SOUR
GRAPES.

facts taste sour to some.

"Beautiful dreamer, harken to me...." Hillary is toast.

ah, yes- more well-considered argumentation. this is fun. and not unexpected.

The split system of voting--caucus vs. general election--is what undermines the Obama claims the most, plus having 2 states not count, God.

I continue to be unimpressed with either of them. Obama won't even call himself a liberal, and the Clinton campaign accused Obama about lying regarding being a law professor.

It's a huge stinking mess with very little legitimacy anywhere. We won't lose because of it, but it can't be good.

paradox,

we may lose because of it. it depends how the dnc and the two campaigns play it. right now, none of them are thinking about long-term consequences.

Just so I'm clear, how sleazy and anti-liberal does Hillary have to operate before uncritical support for her becomes unacceptable?

Turkana, it is not surprising to find opinion in Kos' opinion piece. "Insurmountable" is, however, a good description of Obama's delegate lead. Given outcomes in the remaining primaries which follow the current polling or (lacking that) mainstream expectations, Clinton would need 83% of the remaining undeclared non-"add-on" super delegates to get the nomination. Of course, Obama always gains in the polls as contests draw closer and he closes the familiarity gap. Since the supers have given no indication that they would favor the candidate with less pledged delegates, less votes, and less money, a scenario in which the remaining pledged delegates swing overwhelmingly for Clinton is simply not plausible.

The pledged delegate count is used as a metric because it is the best measure we have of the candidate supported by the voters. Many of the super delegates have indicated they want the nominee to be chosen by the voters, not themselves. That means as a practical matter the pledged delegate count really is all that matters.

Clinton has no realistic chance of catching up (or even gaining significantly) in the popular vote tally. Obama's likely overwhelming win in North Carolina will probably more than make up for a narrow Clinton win in Pennsylvania. Pretending that Florida and Michigan should be added to the mix only makes fun of the popular vote measure, as those contests were clearly undemocratic.

Turkana, you reflexively criticize Obama supporters, but Kos' analysis has far more going for it than Big Tent Democrat's or Sean Wiletz's. BTD's analysis entirely ignores the reason why a nominee would be presumptive given the support of both Iowa and New Hampshire: because winning both those states is likely to lead to a near sweep of the nominating contests like Kerry had. Siletz's analysis that retroactively decides that the Democratic nomination contests are winner-takes-all is nothing but self-parody.

It is absolutely not true that the pledged delegate selection process is arbitrary. It is representative democracy, no more arbitrary than Congress. There are very good reasons why the popular vote is not used, especially the different voting methods used (caucus vs primary in particular).

The overwhelming mathematical disadvantage combined with an equally large money disadvantage makes a Clinton win impossible without a political cataclysm striking Obama. Only being ill-informed or (yes) delusional would lead one to believe Clinton has a realistic chance to earn the nomination.

i love to see spin driven into the wall.

turkana,

did you see kevin drum's post and link to an article by polysci prof josiah lee auspitz entitled "the law of rules"?

if not, you must read it (kevin drum, political animal, april 4, 2008).

it is an extremely informative and superbly written (this stuff is technical) piece on the democratic (and republican) nominating rules.

among other things, it addresses the function of the superdelegates' and their very legitimate role in the democratic party's nominating process.

i don't know if i have read anything better this nominating season on the history and purpose of nomination rules.

though not partisan at all, it really ought to be broadcast all over the internet and put on clinton's website.

capj,

florida was, in fact, democratic. i favor revotes, just so no one can claim that the first vote was unfair, but the state is very demographically favorable to clinton, and she would likely win it by a large margin. michigan would be much closer, but i think she'd do well, there, too. you can't just ignore those states.

as to the popular vote, more broadly, as the linked oxendine article makes clear, she can, in fact, win it. let's wait and see. if she doesn't, the race is over. but it continues to fascinate me that people keep screaming that the race is over before votes are held in some large states, plus puerto rico, which do have the potential to change the race dynamics. and if those upcoming elections do change the race dynamics, the large superdelegate margin clinton now needs could very well happen.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all

Just food for thought for those favoring Hillary... certainly not something Obama or the media would like to discuss.

Revotes for Florida and Michigan would be OK.

We also revote all the caucus states and make them regular elections.

the caucus states were all done legitimately. i hate caucuses, and wish they'd be banned, but they were done fairly. the clinton campaign just blew them badly by not taking them seriously enough, and by not organizing them well enough.

Also, if Obama is so assured of the nomination, why all the worry about the Superdelegates? If it's such a shoe-in, the Superdelegates shouldn't have any effect at all.

Except it ISN'T a shoe-in. It's close. Obama will probably lead in regular delegates (due to wins in caucus states that aren't going to be voting Democratic in the regular election, IMO). But he certainly isn't an overwhelming choice. If he was an overwhelming choice, we would be talking about how he could beat McCain.

So, get over this "Hillary should quit" crap, Obama-ites. Fight for the nomination, and let's SEE who wins.

1) While neither candidate will get the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination without Superdelegates thrown into the mix, Obama's lead in pledged delegates (~160) will not shirk below 100 unless Clinton racks up 60-70% of the vote in the 10 remaining contests, and that won't happen.

