on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:49 PM EST
    That Tsongas dropped out in May (so I don't know what Hillary was going on about the importance of June primaries).

    How could I have forgotten Tsongas (none / 0) (#165)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST
    so, what you take out of that is a criticism of Hillary -- what I take out of that is that Bill Clinton was declaring himself the nominee, like Obama is, when others were still in the race. Tomato, Tomahto.

    Nominee when other suspends (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:36 PM EST
    Dean suspended Feb 19.
    Bradley suspended Dec 14
    Edwards suspended Mar 4.
    I know Tsongas suspended in 92 but have no idea if Brown did.  Clinton ended with 3372 delegates? At that level, I don't know if an official suspension is needed.  FYI.. Obama does not have that kind of a lead.  They are tied and need superdelegates to use their independent judgment as to who is most electable in Nov.

    Please (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:25 PM EST
    Obama supporters have been prematurely declaring victory for months.  You have no standing to say "okay, NOW it really is the magic number."

    Declaring victory when it's still possible for another candidate to get more delegates than you is classless and wrong, no matter how many bloggers or people in the media give you permission.


    Yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:09:36 PM EST
    if it's 2209. Otherwise, no.  

    And as for waiting by the phone for Hillary to concede, the only call he'll get from her is at 3 AM sometime in December.


    You mean she's (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:12:45 PM EST
    only going to concede in December after he's won the GE?  That is seriously being in for the long haul.

    And by "he" (4.20 / 5) (#86)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM EST
    you mean McCain, right?

    A question (none / 0) (#164)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:47 PM EST
    If you can't have a President Hillary, would you rather have a President McCain or a President Obama?

    Irrelevant question (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:47 PM EST
    we are talking about Obama's hubris here -- and the fact is, that if it keeps up and he gets the nomination anyway, it will not matter one wit what anyone of us on here want -- he will doom himself, just like Icarus (as he so aptly described himself).

    So (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    is this just another gambit to prove to his supporters that if in fact he doesn't actually officially HAVE the requisite number of delegates etc. (esp after whatever happens on Saturday) that the mean ol' monster lady will have stolen the election, thus giving them plenty of reason to riot in Denver?

    I saw the clip of him saying this on Anderson Cooper and my jaw dropped. I don't know how he's come to this conclusion other than everyone telling him he's won, perhaps. Then again, they've been doing that since Iowa. I guess no one else needed to bother to vote or waste their time/money on any other candidate because The Chosen One Has Spoken.

    Hubris, thy name is Barack Obama.

    Has he been keeping SDs in secret? (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by nellre on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:04:49 PM EST
    Does he plan to announce a bunch of SD endorsements minutes after Hillary wins big in Puerto Rico?
    I'd lay money on it. He's managed to mask all of Hillary's big wins of late.

    Yup. Try and depress voting before hand (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:09:29 PM EST
    and steal her thunder after she whomps his a**.

    wouldn't surprise me in the least... (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    ...I mean, what could be more boneheaded than to bigfoot the Hispanic/Latino communities's big moment in the sun?  

    it would be pure Obama -- make sure that the voices of anyone who doesn't support them are paid no mind, and lose the GE by doing so.


    I think what it means (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:06:13 PM EST
    is that he has a boatload of SDs who will announce for him on Wednesday.

    I don't think he is discounting the voters this Saturday and Tuesday.  Otherwise, he would say it is over today.  He is going to win a couple of races on Tuesday, and if he gets a bunch of SDs committed that night or Wednesday, then he is the presumptive nominee until Hillary demonstrates otherwise, and he needs to start focusing on the GE.  

    What else is he supposed to do between then and the convention, debate Hillary some more?

    What don't you get? (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    The SD's don't count until they vote at the convention in August. And at the rate they have flip flopped recently, by then, anything could happen. Take your Obama talking points somewhere where posters will agree with you.

    So answer the question (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:30:31 PM EST
    What should be doing between now and the convention?  Hanging out on the beach?  He needs to move forward and get ready for November.  If by some miracle Hillary wins the nomination fine, but he can't wait until August assuming that that will happen.  

