Now that, Turkana was well stated.
Posted by peter at March 5, 2008 08:43 AMwell, I hate to agree with peter, but turkana, I think you're analysis is pretty much dead on...
Posted by John B. at March 5, 2008 08:45 AMGood run down Turkana.
I would say, however, that the allusive "will of the people" should be less a concern of the super delegates than who has the best shot at actually winning the general election.
The super delegates may very well decide that that person is Barack Obama. I have no problem with that. Even if Clinton does go into the convention with the 'popular vote' lead and the 'momentum'.
At this point, it's clear to me that Obama and Clinton are basically in a defacto tie. Clearly, the people haven't expressed a clear preference for one over the other.
Posted by snark at March 5, 2008 08:50 AMChaos is about to reign down on the democrats. If one candidate wins via the superdelegates, much bitterness will follow. The faster they both agree on a system to decide the winner (and it's not too late to sit down with the party elders and make a decision), the more likely will be a positive outcome. I can see only one solution: 1) redo Michigan and Florida, decide on a date now, not after PA. The superdelegates should then decide that they will cast their vote in favor of the candidate who has won the popular vote. That unfortunately is the only way to resolve this. Otherwise Obama is going to take it via racist tactic with African American superdelegates. He is working on that right now. He and his wife did it after New Hampshire and it has been effective. Anybody to think this can be resolved at the convention or after the final vote is nuts. The rules must be decided prior to the final vote otherwise a candidate will be asked to accept defeat not simply a change in the rules.
Posted by fenner at March 5, 2008 08:51 AMI totally agree, “the will of the people” is rather hard to interpret. So…has anyone done the electoral math on who will be most likely to beat McCain? Looking at swing states, it looks like Clinton comes out ahead. She won Ohio, I think Pennsylvania will go blue either way, and as far as I’m concerned, Florida was a pretty fair fight. They were both on the ballot and both camps campaigned. (I would be happy for a re-match though). At any rate, I really don’t think the Dems can talk about the “will of the people” and not seat Florida.
Second question is: what states are made competitive? Arkansas for Clinton? McCain doesn’t seem to have much strength there. South Carolina for Obama? Not sure these states would even matter if the Dems win Ohio and/or Florida.
"He needs to do better in large states."
Can someone explain this to me? I hear this a lot and it makes no sense.
Just because he's not doing as well as Hillary in large states does not mean that, in the general election, large state voters will flock to McCain instead of Obama. Does anyone think that NY or California is going to be even close in the general election? So close that the outcome would be different depending on who the Dem nominee is?
I also disagree with the contention that the system is "deeply flawed". To be sure, it hasn't produced a strong overwhelming clear victor, but it does reflect reality, which is what one would (hopefully) want from a primarial system. The system has created a close race, because the race IS close.
Posted by Kenneth Ashford at March 5, 2008 09:07 AMFor my side McOld is leading Obama in NJ, TN, FL, and TX. Clinton beats McOld in NJ. NJ is the shocker, some have said California is in play with McOld running.
Posted by peter at March 5, 2008 09:08 AMIf there's "no objective grounds" that the pledged delegate count is what matters most, then why is winning some "majority" of them what each candidate is supposedly working toward?
So if you get a "majority" of pledged delegates it's dispositive, but if (after the all the voting is done) you only have a "lead" then it doesn't (and shouldn't) decide anything? ??
I'm not arguing one thing or another, the damage is done, the voters refused to end the matter and crown the frontrunner as nominee and now the entire bucket of shit is going to be dumped in the lap of the super-delegates at the convention, with no possible "rules" by which to guide their decision.
No one is going to "agree" on any new rules now, least of all the DLC Clintons and DNC chair Dean. Good luck Super-Ds, I'm sure you're lookin' forward to it.....
So maybe super-Ds should just go to the convention and vote what they each think is best. Vote their "conscience". They're the ones stuck running with whomever they pick, and as I argued below, both candidates are now symbolic losers and deeply damaged. Yesterday's vote saved McCain and conservatism. Repubs are ecstatic today. Just ask your friend pinhead peter.
Repubs united behind their utter shit candidate, despite most of them having far, far more grounds for disliking him, because they were able to rationally calculate that candidate McGeezer was the most attractive to the most number of possible Repub voters. Dems refused to perform the same calculation, refused to unite behind one of two candidates that have suppposedly have few differences and that they both supposedly "like".