2) Clinton and her campaign said repeatedly before Super Tuesday that what matters is the delegate count, so it is not a manufactured spin by NBC or Obama's campaign. The way a candidate becomes the nominee is by accumulating the necessary number of delegates, period. While the apportionment of delegates might be undemocratic or unfair, those were the rules going into this cycle, and any attempt to change the metric during the tail end of the contest basically cheating.

3) A coup is generally defined as a political power take over that is counter majoritarian. And if the Superdelegates were to award Clinton the nomination despite not winning the majority of the pledged delegates (or the popular vote for that matter), it would fit that definition of a coup. While Kos' take makes it sound like a violation of the rules--which it is not--it would be a coup. But that won't happen; since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 69 supers and Clinton has lost 2. She isn't going to get over 80% of the remaining undecideds that she needs to get the necessary number of delegates.

*4) Michigan and Florida were never have supposed to count. Clinton's team expected to win more, and have it all sewn up by Super Tuesday, at which point they would let MI/FL into the convention as they voted. The DNC didn't want those states to influence the outcome becuase they had already set the rules for the calendar. As we saw on the GOP side, even if the halving penalty had been imposed, those two states would have had a disproportionate influence on the outcome of the nomination race. Does it suck for the voters in those states how it all turned out? Yes, but it is too late to revote now and some sort of delegation from both states will be seated in Denver. But to count those states towards the popular vote or delegate count isn't proper under the rulings of the DNC (as voted by Ickes) and wouldn't change the leader of either catagory at the end of all of the contests.

The only one that is spinning us dizzy here is the Clinton supporters.

Turkana, not allowing campaigning is fundamentally undemocratic. It stacks the election for the establishment candidate. You should be well aware of this. Obama has gained at least 10 points from initial polling everwhere because he has been able to campaign in each state. There is no doubt at all that Florida would have been alot closer than it actually was had it been a democratic election. The attempted inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the popular vote under the guise of fairness reveals it as nothing but transparent spin.

as to the popular vote, more broadly, as the linked oxendine article makes clear, she can, in fact, win it.

Obama is up 827,000 votes (according to RCP) and it is unlikely Clinton's margin in PA will be greater than Obama's in NC. The Oxendine analysis not only doesn't show his math, which looks suspect, but also conveniently ignores all the polling which show both states moving toward Obama, NC dramatically so. This always happens as we get closer to election dates - Obama gains as people get to know him as well as they know Clinton.

And Ivor the Engine Driver, your comment is the kind of crap that isn't helping at all.

That kind of comment without ANY evidence is the kind of thing Karl Rove would post. Are you a GOP mole?

dave,

you once again confuse sueprdelegates with delegates. percentages are irrelevant, because the superdelegates will decide the race. that's the simple truth. and if clinton wins the popular vote, a victory by superdelegates would not be anything close to a coup. it would, in fact, be a way to override the eccentric pledged delegate allocation system to ensure that the nominee was chosen by the majority of the voters. you don't seem to want to address the eccentricities of the pledged delegate allocation system. and the dnc changed the rules on the punishment of florida and michigan. that was also done arbitrarily. your own spin once again is simply wrong. and good luck getting obama elected, in november, if there's no fair resolution to florida and michigan.

Turkana,

I will stipulate that Florida and Michigan could have been handled better. And were they, yes, Hillary might still have a chance to win the popular vote. If that were the case, then I would be willing to entertain the suggestion that Hillary should win the support of the superdelegates.

I will also stipulate that the rules are the rules and the rules allow for superdelegates to decide the election.

But it is all academic at this point. Hillary can't win a majority of any meaningful metric: pledged delegates, states, popular vote.

So, stop arguing about WHY Hillary should win and answer the simple question: How can she win?

And answer it not simply with numbers, but with a credible explanation of HOW, at this point, she is going to convince a significant majority of superdelegates to vote against the winner of the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.

Honestly I remain surprised at the strength of your support for Hillary given your past praise for "The Shock Doctrine" and Hillary's association with Penn, among other things).

DaveB, Obama ISN'T likely to get the necessary amount of delegates to win the nomination. So how are we going to decide? Revotes in all 50 states with just Hillary and Obama on the ballot?

You want to change the rules and force the Superdelegates to vote the way YOU want them to. If it was found that Hillary would win that way, you wouldn't tolerate it.

You want a majority to win, but you want to ignore Michigan and Florida. That's a lot of votes that you are removing, while at the same time declaring that the will of the people must be obeyed.

Checking the Oxendine's math, using his rosy scenario for Clinton she would still be behind by 251,000 votes. A more realistic scenario would have her gaining less than 100,000 votes from here on out, leaving her over 700,000 votes behind.

capj,

the polls also showed obama closing in ohio, and she won it by 250,000 votes. some polls show north carolina within 10, and others show larger margins. polls show her winning wv and ky by enormous margins, and puerto rico alone could net her another 250,000 or more. let's just see what happens. if you're right about how those states will turn out, it will all be moot- he'll have won. that's the point of letting the voters decide.

as for florida and michigan, if obama and his supporters are so confident that he will do much better in revotes, he and they should be doing all they can to promote the idea of revotes. funny that obama has been throwing up all sorts of objections to every proposed plan, without offering alternatives, while saying he'd just prefer a 50/50 split of the delegates. wonder why he's doing that...

space,

i'm not supporting hillary, i'm supporting a fair election and fair coverage. i do not think there's any substantive difference between hillary and obama on most issues, including iraq. as for how she can win the popular vote- oxendine's analysis is one possible path. but there's also the problem of fl and mi- and it IS a problem. because we will need at least one of those states, in november. and to dismiss both states means to dismiss any chance of accurately reflecting the popular will. which is why i want revotes.