    She should start doing the same. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    Take on McCain and ignore Obama like he doesn't exist. Two can play the same game. He is not inevitable. The Republicans will have a field day with him and his wife. This is going to be a very long Summer.

    That's fine (none / 0) (#148)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:40:51 PM EST
    but if she continues to lose delegates, it is going to become harder for folks to take her seriously.  

    You still don't get it, do you? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:56 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee there will be a President McCain in Jan. 2009. Obama doesn't stand a snowball's chance on the equator in June against the Republicans and their 527's. Good luck to him, but he does not have my vote and neither does McCain. My last post to you have a Good Night.

    We will have to agree to disagree (none / 0) (#163)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:25 PM EST
    I think you greatly overestimate McCain's candidacy.

    Take care.


    And McCain will ridicule her (none / 0) (#196)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:10:18 AM EST
    as he's done whenever she's tried to take him on. The McCain camp will simply say that they won't respond to a loser.

    Not to defend McCain here (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:08 AM EST
    but that would never happen -- for all his faults, McCain would never ridicule Sen. Clinton nor call her a "loser" -- he is not, after all, Obama, KO, Tweety, or kos.

    What he SHOULD be doing (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:22 PM EST
    is reaching out to Hillary supporters. He will not win without them. Remember, he is the uniter. So, let's see him work some magic with us.

    The only problem is (none / 0) (#141)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:35:31 PM EST
    the general trend is away from HRC to BHO, not the other way around.

    Doubtful (none / 0) (#174)
    by Chimster on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:57:53 PM EST
    Obama has delegates in the closet (not many, just enough) that have already privately endorsed him. His campaign has decided that they only come out of the woodwork when Hillary goes wins big. That's when Obama needs them the most. It's not rocket science. This is his effective yet slimy way of keeping Hillary down.

    In Obamaland and the msm maybe (none / 0) (#178)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:13 AM EST
    but not in OH, PA, KY or WV apparently, and I'm willing to be not in PR either.

    What he's (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by rnibs on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    supposed to do between now and the convention is act like a grown-up rather than constantly running to mommy media or daddy DNC and tell them to tell everyone not to let the mean lady get it because he won it.  He really, really won it.  

    What a guy.  Makes you cry.  Unt I did.


    No (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:09:21 PM EST
    Debating Clinton would only cause more problems for Obama, and hurt his chances in the General Election.

    Agreed he is too weak (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:07 PM EST
    on so many subjects that he wouldn't dare face HRC in a debate, especially, one like she proposed.

    Now that he's the nominee (none / 0) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:25 PM EST
    He needs to be coddled.

    The problem is that (none / 0) (#150)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    if he is the nominee he won't be "coddled", he'll be "curdled".

    Jeralyn, wouldnt that not count if the SD (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by athyrio on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:07:21 PM EST
    can continue to change their minds up until the convention?? So even if he has enough of them now, that doesn't mean they will vote for him in August...How does that work??

    They can change their mind (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    any time up until the convention but Hillary will drop out before then if enough superdelegates go to Obama after Puerto Rico, SD and MT.

    She's not going to stay in unless the superdelegates are behind her. Once she drops out, he has the nomination no matter what his numbers are.

    Until she drops out, he can claim to be the winner all he wants but it's not real.


    It is clear now (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:10:06 PM EST
    the R&B Committee is stalling this past Saturday so that on Tuesday the number is  2025.

    If there is any arrangement on Saturday at all; the number
    is definitely not 2025.  

    (with FL & MI  it is 2210 )

    Boy, the DNC and the Obama campaign are so predictable...

    I predict a leak... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:12 PM EST
    on Friday, there will be a leak from the Clinton campaign of hundred of pages of notorized complaints about failure to follow caucus rules in Texas, Washington, and other assorted states.... and a "draft" credentials challenge of those state delegations...

    From your lips (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:20:30 PM EST
    to God's ear.

    There was something supposedly leaked to CNN about the RBC supposedly working on something re: FL/MI that was more favourable to HRC than BO earlier tonight. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work (esp when the talking heads at CNN were saying it had to do with either 50% delegates or full delegates whose votes only counted for 1/2 a vote each). Are they going to throw her a supposed bone only to coronate King Obama next week?