That's why Repubs win, unfortunately. Very bad.
Posted by euzoius at March 5, 2008 09:14 AMi think peter's joy will be blunted, come november. unless reading tlc slowly evolves him...
kenneth-
in the large battleground states- ohio, michigan, pennsylvania, florida- it's not clear that obama can win. he's not breaking through with key demographics, such as catholics, white labor voters, and elderly women. it's not clear that he will, in large enough numbers, should he be the nominee. unless he does better in pennsylvania, and in a new vote in michigan, that will be one of the many factors the superdelegates will have to consider.
Posted by Turkana at March 5, 2008 09:23 AMThe only problem I have with Turkana's analysis is the implication that because HRC won the "big states", she should be the nominee. The big states (other than TX and OH) have trended Democrat in teh past few elections, so they should tend to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be. To me the more interesting thing to consider in which candidate has the ability to pick up the most votes in areas not trditionally won by Democrats, i.e., "red" states. Through this lens, BHO would be the better nominee.
I just want the Democratic nominee to win. The candidate with the best chance of beating McCain should get the nomination.
Posted by the professor at March 5, 2008 09:37 AMturkana-
as a clinton supporter i have no quarrel at all with your analysis.
but, i just wanted to say,
that yesterday i was wondering about the total popular vote counts (not delegate counts).
today i show up here and, wouldn't you know,
the left coaster has published a nice, concise summary that answers my question.
thanks for focusing on what counts.
when i looked at the new york times front page this morning, i thought "this is the best they can do in covering a crucial set of events?".
answer: yes, it was. but of course the times has to go to press around midnight to get the paper to my driveway.
one set of numbers really jumps out of the teevee screen this morning:
texas caucus:
obama 18,000
clinton 15,000.
texas popular vote:
clinton 1.45 mill
obama 1.35 mill
3000 vote difference versus a 200k vote difference.
Posted by orionATL at March 5, 2008 09:44 AMcorrection:
uh, make that 100k, not 200k.
partisanship got to me i guess.
Posted by orionATL at March 5, 2008 09:47 AMTurkana, you drop those states into my pot, to go along with many that 43 won. There will be a President McCain, game, set, and match. Barack Obama will do just that. Now with Clinton, things get iffy. Make peace with Clinton and the DLC, maybe you've got a chance. The DLC and only the DLC will gain your party the WH. Anything less, forgetaboutit.
Posted by peter at March 5, 2008 09:47 AMheh, peter-
i think you overestimate the public's taste for a 10,000 year war...
Posted by Turkana at March 5, 2008 09:50 AMorion,
the tx caucus results are slow coming in, but obama did, indeed, expect a much larger margin.
Posted by Turkana at March 5, 2008 09:51 AMFirst congrats to HRC she showed some real fight and eloquence when it counted most. Second the SDs may well settle this but this Mich/Fla thing? HRC agreed to the rules before this all started...somehow I dont think she will able to escape that. Back to the SDs well it was Penn that said it was all about the pledged delegate count...look if she beats Obama in PA then he can frankly offset most of that in NC. I just do not see how the numbers break in her favor without a huge surge from the SDs. The bottom line for me as an Obama supporter is he needs to step up and if cant then YES HRC (yes I meant it) is the answer, however, the math may well make that moot. Additionally the MSM is so damn fickle its unreal, if OBama wins heavily in Miss & Wy the pressure will begin again... unfortunately for HRC I feel the timing of PA is bad. If she had it yesterday or this weekend she would win going away. This much time? It will be hard to keep that "bounce" especially when the MSM will focus on what have you down for me lately results. They cant help themselves they truly are the epitome of a puerile existence chasing fictional lollipops in blissful ignorance to reality. For all those fellow Obama supporters moaning she should get out, complete BS. No matter what happens this is I believe beneficial to the dem's in Nov. It makes both candidates stronger, allows infrastructure to be built in key states and pours money into both candidates campaigns. How that can be so awful and really "help" I'm so Mcvain is beyond my ken...
Posted by jesse at March 5, 2008 09:54 AMpeter please... with the Democratic turnout McCain will be trounced in November!
The people know that too much is at stake.
You rpubli-cons have stolen, cheated, corrupted your way for so many years you think your reign of terror will never end.
Listen carefully bub, it's over for the republi-cons. Better get used to it now!
What's up with that Texas caucus?
Are they having a hard time keeping the votes for all the different candidates straight?