I also favor revotes and feel that Senator Obama's opposition to them will hurt in November. But all this talk about such revoting is blather because nobody with authority in Michigan and/or Florida is about to make it happen. How many times do the officials in those states have to say there won't be a revote before people get it?

The only solution right now, in my view, is for people on both sides of the Clinton-Obama divide to press the two candidates to sit down and come up with a solution that does not overly favor one or the other and that they can publicly shake hands on and get their respective supporters to stop battling over this.

I, obviously, believe that the math does not favor Clinton. And I think she should bail. But I don't think she will. So, those of us who prefer a Democrat to win in November, even though it may not be our "perfect" choice (as in my case), should do what we can to help resolve this situation. Any solution we urge that unduly favors one or the other candidate will not be productive.

if you counted electoral votes in the states each has won..hillary is ahead..if you counted the popular vote in fl and mi..and probably pa to come..hillary is ahead..it is they who are trying to steal it..by disenfranchising two states..facts mean very little to obamamites..as does any kind of reasoned debate..they are an irrational lot

obama will not carry florida if he keeps refusing to recognize the..it is not the dnc..or the rules stopping recognition of mi and fl..it is the obama people..make no mistake about that

The system is the system. The Dems chief obstacle to the general is that they like to plot policy and argue. This killed off the socialists, the Socialist Workers, the Trotsky-ites, etc. Michigan and Florida screwed it up. Their primaries can't be used and can't be fixed either. Too late. It's also too late for Clinton and she's tanking as we waste our time here. I'm with Bowers over at Open Left--Obama is already the Candidate. If Clinton wants to keep going, fine. But she's in a death spiral and let's hope she doesn't drag the Party down along with her. The candidates sure are spending a lot of dough they could better spend on attacking McCain. Turkana, you've gotten irrational on this. Your posts take me back to when I was a war gamer. A certain type of person likes to argue when the board has already spoken .

mb,

i agree that the math does not favor clinton, but i do, obviously, think she can still win the popular vote. as for fl and mi, it would, indeed, be nice to see someone offering leadership towards a just resolution, but no one is leading.

overall, those who claim clinton is trying to win by "coup," or that she cannot win fairly, are not helping. it's more accurate to say that she can still win fairly, that the odds are heavily against her, and that we should let the states vote, and then look at the overall results. that's not even close to what markos has been writing. if the goal is to bring both sides together, his attitude is not helping.

john,

you write so honestly, while ignoring every fact. you want to argue the facts i listed, do so. otherwise, you do come across as someone who prefers games to reality.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for speaking the truth. This Democrat will not be scared by the Obamablog or anyone else. Sadly, they have a lot of kids believing their oft repeated lies.

Listen up kids, we adults will NOT BE MOVED or bullied and we are not going away. See you in Denver!

Moon,

Superdelegates can vote any way they want. I didn't say they had to vote any particular way. I merely pointed out that it isn't likely they will vote the way Clinton supporters would like them to given the trends and the reality of her situation. The point I was trying to make is while the word "coup" is a loaded term, overturning the popular vote seems to fit the definition.

MI and FL voters will never "count" in the sense that they won't influence the outcome of the race anymore. It was a bad decision by their state leaders to sneak up on NH and IA the way they did since it screwed their voters, which they compounded by dilly-dallying around with a revote until the 1th hour. Sure Obama probably made the situation worse by raising objections, but Hillary did no favors to the cause by only brining up those states after she fell behind and suggesting equally untenable solutions to the problem.

Would I have preferred revotes? Yes! Is one possible now given the VRA and logistics with elections boards? No. So the only real solution here is to have their delegations seated and fight for a better nomination calendar/system (AKA less or no caucses, a mix of states) for the NEXT cycle. How they are seated needs to be determined by both camps before the convention and it should be as equitable as possible. 50/50 from Michigan is as bad as giving Obama 0 delegates in terms of being a realistic proposal.

Hopefully, this race will calm down to a degree where both sides can stop posturing with the press and have serious discussions in private and hammer the whole thing out.

While I have preferred Obama the whole time, there are many things about Clinton I like. However these arguments about viability and electiblity they have put forth have annoyed me to no end.

Turkana, you are not supporting Hillary? You had me fooled.

t2,

perhaps that's because you see this as a binary. i don't. perhaps it's because you're used to seeing only one side of the story. i'm not.

the polls also showed obama closing in ohio, and she won it by 250,000 votes.