    Humorously (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:19:30 PM EST
    there is no such thing as a "temporary" magic number, no matter how many spin games anyone plays.  It's really shabby that they would do this.

    We have been assuming that (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:20:31 PM EST
    there is something called Democratic Leadership.  As far as I can tell, the DNC is headed the way of the RNC.  Time for a third party.  A great big wonderful third party.  

    It's his last chance. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:06 PM EST
    If he doesn't convince people it's over and get people to pledge to him before the convention, he loses.  Period.  He simply doesn't have the poll support now that he's lost momentum and alienated voters with bill bashing, sexism, and disenfranchisement.

    Three months is a long time for superdelegates to ponder the issues with his candidacy in a vacuum free of caucuses/primaries/debates.  Only by getting them to commit now and ignoring hillary can he hope to focus on McCain, otherwise he will eventually lose support as the talking heads turn to electability and electoral votes over the coming months.

    Well, I think that is a logical inference. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:12 PM EST
    Clearly Obama's campaign is afraid he cannot win if Hillary does not drop out.

    Just like McCain thought he could not win (none / 0) (#177)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM EST
    if Huckabee didn't drop out? Yeah right. The person leading in every metric wants his opponent to drop out and that is proof of his weakness? Okay.

    McCain didn't have to demand that (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:02:58 AM EST
    Huckabee drop out over the course of three months. Obama has made himself look weak by claiming to be the winner and losing badly in the late primaries.

    The entire GOP establishment was begging (none / 0) (#204)
    by Seth90212 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    or demanding that Huckabee drop out. McCain didn't say it explicitly, but he didn't have to. The Repubs wanted their nominee identified ASAP. And you folks think that the Dems will take this to the convention in a suicide pact? That will never happen.

    If FL and MI are not seated, the (none / 0) (#205)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:15:25 AM EST
    Democratic party is committing suicide.

    every metric is such a dumb talking point (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:24 AM EST
    y'all really need to get another one -- # of states has NEVER been a "metric" -- ever heard of a thing called the electoral college? well, long story short-- the more populous states get more votes. Popular vote? Sorry, Obama doesn't have the lead there. Pledged delegates -- yep, he does, but his slight 1-2% point lead is nothing to brag about, despite his camp's incessantly gloating to the contrary. Automatic delegates? Their votes don't count until they are cast in August at the convention -- their endorsement and $4 gets you a cup of coffee at the Four Seasons.

    No love for Obama..at all! (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by sotonightthatimightsee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:21:07 PM EST
    He's blowiing smoke!

    He knows Hillary is gonna blow him out in Puerto Rico big huge margins! This means she will have the popular vote- even without Michigan and Florida.

    The will of the people will be Hillary..period!

    I refuse. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:34:32 PM EST
    I am not being stubborn or negative.  I just don't like this version of the Democratic Party.  They will have to do it alone.  Asta la bye bye.  

    No more blackmailing me with all the Supreme Court stuff.  Heh, let Congress earn their keep.  

    Hillary's goal, if she wins the (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:38:36 PM EST
    popular vote is simple: she must take her case above the heads of the pundits, the media, the Obama campaign, and the bigshots in the Democratic Party, all of whom can't wait to install Obama as the nominee, and go directly to the American people for her support.

    They will listen. The popular vote can be dismissed by all the "authorities" you want, but the people have their own point of view on the matter.

    This is, of course, exactly why the Obama camp is desperate to de-legitimize Hillary: because they know that in the end she is likely to have the far stronger case with the people at large, and it will look horrible both for Obama and them if they stand in the way of the people's will.

    Heh (none / 0) (#201)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:31 AM EST
    What a fragile party we have.  Every time Hillary breathes, let alone asks someone to vote for her, it apparently tears the party apart.

    Delurking to say... (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Mshepnj on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:57 AM EST
    For many years, voting the New Jersey primary, my vote for the presidential candidate of my choice didn't really matter. This year it did, and it does for voters in late state primaries as well.

    This is a good thing. It's an historic campaign season with two historic candidacies. This is a good thing. Many new voters (or new Democratic primary voters) are energized to vote this year, for both candidates for a variety of reasons. This is a good thing.