How hard is it to have a caucus when there are only two candidates?
Posted by snark at March 5, 2008 10:01 AMYou are correct, in that it will come to the superdelegates, deciding.
The superdelegates won't ignore a 100-150 delegate lead for Obama. They just won't.
I would also like a redo of Michigan, Florida. Should be in one month. NOT in June, too late!
The 30 to 40 it would shave off of Obama's delegate lead, would be worth it, to settle the question outright.
It won't make a difference though.
Posted by JC at March 5, 2008 10:02 AMYou've got excitement mixed up with end results Seven.
Do you really want to run on the war Turkana?
Really?
I like my chances.....really. We can get out another 62 million voters. Can you?
Posted by peter at March 5, 2008 10:03 AMYup. Let's punish Florida and Michigan for trying to garner more influence for themselves in the primary process by giving them a do-over that will put them in a position to REALLY influence the results of a deadlocked campaign!
Almost as genius as taking away all their delegates the first time around.
Posted by snark at March 5, 2008 10:05 AMWe can get out another 62 million voters.
Not with Christian conservatives staying home and his stance on immigration pissing the rest of the neo-cons off.
Oh, I forgot and the endorsement of Mr. 19%...
And your mistaking excitement, with people understanding what party is the root of America's problems!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 5, 2008 10:13 AMThe general election will be fought over the economy...
This plays well for Hillary ....
Obama outspent her 5:1 and could not "seal the deal".....
Obama does not have the stomach to go negative and receive attacks from the GOP (Hillary is proving this)...
That should tell you something about political experience right there....
Now Obama wants to know about Hillary's "taxes"....what happened to changing the "nature of politics" in DC Obama???
Also, this needs to be addressed: Clinton's overall strategy was to win the nomination early on Super Tuesday (in order to avoid internecine warfare)....
Obama/Axelrod's strategy all along was to game the primary system (as linked to their delegate plan press release) and create a stalemate at the convention...
Another point....why is no one making hay over the fact that Sen. Daschle is the "shadow wizard" behind Obama's curtains?? Daschle is primarily responsible for the "Harry and Louise" mailers against Hillary....
I ask you, in light of this, which candidate is looking out after the interests of the Democratic Party...
I would argue Hillary......
Posted by PaulieB at March 5, 2008 10:17 AMbarack obama is a media creation..independants and republicans have brought him to where he is..and these obama people only like rules that suit them...super delagates are there for a reason..one is that democrats get to nominate who they feel best suited...not red state republicans
Posted by dennis at March 5, 2008 10:22 AMIt's painfully obvious that superdelegates will technically decide the nomination. Exactly why they would go out of their way to choose Hillary Clinton is beyond me, however. Although the popular vote total lumps together the apples and oranges of primaries and caucuses plus leaves out Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Washington it still would take a huge margin in Pennsylvania to cut that in half, even if you ignore states like Wyoming and Mississippi where Obama stands to gain ground.
So why exactly would the super delegates lean heavily toward Clinton, the candidate with less popular votes, less pledged delegates, less money, less charisma, less enthusiasm, less organization, and demonstrably worse electoral college polling against McCain? While theoretically possible, this is still a question for which Clinton supporters don't have a good answer. Yesterday's results really didn't do anything to change that.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 10:24 AMHeh, Seven, you should be joyous. Your governor is going to get to appoint McOld's replacement. Get happy now.
Posted by peter at March 5, 2008 10:26 AMI see no way for Obama to win the nomination now.
The huge margin Hillary had among late deciders in Texas, along with the figure that 2/3 of Democrats want Hillary to stay in the race, tells me that voters have decided Obama is not good enough.
So why exactly would the super delegates lean heavily toward Clinton, ...this is still a question for which Clinton supporters don't have a good answer.
I don't necessarily think they will which is partly why I don't understand why the Obama supporters are so riled up about it.
Posted by snark at March 5, 2008 10:29 AM
Actually dennis, Obama got his first initial exposure at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
Pessimist wrote about it here in 2004.
seven of six..i saw that speech and was moved by it..there is no question..the man gives a great speech..
Posted by dennis at March 5, 2008 10:35 AMThat's all there is....speeches.
Posted by peter at March 5, 2008 10:39 AMThat's all there is....speeches.
Were it that it was that way with George W. Bush!
More speechifying.
Less fucking the world up.
Posted by snark at March 5, 2008 10:44 AMThat's all there is....speeches.