The polls had shown her up by 20%+ but she won by 10. In Texas she was up by 20, but she won the primary by 3.

some polls show north carolina within 10

Not really. The only one that had her within 10 in the last 3 weeks was a poll which had the result at 35-26 which is more than a little odd. The other most recent polls by all the pollsters have Obama ahead by 21, 23, 13, and 15 with only the first two done in the last week.

polls show her winning wv and ky by enormous margins

No doubt she will win those easily - it's just not nearly enough to put much dent in the popular vote.

puerto rico alone could net her another 250,000 or more.

We have no idea what will happen, and that scenario is basically by definition a Clinton fantasy. 250,000 would make a difference if that really were to happen, but she would still fall far short of making up an 827,000 vote deficit.

let's just see what happens.

We can see if the sun rises tomorrow or not.

as for florida and michigan, if obama and his supporters are so confident that he will do much better in revotes, he and they should be doing all they can to promote the idea of revotes. funny that obama has been throwing up all sorts of objections to every proposed plan, without offering alternatives, while saying he'd just prefer a 50/50 split of the delegates. wonder why he's doing that...

I favored revotes, but Florida and Michigan overwhelmingly did not. That was their choice, not Obama's or Clinton's.

Here's the math of the popular vote under Oxendine's scenario using the popular vote spreadsheet linked to the article (pardon the lack of formatting), but Clinton still appears to lose by 171,000 votes:

Current Clinton Deficit -827,308
Pennsylvania Closed 2,938,095 80.00% 2,350,476 16.00% 376,076
Indiana Open 969,011 82.00% 794,589 8.00% 63,567
North Carolina Open 1,525,849 82.00% 1,251,196 -12.00% -150,144
West Virginia Open 326,541 82.00% 267,764 30.00% 80,329
Kentucky Closed 712,733 63.00% 449,022 20.00% 89,804
Oregon Closed 943,163 63.00% 594,193 -5.00% -29,710
Puerto Rico Open N/A N/A 1,000,000 25.00% 250,000
Montana Open 173,710 82.00% 142,442 -10.00% -14,244
South Dakota Closed 149,244 63.00% 94,024 -10.00% -9,402
Net Clinton Deficit -171,031

People can fantasize about Clinton winning the popular vote or about getting a huge super delegate swing, but there is no logical reason why either will happen.

capj,

i appreciate your arguing actual facts. it's a welcome exception. your hard numbers, however, are speculative, and you took the rcp estimated number that was most favorable to obama. even so, you end up with clinton behind by only 170,000 some votes, with florida and michigan not included. again- we cannot simply dismiss those voters. furthermore, some think turnout in puerto rico will be substantially higher than 1 million. which brings me back to my overall point- let the voters vote, and we'll see.

as for the polls in oh, tx, and pa, both oh and tx showed obama closing to the point of possibly winning them, just as has been happening in pa. then, in ohio, clinton ended up with a solid win. the same happened in california, with the field poll (the gold standard, in california) showing obama within a couple points, before clinton won by several hundred thousand votes. again, let's wait and see.

Dateline: In a stroke of brilliance, Karl Rove carefully engineered a split in the Liberal blogosphere during the Democratic Primary of 2008, effectively defocusing the bloggers from either his, Bush's, or McCain's foibles...

Turkana, as deeply flawed as it is to combine the caucuses and primaries into a popular vote, you at least ought to include IA, NV, ME, and WA. The whole point of the popular vote exercise is to determine who is the raw choice of the voters, right? That means including every democratically held contest and not undemocratic ones.

I've shown that even under a very rosy scenario for Clinton she doesn't win the popular vote. We can wait and see if Clinton wins the vote in Philadelphia, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Before people vote, one can pretend that anything will happen, but really we have a pretty good idea and we know that Clinton won't win my any measure.

Turkana, since you are fair and balanced, why not tell us how Obama can get the nomination. That would be fair, huh?

t2,

we all know how obama can win the nomination. and his path is shorter and easier than clinton's. that doesn't mean he'll do it, but we all know he's now clearly in the lead. in fact, i pointed that out, in my post.

something about let's wait and see..or letting the people vote and be heard..that bothers the hell out of obamamites...why is that

Turkana,

Color me skeptical that you're "not supporting hillary". You sure had me fooled.

Here's the reality. Life isn't fair and neither are elections. The Democratic nominating process is far from perfect, but it is what it is. And right now, under the system we have, Hillary is a prohibitive underdog. The superdelegates, even if they are allowed to, will not swing it for her.

I am not particularly sympathetic towards Hillary because she was perfectly willing to game the system when she thought it was to her advantage, i.e. getting her political supporters to front-load the calendar, racking up a huge war chest, and trying to win long before every state and every voter had a chance to express his or her opinion.

Hillary couldn't have cared less about the flaws in the system back when her supporters were telling me that she was "inevitable" and I could go fuck myself.

Other candidates have suffered from unfair press and unfair attacks by primary opponents. Dean was savaged in 2004. Edwards, Dodd, and Biden were ignored in 2008. And all of them, especially Edwards, bowed out when it was reasonably obvious that it was time. Hell, Edwards was hardly mathematically eliminated when he dropped out.

But Hillary simply can't step aside. Even when her chief strategist is going back to his day job of undermining worker's rights in Latin America.

comparing dodd.. biden ..and even edwards..to hillary..now thats a fair analogy..if ever there was one..time to quit hillary..chris dodd knew when the hell to get out..why don't you!!