    We've had a vigorous, exciting, energizing campaign. Sometimes it's been ugly and adding race and gender to the mix adds to the volatility. Some of this is self-inflicted by the campaigns and emotionally-invested supporters, some is based on Media negligence or complicity, but race and gender is part of the "conversation" we're going to have to have at some point anyway if our party leadership is ever to really progress beyond the usual (mostly old, white, male) paradigm. I even think this is a good thing - long term, even if it doesn't seem like it right now.

    What's NOT a good thing, in my opinion, is when a campaign is perceived to be trying to suppress voter turnout and an entire state's primary results for the benefit of a particular candidate. Also not a good thing - is dismissing the value of those primaries that are yet to come by declaring them irrelevant to the outcome. Besides the fact that the Democratic party should encourage the democratic process, it risks alienating voters going into the general election.  

    I do not understand why "taking it to the convention" is such a terrible prospect for some Democrats and the Media hand-wringers.

    Why do we even bother having a convention if the nominee is a foregone conclusion in February? Why waste the time and money for all the pomp and celebration when (a) one candidate declares himself the nominee beforehand, and (b) a simple no-frills counting of the delegates is all that's needed to formalize the inevitable conclusion?  

    I think the answer is that it is not concluded yet. Both candidates have good arguments to claim they represent the best interests of the Democratic party and the best chance to defeat McCain in November. The DNC rules say it's all about the delegates, but the people say it's about the votes.  

    Which argument is likely to be more persuasive to voters in the general election? I think whatever looks most "democratic" wins (even despite the fact that we have to contend with the un-democratic institution called the Electoral College).  

    I personally believe that Hillary is the most electable candidate but, if Obama wins by every measure, securing enough delegates (including counting all the delegates of Florida and Michigan) and after the primary season has concluded, then he will be able to unquestionably claim he is the nominee. However, if he wins because voters in two swing states are effectively disenfranchised, and there is a perception that he is presumptious and dismissive of certain kinds of voters (Appalachian, older women, etc.), then his victory will be questionable going into the GE. That's not good.

    ...Just my 2 Cents.

    Please, please, let's nominate Hillary. (4.42 / 7) (#1)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    She has the stronger case.  

    The Party Says No. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:39:57 PM EST
    They need to keep up the record.

    Then they best negotiate (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:42:55 PM EST
    with the Republicans to hold the GE caucus-style.

    The rat boat is filling. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:44:15 PM EST
    and is now leaving the port.  last chance sweetie!

    Why are they doing this? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:46:47 PM EST
    I mean, I know they resent the success of the Clintons and think they are basically white trash, but is it really worth losing or electing someone completely unprepared for the job?

    Because they are class A certified morons (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:49:45 PM EST
    Occam's razor.

    As long as they keep their jobs (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:50:25 PM EST
    with his donor list -- so they think -- the answer is yes, that's why they're doing this.

    His donor list is non-transferable. (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:53:04 PM EST
    Don't they have any MBA's at the DNC?  His donors are buying a product: Obama.  Obama consumers are not interested in the DNC.  It's like trying to sell Windows XP to a Mac user.  

    Don't knock XP.... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM EST
    Vista, on the other hand....

    and anyway, Macs are for the creative class elitists, us proles care about saving a few hundred bucks even if it means dealing with system crashes, so we buy go with the cheaper Windows stuff.  

    (In fact, I bet that if they asked an exit poll question about what kind of PC people have, Clinton would win the windows crowd, and Obama would kick butt among Mac users)


    Hey! Wait one second there! (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:05:20 PM EST
    Many of us "creatives" have had that hi-jacked away from us. I'm betting more blogger boiz are PC. They really aren't that cool. Many of us Mac users, on the other hand, are  ;) We make a living off of our Macs. And understand mass marketing and branding, lol!~

    Well, I'm a Mac cultist (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:06:02 PM EST
    but I voted for Hillary. So go figure.

    Yes, yes, me too. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    But the point stands.  

    Mac, Yes Clinton, Yes Obama, No n/t (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:11:38 PM EST
    I have been using (none / 0) (#65)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:08:30 PM EST
    Vista for 6 months and have had very few problems. I'm still waiting for the bugs I had with Windows 98.