Whatever it takes to get you fucks out of office!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 5, 2008 10:46 AMIt's never competence with Democrats...just anyone.....please
Posted by peter at March 5, 2008 10:56 AMNo matter how well H Clinton does and how one slices the delegate and vote counts, Hillary Clinton will not be elected in the election which matters, the one in November. Enough Democrats who loathe her, and a very large number of those who switch their votes who do not trust her, means that McCain will win. What is it that makes the Democratic Party so keen to commit hara kiri?
Posted by maunga at March 5, 2008 10:58 AMI see no way for Obama to win the nomination now. - MarkL
Ever take math, Mark? Clinton gained about 11 delegates from Ohio. Obama gained 14 in Maryland, 25 in Virginia, 28 in Washington, and 10 in Wisconsin (among others). Clinton had a very good night, but it was only one night and it wasn't nearly good enough.
Since those late deciders went to Clinton, does that mean she's going to win 60% in Wyoming and Mississippi?
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 10:59 AMTen delegates--that was Hillary's big haul last night:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/latest_tally_hillary_may_emerg.php
I thought the Republicans were the party of faith.
Posted by nerdoff at March 5, 2008 11:03 AMAll that Hillary momentum will be stopped in Wyoming and Mississippi.
But... but their small states... not enough to stop the Hillary spin.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 5, 2008 11:05 AMI wonder if the DLC will take another look at the super-delegate situation after this. If I understand correctly, the SDs are there to make sure that democrats aren't stupid enough to elect a loser. They can swoop in and save us from ourselves. How condescending is that? Now that they might make a difference, people are complaining about them possibly, well, making a difference. I think the SDs have to go.
Has there been any polling lately on the candidates' negative ratings? I keep hearing HRC has a 51% negative rating--has that changed at all over the last several months? Has it gone up? Has it gone down? What about Obama's?
Finally, I think one reason late deciders go to Clinton is because of people like me who have liked her all along, but have friends supporting Obama, who want to be swept up and be in with the "cool" kids who are supporting him, so we say we're undecided, but then in the end, we're not swept up and we stick by the candidate we feel is solid, smart and hard-working.
Posted by CG at March 5, 2008 11:06 AMAll that Hillary momentum will be stopped in Wyoming and Mississippi.
But... but their small states... not enough to stop the Hillary spin.
And Obama still will not have 2025 delegates.
1. What matters most is to realize that the Democratic party, no matter how you slice and dice, is pretty much split down the middle between Obama and Clinton.
2. The primary system is deeply flawed, starting with the excessive attention given to Iowa and N.H. But we can't fix it this time around.
3. One cannot just call for another primary in Florida and Michigan. Primaries cost money, lots of money. Polling places must be set up, ballots must be printed, election booklets must be mailed, etc., etc.
4. I think a logical case can be made to exclude Michigan and include Florida. In Mich., only two names were on the ballot: Hillary & Kucinich. That's not fair. But the Florida primary date was set by a Rep. legislature & gov. It is absurd for the DNC to blame Democrats for that. And all the names were on the ballot. Both Hillary & Obama had a presence in Florida (he had national TV ads) and there was plenty of publicity about the two.
5. This is subjective. I don't think Obama can beat McCain. for purely psychological reasons. I think a 50/50 country, at the ballot box, asked to choose between a young, charismatic, energetic and aggressive young man with, at best, a thin resume and an old soldier who refused an offer that would have gotten him out of the prison camp 2-3 years sooner than he was freed rather than leave his comrades, a man with 20 years of government experience that cannot be dismissed, a man with a rep. for straight talking ("I know what he believes") - and it doesn't matter that McCain has flip-flopped all over the place; he is loved by the media and they never drop a label once they've created it - will decide that McCain, the guy savaged by Bush 8 years ago and dismissed just a few months back as a nonentity, has earned the Presidency.
I will not argue that Hillary can beat him, but I think she has a better chance because I think she can challenge him without the challenge appearing to be disrespectful. Obama has a way of looking down his nose at Hillary that doesn't bother his supporters but will bother McCain supporters and the undecided.
Posted by LC at March 5, 2008 11:12 AMCG, here are archives of favorability polling for Clinton and Obama. They look pretty steady for both candidates.