CA Pol Junkie, send me a note offline, if you would please.

Life isn't fair and neither are elections.

This is space's response to disenfranchising 2.3 million voters.

I think it'll work really well for bringing those Clinton supporters over to our side, yep. Slap them across the face, tell them to stop bellyaching, and demand that they vote for Obama! Shut up bitch, and vote for Obama! Life ain't fair!

Ooooo.Nice!

All I can say is that there is a lot of brainpower being expended to figure out a way for a candidate, leader by a wide margin a year ago, to scratch out a last second victory. Gallup now has her down 9 to Obama nationally, she better start soon.

'In other words, "the pledged delegates chosen directly by Democratic voters" have been allocated completely arbitrarily.'

This is simply false - the allocation hasn't been entirely rational or fair, but it hasn't been arbitrary. Of course Kos's "direct" is ludicrous.

Moon wrote:

And Ivor the Engine Driver, your comment is the kind of crap that isn't helping at all. . . That kind of comment without ANY evidence is the kind of thing Karl Rove would post. Are you a GOP mole?

Nope. Just an old time McGovern voter wondering why anyone could ever support the illiberal Hillary Clinton.

Full Disclosure: I am an Obama supporter

Turkana,

I have been increasingly dismayed at the bias at both Daily Kos and Talk Left. But I have to ask a question (or two):

1. Do you or anyone out in the “sphere” really think it is Obama’s fault that the delegates in MI and FL; were stripped, causing the re-vote debacle?

2. Do you think if the positions were reversed Hillary would be (as some say Obama is now) trying to stop re-votes in MI or FL? (I do not think he’s trying to stop them, but I digress.)

Ok three questions:

3. While it is “factually accurate” that the superdelegates can vote for whoever they want, do you think that is a good idea?

This has been the problem I have with the Talk Left Bloggers; they seem to think Obama is against the re-votes. I see it differently, the Hillary supported MI plan was to only allow the people who voted in the democratic primary and people who did not vote to participate in the re-vote. Since this vote went for her last time it seems disingenuous to propose this only and not allow everyone to revote. I will say I think it was a mistake to strip MI and FL in the first place, but it was done and all the candidates agreed to abide by the decision. As far as candidates go the real loser in this proposed re-vote is John Edwards and by proxy his supporters, he was still in the race at the time of the original votes and had he won either could have made an argument to stay in.

Your thoughts?

Chris
Wheaton IL

How long has it been since voters in PA, NC, WV, etc have had their votes mean something in a primary election. Why is this a bad thing? And while proportional allocation might be a bit screwy, it's seems more fair and democratic than winner take all. Now this whole superdelegate thing seems a bit screwy to me and I wonder if the DNC will get rid of it after this election or modify it.

As for the count if it had been winner-take-all, that's irrelevant. Obama's strategy was based on the system in place, not a different system. Under a winner-take-all system, he would have run his campaign differently.

IF Clinton were to pull out the popular vote while Obama had the delegate count, I think the nomination would be truly up for grabs and no one could say Clinton stole anything if she got it. If Obama were to win the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, I have a hard time seeing supers go to Clinton. But I do wish Pelosi and others would stop talking about how it would destroy the party if that happened. Superdelegates are supposed to use their judgment and if they have reason to believe that Obama will implode in the general election or something like that, they have every right and reason and in fact should go to Clinton.

This is space's response to disenfranchising 2.3 million voters.

No, my response is to fix the system in the first place. But I won't be lectured to about the purity of our system, or lack thereof, by opportunists who ignore the problems until it personally affects them.

I think it'll work really well for bringing those Clinton supporters over to our side, yep. Slap them across the face, tell them to stop bellyaching, and demand that they vote for Obama! Shut up bitch, and vote for Obama! Life ain't fair!

I am asking nothing more than I asked of Kucinich supporters, Biden supporters, Dodd supporters, Richardson supporters, and my fellow Edwards supporters, as well as Al Gore pipedreamers: When the campaign is over and continuing will cause more harm than good step aside.

Excuse me, but why is that acceptable for every other campaign but Hillary's? How is asking fellow Democrats to act like mature adults "slapping them across the face"? Again, I didn't hear any protests from Team Hillary when Edwards dropped out. Edwards could have stayed in and hoped that Hillary and Obama got hit by a couple of meteorites on the way to the convention.

All I know is that I am not happy with people calling for someone to quit when it's practically an even split and there are still 10 states left to vote with about 12 million votes that have yet to be cast and counted. Let the process complete itself. Since when is the democratic party all about not counting votes and letting the process end before someone has hit the magic number when it's as close as it is?

I personally would think that by finishing the primary season, that this would only validate Senator Obama's win if all the votes were included in the process....and if people are so certain of his ability to win then there should be no issue with completing the voting ....it should only act to strengthen his standing and his position in my eyes....and that would also be a good thing for the party and process.
Lastly how is it that Clinton is the divisive one and Obama the clear winner is ludicrous at this point....To me that's just as bad as Bush claiming he had a clear mandate after winning by a couple of percentage points to Kerry...just sayin. I remember how angry I was when Scotus shut down the FL recount process and installed Nero and how mad I was at Kerry for not challenging in OH...sign

To me it's simple....Let the race and the voting continue...let the votes be counted ...it's the Democratic thing to do.