    What about the donor deal he cut with the (none / 0) (#42)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    DNC?  I thought they get a cut of his take, or is that only for GE contributions?  I mean they give him the nomination and get a "piece of the action -   Chicago style " in return.

    That donor deal (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    is for big money donors.  It typically is a huge amount split 3 ways, 2300 to the candidate and then chunks cut out for specific 527s and then a hunk for DNC (I think McCain's was 70k).  I don't think the deal goes with Obama's image for that to come out just yet.

    I keep wondering why all of his little donors are not giving to his GE campaign and the DNC.  It's very odd.


    Look...a week or so ago obama was going to (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:14 AM EST
    make the big announcement he is the nominee...it is perception people....he is NOT the nominee...no one is....no need to run hither and yon like crazy people.

    To my mind....obama is the one running scared...chill and let's see what happens.


    It's not odd at all (none / 0) (#92)
    by mbuchel on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM EST
    1.  Because so many of his donors are still under $2300, all our donations are still eligible for the primary.
    2.  Because the nomination race is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room, no one - neither Obama's nor HRC's donors are giving to the party yet.  Once the race is over, we'll see the money start flowing to other places.

    "sucking the oxygen out of the room' (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by angie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:12 PM EST
    is your description of people voting for the nominee. How very democratic of you. /s

    Nope Still Odd (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:05:11 AM EST
    1. If the primary is over as Obama supporters keep saying, it is not rational to not be giving to his GE.  He only has 10m and that is not enough to get started with.  Get with it.

    2. Obama's new voters are new Dems. They should be demonstrating now their support by giving to the DNC.  If they aren't just voting for Obama, they should have been proving it all of this time, but they aren't are they.

    HRC's donors?  The big money donors have no reason to not be giving to the DNC.  Why aren't they?  They need to be planning state strategies and raising money for 527s.  You can't keep saying...... time is of the essence, we must stop this before Obama looks worse, we must unify and then refuse to take action that reflects that.

    Put your money where your mouth is.  If it's been over for so long, what's wrong.  Prove it.


    I agree; the donor list is not transferable (none / 0) (#74)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:11:06 PM EST
    Those young donors and AA's are giving to OBAMA only. They are not going to fork over to anyone else. What planet are these people from??

    And alot of these young voters will not even (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:01:13 AM EST
    be around for the GE...happens everytime...they are in it til the primaries and magically forget to show up for the GE.

    personally, (none / 0) (#211)
    by A little night musing on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:55 AM EST
    I love this analogy.

    And there's the truth of it right there (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST
    We might as well just have one party then (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by bridget on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:00 AM EST
    I also get the feeling the Dems don't even feel like winning

    and they want Hillary to stop campaigning so hard for what she believes in

    the want to crown Obama and that's that. They don't care what he stands for because nobody knows even after all those debates.


    They cannot control the Clintons (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by themomcat on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:58:23 PM EST
    Neither Hillary of Bill will capitulate to the likes of Howard Dean, especially Hillary. It scares them that she is smarter than they are, her support from the Regan Democrats scares them and her ability to get the votes from states that they have lost in the last two presidential elections scares them. They will lose their power if she is the nominee and wins. If Obama is the nominee and loses they might survive another 4 years in power. The DNC also sees the money cow that the Obama campaign has been. Why else would they have entered into a deal with Obama to share fund raising with the DNC? The DNC is hurting for money because of the FL/MI disaster. JMHO.

    Are we to understand now that all the Dems (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:59:24 PM EST
    dislike the Clintons so much - in the manner of Repubs, for heavens sake,

    that they simply reject Hillary (even the female pols did not defend her (except Ferraro) and rather have a nom who is not only ill prepared to be Prez but will most likely lose in 2008?

    What is the problems with all the Deans, Kerrys, Kennedy et al? What is the problem with Carter? What are these people thinking?

    Bill Clinton was a successful President for the Dems - two terms in the WH - what is their problem?