There are various dynamics which can cause late deciders to break one way or the other: going for the known quantity or going for the challenger. In this case, Obama had a really bad weekend in the media so it's not surprising late deciders to break toward Clinton.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 11:14 AM...Obama had a really bad weekend in the media...
Don't try to convince snark of that.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 5, 2008 11:18 AMLast night Turkana scoffed at the notion that Obama would win more delegates in Texas. From The First Read:
"*** The delegate count: Based on preliminary results of last night's contests (the Texas caucuses are not yet factored in), here's where the Democratic delegate count stands: Obama 1,518, Clinton 1,429. The NBC News Hard Count has Obama at 1,307 to 1,175 for Clinton after last night's voting. The superdelegate count stands at Clinton 254, Obama 211. Here's how the states broke down: VT: Obama 9-6; OH: Clinton 73-62 (six unallocated); RI: Clinton, 13-8; TX: Clinton 46-34 (113 unallocated). That’s a net gain of 23 pledged delegates for Clinton. But before figuring out the Texas mess, Clinton had a net of approximately 13 delegates. If Obama wins the delegate battle in Texas (which the allocation formulas seem to indicate), he'll cut that 13 net by as many as 6. However, one estimate in Texas has Obama netting no more than one after the caucus, giving Clinton the possibility that she'll net more than 10 delegates when March 4 is all said and done. While not MAJOR progress on the pledged delegate front, it's impressive nonetheless since so many folks predicted her not even netting 10 delegates last night."
Obama may win "no more than one." That's a WIN in the reality based community.
Posted by nerdoff at March 5, 2008 11:19 AMTurkana - "The superdelegates will". So true. And who are they? The Same Old Politicians that give away the farm to George W. Bush every time he asks...same old Scratch my Back, I'll Stratch Yours" folks who voted for the War and give Bush the money...I wonder who they'll vote for?
Posted by T2 at March 5, 2008 11:20 AMLC, on #5, how do you suppose Bill Clinton beat George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole? How do you think George W. Bush came close enough to beating Al Gore?
The answer is that experience, heroism, and $2 will buy you a cup of coffee if you are running for president. The swing voters deciding elections will choose the candidate they would rather see on their TV the next four years.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 11:22 AMDon't try to convince snark of that.
Huh? Did I say anything about Obama and his media coverage?
Posted by snark at March 5, 2008 11:23 AM
No snark, not at all:
T2,Posted by Seven of Six at March 5, 2008 11:48 AMYou're being willfully obtuse.
You know this is a media driven process and the media narrative has been all about the "Obama 11 consecutive primary wins" for the past several weeks. Clinton was all but written off. Get some perspective.
Has anyone noticed that Hillary's superdelegate lead--I know how important those superdelegates are to Hillary's faith based election strategy--is down to 39?
Posted by nerdoff at March 5, 2008 11:52 AMFine, I stand corrected. I did mention the media coverage. But I did not deny that Obama had a bad week. The comment was in the context of our debate about "the comeback". Which I tried to explain was about the campaign overall and not about Texas specifically. Obama did have a bad press week. I never denied that. Never actually addressed it. It's part and parcel of what I think is your fundimental misreading of the media's "comeback" narrative. Clinton was written off in the media. As well as around here. The insurmountable 11 consecutive primary wins. The momentum. The defecting super delegates etc. etc. And today? She's back. Hence, a comeback. Yes, it's a media driven euphemism.
But I never denied that Obama had a bad week in the media. But you got me.
Posted by snark at March 5, 2008 12:09 PMIt is an interesting ananlysis for sure. Although, not without plenty of "ifs" and "buts". After last night, I think the only thing we can possibly derive is that the large states haven't necessarily decided this contest. California didn't, Michigan and Florida couldn't and Texas and Ohio din't solidify anything either. It seems like we're the closes thing to a national nominating process as we could possibly find ourselves in. So, could it be that all the states will have an important say? Personally, living in Portland, Oregon, I would like to think my state primary and my personal vote will count. Maybe we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves on this one.
Posted by Joe B at March 5, 2008 01:18 PMThere is a fine line between "the will of the people" and "mob rule".
Maybe cooler heads(SDs) should put all the factors in a super computer to see which candidate will better give McCain and the GOP the beating of a century.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 5, 2008 01:32 PMT2
re:
"the same old politicians who gave away the farm to george w. bush every time he asked ..."
keep in mind that one of obama chief advisers and a god father to his campaign for president is one tom daschle.