Since when is the democratic party all about not counting votes and letting the process end before someone has hit the magic number when it's as close as it is?

Umm...always? It's not like this is a new phenomenon. The party elders have historically not had much of a problem rushing to cater to the fancies of two of the whitest, most homogenous states -- NH and IA -- and then declaring a victor long, long before I get to vote (NY).

It is well known that the Clintons and McAuliffe helped craft this schedule to produce a winner (Hillary) early on. They never had a problem with ignoring anybody's voice until they were behind.

I would agree if Hillary had a legitimate shot at winning. She doesn't. If this was a basketball game, she'd be losing 110-105 with 2 seconds left. The fact that it will end up close does not erase the fact that she will not win.

Some people seem to think that saying Clinton has no chance to win the election means that she should be forced to drop out. The former does not imply the latter, although it begs the question of why Clinton's campaign should continue. 10 contests remain, and while they have their say we know enough about how they will vote to know that the nominee will be Barack Obama.

turkana wrote:

They wonder why people who do not support Clinton but simply care about honesty are so angry!

All that sniper fire whizzing about their heads must've upset them.

Some people seem to think that saying Clinton has no chance to win the election means that she should be forced to drop out. The former does not imply the latter, although it begs the question of why Clinton's campaign should continue. 10 contests remain, and while they have their say we know enough about how they will vote to know that the nominee will be Barack Obama.
--------------------------------------------------

The role of a Superdelegate is to nominate the person most capable of winning the nomination; to filter out the person who is most weak.

Nothing more, nothing less; otherwise, there is no point to have them...none.

With that said, Obama will never win in November...Never.

You don't have tons of dots scattered in your background (some pretty close to recent), have them connected and then display a pretty clear picture of his racial issues, and then expect to win a political office which is supposed to represent the entire country.

There are things we do not yet know about obama, and it's the MSM's fault, as well as bush-like Obamazombies.

I hate those ridiculous names, but seriously...Obama appeals to emotions, not intellect; Obama is a self-proclaimed "uniter", when he's clearly dividing by race; Obama claims to be something new, however when Chicago politics are known (and I do, because I'm from there), that is nothing new, but something of the worst kind of putrid politicking.

obama is proof positive that there is nothing different within groups of humans who have filters on, to agree/disagree with what they personally support.

It's the Hillary supporters who are going against the grain, who are the underdogs, who are the true backbone of the Old Democratic party; people who have dedicated time, money, and energy into their beloved party, standing for equal rights.

Obama comes along, and pulls the Ipod, Starbucks, West Wing watching "youth" crowd into it, and you people are willing to justify anything that comes up with obama, because you're wearing blinders.

For the hyper, whiny, "clinton's a racist!" delusional obama supporters..how'd that "clinton darkened obama's skin!" bullshit turn out for you? How'd that "Hillary goes to a creep secret prayer meeting (but I'm not telling you about Obama's involvement cuz he's been there too!)" bullshit turn out?

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A DEMOCRATIC VERSION OF GEORGE W. BUSH; I WILL NOT VOTE FOR A PERSON WHO MARGINALIZES THE BACKBONE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND LABELS LONGTIME ALLIES RACIST because they disagree with him.

I WILL NOT!!

CAPJ and others, then fine let them vote...please stop telling someone to drop out...Completing the process would only serve to legitimize it and the eventual winner's nomination..which you all assume will be Senator Obama (and which I agree most likely will happen too-but the future hasn't happened yet so until the future is past I will await the final voting). Why are some people afraid to let that happen? And don't give me the divisiveness stuff, the current situation is well past that, feelings have already hardened unfortunately.And don't give me fighting against McCain...if either of the current candidates isn't talented enough to blast McCain with all the material that's amply available and multitask and run against their current democratic opponent, well then that certainly speaks volumes about their skills (or lack thereof),..and that goes for BOTH candidates. What do they expect to run against in the general election?...where they'll be running against the republican candidate, the republican corporate media/ kewl kid punditry world, and the massively funded rnc swiftboat style 527's...they'd both better start running hard NOW!

Lastly, Lambert at corrente had a post with a great link to a commenter/blogger who said that many other democratic primaries (some that weren't even very close) kept going til the very end, even to the convention (imagine that, the horror of that happening)...No one should have a problem with letting the process finish...IMo it should and would only strengthen the legitimacy of the winner (most likely Senator Obama), the process, and the party...that's all I'm saying and all I want. ...and I'm not afraid to let that happen at all!

Destardi,
You need look no further than you own post to see why I will have such a hard time voting for Clinton in November if she wins. I will vote for her, but it will be hard. You come across, like a lot of Clinton supporters, like she deserves the nomination and this "upstart" Obama has "jumped the line."

Hillary supporters are not going against the grain; their whole argument is her “vast” experience. But you said it best: “…the Old Democratic Party.”