    P.S And v. recently I have come to resent Al Gore for, well, whatever he is not doing ... I don't feel like writing it all down right now. But I am not happy w. him at all right now.

    my 2 cents


    Well, you've nailed it: (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:21 AM EST
    "Bill Clinton was a successful President for the Dems - two terms in the WH"  Jealous, plus the Clintons are not "their kind".

    this so depressing (none / 0) (#212)
    by bridget on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:21:14 AM EST
    Right now I am keeping myself from thinking that the Clinton hating media and blogs have been successful   in influencing the Big Dems. Some of these people have appeared on dkos after all. Edwards is practically a member there, for goodness sakes. So is Olberman and who knows who else.

    Sometimes the answer stares you right in the face. The village people aligned themselves with the bloggers whose agenda from the v. start was always Clinton hating. Esp. Huffpost and dkos who both rule the net.

    And to top it all of, the anti-war movement is dead, too. Nobody cares anymore about that either.


    Democrats are like the Washington (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:48:17 PM EST
    Generals of politics. Their opponents almost always win.

    I can't believe you typed that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    I can't believe I'm laughing and right this minute it only hurts when I laugh.  November though, it may hurt to simply attempt to smile about it.

    Okay--here we go again... (1.80 / 5) (#194)
    by Groundhog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:07:43 AM EST
    This grows wearisome, but I shall proceed under the enlightenment assumption that literate people are receptive to rational arguments:

    1. Senator Clinton agreed before Iowa that Florida and Michigan should not count. It is ON TAPE.  This begs two questions: 1) Should the DNC really have allowed an onrush of state primaries before Super Tuesday? If so, WHY? (2) How can anyone with any objective sense attempt to count Michigan?

    2. Why do you guys continue to view Hillary as a liberal/left folk hero?  She is a Clinton--smart, competent, better than any Republican--but by no means a liberal Democrat in the Humphrey/ McGovern/Ted Kennedy/Gore/Kerry/Pelosi sense of the term (think death penalty, school uniforms, and um, oh yeah--her vote on the the war...) Now maybe I have waded into a posse of moderate Dems--dat's cool--but I thought the name of this site is Talk Left!

    3. Her vote on the war.  Please explain--I will listen--why her vote is so forgivable, and why you give Obama no credit for superior judgment?

    4. And why risk potentially alienating so many African American and young voters in the name of
    identity symbolism? Why?!?

    My supposition is this: deep down, you guys think the junior senator from Illinois a lightweight. Well, some of us are not nineteen, and we really think he is more intellectually honest than she, he is wiser than she, and we do not need more dynastic families.


    The Mighty Groundhog
    Predictor of Elections

    On tape? (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:13:27 AM EST
    Why lie?  Seriously, do you think we were all born yesterday?

    Clarify (none / 0) (#206)
    by Groundhog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:16:19 AM EST
    Seriously, please clarify your question.

    Do you honestly believe (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:42 AM EST
    that there is a tape where Hillary says Florida and Michigan should not count?

    To coin a phrase.. (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Groundhog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:27 AM EST
    "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts" (popularly attributed to the late Senator Moynihan).  it is illogical to ask if someone believes a fact--an empirically verifiable statement--their opinion is irrelevant.

    Um, Steve: I have seen footage, of her acknowledging this back in November-December, several times (after all, it flabbergasts Mathews and makes Olbermann giddy).  It does not make me giddy; rather it fills me with disappointment when I wathch her, her husband and her flacks constantly spin the metrics of this campaign. The most egregious  example is: to even attempt to count Michigan is dirty pool; to do so with a straight face is Rep--let us just say, disturbing...


    Your choice of moniker (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Chimster on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:00 AM EST
    is groundhog. Is that because you repeat the same talking points day after day after day?

    Barrack does not have superior judgement. I was against the war but didn't vote for or against it either. Whoop dee doo.


    Do you know how many uses the word (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:16:42 AM EST
    "agreement" has?!
    Not enough to justify YOUR use.

    Bless your heart, (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM EST
    but if you really wanted to engage Hillary supporters you wouldn't start out with this backhanded, condescending insult:
    This grows wearisome, but I shall proceed under the enlightenment assumption that literate people are receptive to rational arguments:
    Followed by distortions, half-truths and flat out lies. Ciao!

    Like I said this morning (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:03:19 PM EST
    It's too late to count MI and FL now.

    What's done is done.