(former) senator daschle, you may recall, was the demo senate majority leader who designed the democratic response to pres bush's demands in 2002 for support for his invasion of iraq (under pretext of fighting terrorists).
it was tom daschle of whom either andy card or karl rove said,
"we could never understand what senator daschle was up to (on iraq), every time we would go to the congress with a demand, he would give us everything we asked for."
does that sound like the kind of guru that would make you comfortable about obama? it doesn't to me.
oh, and as an aside,
when obama went into the u.s. senate, daschle was just coming out (after being targeted and defeated by the bush white house. nice guys eh!).
obama hired many of daschel's staff including his former chief of staff.
so,
"same old politicians who gave away the farm to george bush every time he asked ..." ?
if that's your concern, obama is not your man.
obama's "i'm a new kind of politician"
is just the same old bait-and-switch(back) that politicians have been conning the american people with for the last 28 years, to wit,
"i'm an outsider; i'm not like those guys in power now. i'll govern differently, honest i will."
only suckers believe the little fairy tale of the outsider who will do things differently in Washington, if you will only give him the keys to the government this time.
Posted by orionATL at March 5, 2008 01:38 PMI wonder if the Democrats are smart enough to get rid of these caucuses. That's a stupid way to pick delegates.
Posted by Moon at March 5, 2008 01:45 PMHillary can win twice....properly secure the nomination (delegates, superdelegates, popular vote).... AND claim she can win the big states/battleground states in November.....
fyi....
Do-Over in Michigan and Florida?
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
(03-05) 14:32 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
Officials in Michigan and Florida are showing renewed interest in holding repeat presidential nominating contests so that their votes will count.
The governors of both states are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. So are top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign.
That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the state's delegates are allocated.
Clinton won both contests, but the results were meaningless since the elections were in violation of party rules. The Democratic National Committee stripped both states of their delegates for holding the primaries too early. The candidates agreed not to campaign in either state.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/03/05/politics/p143250S14.DTL
Posted by PaulieB at March 5, 2008 03:05 PMSo now we have a the darker Obama ad...it is undeniable, may have been a mistake by HRC campaign but that seems at best a stretch. The premise they took Obama's picture from debate made it darker and his nose wider. Yes I know much faith in Kos around here, but I did the research and it checks out the ad does indeed make him appear darker with a wider nose...
Additionally I keep hearing Obama is nothing but speeches, ok...then praytell where does HRC get her experience from in foreign policy? She had less of a clearance than I do now when she was first lady. I can see the validity in the she is better in policy debate but experience well that seems a might thin. Thoughts?
Posted by jesse at March 5, 2008 03:12 PMjesse,
actually, it is deniable. it has been clearly explained and refuted. don't believe what you read at daily kos.
Posted by Turkana at March 5, 2008 03:16 PMI've been waiting for Bill Richardson's endorsement. The longer it is until or if he says someone, the more it suggests that the Party bigwigs have decided to try to pull the plug, in whatever way they can, on Hillary. I've heard big Demo donor Walter Shorenstein say that it's gotta end soon for the good of the party. I heard Cal Dem State Chairman Art Torres say pretty much the same thing. This was all before last night.
If in this empty space of time ahead for us we start hearing superdelegates declaring themselves for Obama then I think that Clinton can officially be declared the outsider.
In the worst scenario Obama will have an insurmountable delegate count (he pretty much already does) and Hillary has the popular vote.
I think that most superdelegates who will be running for office will lean for having Obama as stronger at the top of the ticket.
In short, there will be two candidates who will have a claim to the nomination. It looks like Obama will win. Do the Dem leaders abandon him and surely turn 2008 into a defeat, or do they allow Hillary to go to the convention to destroy their chances in the fall? (Hillary fans, this will not get her the nomination in 2012, if elections are still held then.)
This is what I think is happening, as we blog. The Big Dems are trying desperately to get this ended quick, which means trying to get Clinton to quit or lose. Maybe the Shorensteins et al turn off the spigot. Well-timed announcements of Obama endorsements.
We shall see.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 5, 2008 03:18 PMDo you think they'll let us Michiganders vote in November?
Posted by Sharon at March 5, 2008 03:44 PMbob,
of course, last night changed everything. even richardson acknowledged that.
Posted by Turkana at March 5, 2008 03:53 PMMaybe cooler heads(SDs) should put all the factors in a super computer to see which candidate will better give McCain and the GOP the beating of a century. - TIKI AL
Let's see... money, organization, polling data vs McCain, favorability polling data... turn the crank and you know what the computer will say.