Is Hillary a racist? No, I do not think so. But her supporters, and so by proxy Hillary, has steered the conversation that way, by saying questionable things and creating controversy - the wispered "look he's black.". I see the substance of what Obama is, you see only negative and at the same time ignore Hillary’s negatives. I see Hillarys substance but cannot get past her negatives.

I was perfectly happy just supporting Obama, until I started being attacked by fellow democrats as: delusional, a liar, an enemy of democracy, ignorant, an example of what is wrong with our democracy, and the list goes on. For no other reason than I was supporting Obama. Now I fight back.

Chris
Wheaton IL

destardi wrote:

It's the Hillary supporters who are going against the grain, who are the underdogs, who are the true backbone of the Old Democratic party; people who have dedicated time, money, and energy into their beloved party, standing for equal rights.

If by "old Democratic Party" you mean craven inside-the-Beltway conservatives in thrall to special interests, who roll over and play dead every time a Republican fanatic wants to start a war or unilaterally repeal a Constitutional right or nominate another wingnut extremist for the Supreme Court, then you are correct.

destardi wrote:

It's the Hillary supporters who are going against the grain, who are the underdogs, who are the true backbone of the Old Democratic party; people who have dedicated time, money, and energy into their beloved party, standing for equal rights.

If by "old Democratic Party" you mean craven inside-the-Beltway conservatives in thrall to special interests, who roll over and play dead every time a Republican fanatic wants to start a war or unilaterally repeal a Constitutional right or nominate another wingnut extremist for the Supreme Court, then you are correct.

CAPJ and others, then fine let them vote...please stop telling someone to drop out...

I have been quite clear in not calling on Senator Clinton to drop out of the race. At the same time, it is important for everyone to accept that Barack Obama is almost certain to be the nominee. What that means in practical terms is that Democratic fire be directed at John McCain. It means that instead of coming up with ever more creative ways to rip the Party apart, we need to work to bring the Party together.

capj,

you're right- almost certain, which does not mean certain. and which does not mean only he can win it fairly. and you're absolutely right that we need aim our fire at mccain, which is why divisive gibberish such as markos wrote at newsweek is so unhelpful.

A breath of fresh air just wafted over the tubes.
Thank you, Turkana.

capj, I agree that you specifically did not call for her to drop out.... good for you, you're one of the few exceptions. But many, many A-list bloggers as noted (including imo sadly Meteor Blades) have done so. That said, who's talking about dividing the party...in case you didn't notice its nearly even split within the party itself and the um particpants in the primary process to date. Actually, I'd say it's already divided...but inferring that it is one candidate's fault well I think that's just hooey when it's that close and supporters on each side have some pretty hardened opinions.

Unfortunately neither candidate has sealed the deal...yet. And for the assured "almost certain"(ty) you have as to Senator Obama winning well all I'll say to that is, is that like almost certain at being pregnant?....And remember how this game is won, it's the magic number they need. Neither has the magic number...although one is closer and has an easier path.

Lastly, as I said in my first comment, both candidates should be talented enough to take on McCain at this point, and if they don't well then that's their problem and doesn't bode well for them. I urge both to attack McCain, two people doing it is better than one at this point.

which is why divisive gibberish such as markos wrote at newsweek is so unhelpful.

Actually, what I believe to be unhelpful is Senator Clinton attempting to win through means which would be quite divisive for the Party. What Markos says isn't gibberish at all, but rather right on the money. Obama will have earned the nomination by getting more votes by any democratic measure. Having the super delegates swing en masse to Clinton (as if that would happen on this planet) would be telling millions of people, including the next generation of Democratic voters and African-Americans, that their votes don't matter. While theoretically possible, it would indeed be (in Markos' words) an inherently divisive thing to do to the Party.

When the Clinton campaign insists on earning the nomination, rather than try to justify taking the nomination with a minority of support, then the word "coup" will be uncalled for. Since the Clinton campaign has let it be known that they have no intention of acceding to the will of the voters, "coup" is all too accurate.

no, capj,

markos wrote that obama has already won- which he hasn't. markos wrote that the most important metric is the pledged delegates- which it isn't. markos ignored the slim but real possibility that clinton can still win the popular vote, and labeled any superdelegate victory she might claim as a "coup"- which it wouldn't be, if she won the popular vote.

To quickly recap the points of dennis - if you counted electoral votes in the states each has won..hillary is ahead..if you counted the popular vote in fl and mi..and probably pa to come..hillary is ahead..it is OG who is trying to steal it..by disenfranchising two states..facts mean very little to obamamites..as does any kind of reasoned debate..they are an irrational lot and obama will not carry florida if he keeps refusing to recognize the voice of the voters..it is not the dnc..or the rules stopping recognition of mi and fl..it is the obama people..make no mistake about that

What makes me angry is that OB's people are trying to disnefranchise 2.3 million voters in FL and MI; not thinking ahead to the general election and they ignore them at their own peril until they have turned them against his sense of fairplay. That's a lot of angry voters as well as people who are supportive of counting those votes NOW, not later when the nomination is clear,when OB has nothing to lose by seating the delegates or counting the votes. If you don't like the logic of this, then you won't understand turkana's other points so stop your bellyaching and go somewhere else to read about your candidate being the anointed Next Leader. The polls don't matter, what matters are the votes and I for one wish that the MSM would stop trying to dictate who wins the nomination and general election.