    That's the spirit. ;-) (none / 0) (#64)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
    If it's too late to count MI and FL (none / 0) (#122)
    by Left of center on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:26:21 PM EST
    then the dems are conceding the November election to McCain and we should start looking to 2012

    They could have figured something out (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:54 PM EST
    Before the end of the primary but making sure Obama wins was more important than having a Dem in the White House.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#111)
    by realitybites on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:22:16 PM EST
    he knows something that ya'll don't? There's a distinct possibility that he's had a huge tranche of SD's lined up just waiting to endorse at the end of the primaries.

    That may be (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:27:18 PM EST
    but we can hope they waited too long -- long enough to change their minds back if she wins the popular vote. We'll wait and see.

    Hope (none / 0) (#142)
    by realitybites on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:01 PM EST
    I guess he doesn't have a monopoly on that word afterall.

    Again ... (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:37:07 PM EST
    SDs are not bound by any pre-convention endorsements. Their votes are not counted until the convention.  They can change their minds any number of times between now and then.

    That's why you can't honestly say you won the nomination unless all your opponents have dropped out, or you have taken it to the convention.

    Now, do you really think Clinton's going to drop out?  Particularly if MI and FL are not seated in an equitable manner?


    Hope it goes to the convention myself! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:46:27 PM EST
    Heads I win, tails you lose (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by realitybites on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:47:17 PM EST
    If he's got the designated number of delegates, be that 2025, 2209 or whatever the Dem party says the requisite number is, he can claim he's won the nomination. If it goes to the convention (a sure GE loss for Dems) and the SD's decide to switch to Clinton (or Gravel for that matter), then is claim to have won will no longer stand. But at the end of the primaries, if he's got the numbers, claiming he's won would not be dishonest.

    You're not getting it -- he has to get (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:33 PM EST
    enough pledged delegates to cinch it, even if super-delegates switch.  And he can't cinch enough pledged delegates to cinch it (as past candidates did who could claim it in June or sooner).  

    Thus, the pressure on Clinton to drop out -- so that Obama can get her pledged delegates, because she has almost as many as he does, so he can't claim enough of them to claim the nomination.


    Goalposts moving... (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by realitybites on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:04:53 AM EST
    Just like the popular vote argument. There's nowhere it says you have to have X number of PD's and Y number of SD's in order to claim you've won. There's a threshold that must be met. That threshold can be met thru a combination of PD's and SD's. If that number is 2025 and he meets it. He wins. If that number is 2209 and he meets it. He wins. The SD's are free to change their mind anytime between June 4 and the convention. If he falls below the threshold between the point he claims to be the presumptive nominee and the convention, then he's no longer the presumptive nominee. But until that happens, if he gets the number of delegates that the Dem party says he needs in order to be the nominee, then claiming to be the presumptive nominee is fair game.

    Truly truly no offense (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:27:04 AM EST
    but why are you conversing with someone with that name?  :)  

    I'm waiting for someone to come in with the name resistanceisfutile.


    I needed that, waldenpond lol (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by bridget on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:47 AM EST
    thanks for a good laugh ;-)

    cause my thoughts have been those of the depressing kind thanks to this thread :-((


    Could be (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:54:33 PM EST
    but the rumor that Obama has dozens of superdelegates in his back pocket has been around forever, ever since they were claiming to have 50 of them ready to endorse right after Texas and Ohio.

    At some point people will come to understand that it's just a rumor that they like to spread around in order to create a sense of, yes, inevitability.  There is no earthly reason to think Obama has enough superdelegates to clinch any time he wants, yet he continues running a bruising campaign against Hillary and spending millions of dollars just for fun.


    Uhm... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Y Knot on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:20:38 AM EST
    He's gained far more than 50 since TX and OH. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 110, actually.  

     How many did he have in his pocket at the time?  Impossible to say.  Probably not 50, since it took him almost 2 months to roll out that many.

    But to your point, you're right. Rumors are just rumors, they should be ignored unless they're backed up with some kind of evidence.  Does he have more SD's lined up?  Probably.  I highly doubt the people deciding to endorse him don't coordinate with his campaign. IF he does have them banked, he'd probably roll out just enough so that even a catastrophic loss in Puerto Rico wouldn't keep him from going over the top when the final votes are counted on Tuesday.