Turkana, it is standard operating procedure to make one's opponent look ugly in negative ads, and there is no question that Obama's image was doctored by removing much of the color, darkening, and widening. Only the Clinton's campaign's implausible denial of having changed Obama's image brings the inference of intentional racial motive.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 04:18 PMTurkana, how do the vote counts really mean anything when a lot of the Obama votes are republican??
We have a flawed primary system, and we will go probably go to the convention and let the SD decide it there, based upon who they think has the best chance at the General Election.
But maybe next time out we can get rid of caucus and only let Democrats vote in democratic primaries.
Posted by kcbill13 at March 5, 2008 04:22 PMof course, last night changed everything. even richardson acknowledged that.
The only thing that changed is that Clinton's campaign isn't over yet. She gained only about 6 delegates on the night, which will be more than nullified after Wyoming and Mississippi have their say.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 04:25 PMcapj,
people who work in video editing explained it. but why believe experts, when we have kos's fair and balanced opinion.
kcbill,
i agree. allowing crossover voting was supposed to help get us candidates who will be more palatable to crossover voters, in the fall; but given the weakness of the republican brand, right now, i think we should stick with democratic voters picking the democratic nominee. and there's just no excuse for caucuses.
Posted by Turkana at March 5, 2008 04:25 PMTurkana, people who work in advertising and video editing explained how fantastically improbable it would be for professionals to change the image like that by accident.
I'm not really even blaming the Clinton campaign - it would be stupid to let your opponent look good in your own ad - but their denial is ridiculous and makes them look guilty.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 04:29 PMEliminating cross-over voting is not possible, as many states do not have partisan voter registration.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 5, 2008 04:35 PMI just finally looked at the ad for the first time and you know, Hillary looks darker too. She's all shadowy and dark. She must be trying to make herself look evil in her own ad.
Posted by CG at March 5, 2008 06:06 PMturkana, nothing really changed last night except that it is more urgent for the Party bigwigs to get Clinton to pull out. Despite all the talk about Clinton's great comeback in this race, she still is essentially in the same position delegate-wise. She can't win the pledged delegates. The superdelegates will decide the nomination, but they will not override the pledged delegate winner without forever destroying the Democratic Party.
Expect a steady stream of superdelegates and party officials to begin endorsing Obama. That's how I see it. We'll see.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 5, 2008 07:23 PMfunny, bob. she wins big in oh, wins tx and ri, and that makes it more urgent that she get out? if only she'd have lost, she could stick around a while longer!
Posted by Turkana at March 5, 2008 10:39 PMThe assumption seems to be that Hillary can be tossed out with no cost to the party. I suspect that will not be the case. Hillary has a large following, some of it very devoted. There are studies showing that up to 30% of her voters could bolt to McCain. Many Reagan Democrats will stick with Hillary but not Obama. Saw Pat Buchannan of all people making this argument. He said she is putting together the old FDR coalition.
Just how is giving the leader in pledged delagates going to heal the party? This needs to be explained better.
Posted by DaleA at March 5, 2008 10:43 PMThe Hillary needs to get out thing amazes me too.
She just won several state primaries and NEITHER she or Obama can reach the 2025 delegate threshold without super delegates but she needs to give up and go home because she's behind by what 15%? Come on! Why have a threshold? Why not just make it a straight majority contest?
And again from the Obama crowd we have the claims about winning Texas because he came out of the bizarre "primacus" with more delegates. What happened to all the concern about the 'will of the people'? Are Texas super delegates now to be committed to voting for Clinton since she won the popular vote?
Here's a thought. How about we just let the primary season play itself out and have a convention that forces people to actually consider which one would be a better president? If there's so much concern that the negative campaigning is gonna fatally cripple one or the other before a general election fight perhaps that should say a little something about the candidate who gets crippled? Would the Swift Boaters have crippled Kerry if he'd had the spine and advice to fight back hard? Or was he a fatally flawed candidate from the get go?
Posted by snark at March 6, 2008 06:37 AMJust how is giving the leader in pledged delagates going to heal the party? This needs to be explained better. - DaleA
It's settling our differences through a thing called "democracy". The nominee will have earned it by getting the support of the voters.
Why not just make it a straight majority contest? - snark
A most excellent idea...
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 6, 2008 07:15 AM