    And no, this isn't "discounting the voters" or rendering them "irrelevant."  It's what any candidate in his position would do.  Dropping 50 SD's on the table tomorrow (if he had them, which I do not think he does) would be plain stupid.


    Why wouldn't they have already endorsed (none / 0) (#154)
    by RalphB on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM EST
    if that was the case.  Endorsing last month would make more sense than doing it now, after he's sunk.

    Methinks not (none / 0) (#223)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:32:45 AM EST
    this is a repeat of his bs victory cry before KY & WV -- nothing more, nothing less.

    magical numbers (none / 0) (#115)
    by sociallybanned on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    Can someone educate me, since I live near the mountains (*sarcastically), why does the magical number change?    At first it was 2025, then 2026 and now 2035.  I wish we could just stick with 2210.

    I think the 2025 (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:29:49 PM EST
    didn't include FL and MI and you have to add the number of delegates the DNC agrees to seat to the 2025. Hillary says add all the FL and MI delegates which makes it 2210.

    My question is if they seat half the delegates, will they agree the full popular vote counts? One person, one vote, certified elections, you can't chop that number in half.


    Well, no, they weren't voting for (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:03:56 AM EST
    Obama because Obama did not let them.
    It is highly undemocratic to award votes to a candidate who takes his name off the ballot.

    Look, as someone else mentioned, (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:11:31 AM EST
    lots of people would have voted for Gore---had he been on the ballot.
    It's really simple. Obama was NOT excluded from the ballot---he took himself off voluntarily.
    Hence,  there is no basis for giving any votes to Obama in MI... you know.. rules.

    Howard Dean has already conceded (none / 0) (#136)
    by masslib on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:32:01 PM EST
    they count.

    The popular vote total (none / 0) (#181)
    by mbuchel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:00:24 AM EST
    is nothing more than a talking point to the supers.  So whether they count them or not doesn't really matter.  As far as I'm concerned, they could count each MI and FL vote as 10 and all it does is pad a statistic.
    And I know that sounds flip, but that's just reality.  Do I think we need a serious reworking of the rules for selecting our nominee?  Absolutely.  But as it stands now, it's only delegates that matter.

    likewise, the pledged delegate count (none / 0) (#200)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:12:19 AM EST
    is simply another, inferior talking point.

    i think it should be (none / 0) (#137)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:32:28 PM EST
    2040, when SS is supposedly going to be depleted.  Or perhaps 2020 when medicare runs out.

    That's kind of a good reminder that we have a lot of older and aging folks and that they are going to continue to grow in size and remain more important politically than the creative class.


    2025 (none / 0) (#139)
    by ibextati on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:37 PM EST
    How about sticking with the original number that all candidates agreed with when the primaries began.

    Ha. Show me where all candidates (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:58:04 PM EST
    "agreed" to that.  It's stated by the DNC, dependent upon what it counts as the total, i.e., which states count.  That is, the DNC does not state a specific number; it requires that the winner get half of the delegates, plus one.  If the total number of delegates changes with some or all from FL and MI, then so does what it takes to get half, plus one.

    Because (none / 0) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:52:24 PM EST
    it would be kinda dumb to insist on a "magic number" of 2025 if both candidates got more than 2025.

    I sometimes wonder if Obama supporters have any independent thoughts at all or if it's just one stupid gotcha game after another.  "ZOMG, Hillary once said the number was 2025!"


    Superstition.... (none / 0) (#138)
    by gmo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:33:12 PM EST
    O/T, but...

    Tuesday is my birthday, and something bad always seems to happen on my birthday.  Both of my grandmothers died on my birthday, I've cut my hand on numerous occasions on my birthday, sprained ankles, car accidents -- you name it, something bad always happens.  

    Ergo: Obama wins the nomination on Tuesday, after some stupendous, unforeseen thing (a hurricane in PR?).  If it happens, blame me.  

    PS:  Isn't this just about as reasonable a guess as Obama claiming he'll be the nominee on Tuesday?  And just about as self-centered? </snark>

    How long can denial possibly last? n/t (none / 0) (#218)
    by halstoon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:35 AM EST