If it were Edwards vs. Obama right now with Edwards getting the same wins, delegates, and popular vote that Clinton currently has, would Edwards supporters also think he needs to step out of the race for the good of the party?

I think if you look at it honestly, you'd say no, let the primary season end first, neither can win outright yet. That's all Turkana has been saying and I don understand how that's interpreted as pro-Clinton. I just thought he was looking at it sans emotion.

And as for the superdelegates, where is the rule that says they are suppose to reflect the will of the popular vote....is it in the DNC rule book. Now before people go over the deep end on me, I think the popular vote should be a good guideline for their eventual votes...whole heartedly(knowing full well my preferred candidate at this point may lose it). But it actually is not part of the rules that I'm aware of...and if it is then my state's superdelegates need to rethink their support (they support Obama in a state that clearly went Clinton)....you can't use these arguments selectively... and I'd like to know how it is a coup if the rule is that superdelegates are free to support whomever they wish for reasons of their choosing (just like you and me).

Sorry Turkana, but Obama has it won. Clinton would need a spectacular swing of super delegates to get the nomination when all indications are that they are much more likely to swing heavily toward Obama. Even rosy scenarios for the rest of the contests don't bring Clinton the sham "popular vote" lead. Pledged delegates are definitely the most important measure of support because firstly they are 80% of the direct votes for the nominee and secondly because they are the most democratic measure we have for the support of the primary voters.

capj,

pledged delegates are no metric. and since the winner will be determined by the supers, they are now the bottom line. and if clinton does get the margins she needs (admittedly a long shot) to claim the popular vote lead, the supers may move in a mass. such a popular vote lead would mean major momentum, and the supers would notice that. the plain fact is that if the supers wanted to end the race, they could have, by now. despite obama's slow, steady accumulation, he is not close to being over the top, and the fact that so many supers remain on the fence is very telling.

thanks, doubting thomas...

one of the problems with posting anything about the horse race is that some partisans will see you as biased unless you're completely supportive of their candidate and of their candidate's arguments...

emal, super delegates can vote for whoever they want for any reason. Every indication, however, shows that they have no interest in deciding the nominee. The reason is simple: they know damn well there will be trouble in the Party if the nomination is decided in an arbitrary manner by a few hundred Party elites instead of by the primary voters. Nobody disputes that Obama will have a lead in pledged delegates, who are direct representatives of Democratic voters. Clinton has no reasonable chance at winning the "popular vote" even though it is skewed in her favor thanks to caucuses.

Where was it in Obama's speech that he said we are the 48 States of America? The ONLY reason that the votes for MI and FL are NOT Being counted RIGHT NOW WHEN IT MATTERS is because the DNC is IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA. To include FL and MI NOW would change the narrative in a very close race. It's so amazing that the votes mattered when Bush stole them, but doesn't matter when OBAMA/DNC steal them. Obama supporters are no different than the reTthugnicans in Palm Beach. The Hypocrisy of this Unity campaign, the Obama supporters and their vile hatred to Senator Clinton, and the actions of the DNC have forever tainted my view of the Democratic Party. If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for McCain.

Kathy, there are many reasons why MI and FL are not having re-votes, most notably because both states are overwhelmingly opposed to it. The DNC stated publicly that they were fine with revotes. The legal and logistical problems combined with Republican legislators' complete disinterest in helping the Democrats are the primary reasons why they are not happening.

the fact that so many supers remain on the fence is very telling

Exactly, Turkana! It means they don't want to decide who the winner is. There are two ways they can ratify the vote of the people which are fair so long as universally applied: they can vote the same way as their constituents or they can vote for the pledged delegate winner.

The "popular vote" is heavily skewed toward Clinton because of the difference between caucuses and primaries. We wouldn't tolerate it if Democratic strongholds had to use caucuses in the general while Republicans had primaries because it would be undemocratic. Primaries get 5 times the turnout of caucuses - had voting systems been equal Obama would have received hundreds of thousands more net votes.

The remaining super delegates aren't going to use arcane undemocratic calculations the Clinton campaign comes up with when we have a perfectly reasonable measures - pledged delegates and/or constituent support - to represent the support of the voters.

No, the reason that there are no re-votes is because Obama blocked them. Period. If he had gone along with the re-voting ideas, as Hillary did, they would have happened. And all his happy little supporters go along with this anti-democratic BS while calling themselves progressives. Just like they go along silently with the vile sexist public lynching that Hillary has had to endure from the MSM and the big boy blogs.

Obama will never get my vote.

capj,

it's also fair to say that caucuses are inherently undemocratic, and that obama's disproportionate success in them, however well done on a tactical level, is not necessarily representative of the popular will in those states. look at texas and washington.

CA pol junkie

superdelegates are going to HAVE to decide the nomination.

but

there is no reason in the world why they HAVE to support obama

or

HAVE to support clinton.

their whole function is to decide in the best interests of the party when the state by-state contests have failed to produce a clear winner.

one "best interest" might be to support obama because he has the majority of pledged delegates

another "best interest" might be to support clinton because she has been the stronger candidate in the very large states that are critical to a democratic victory in november.

if you read prof auspitz's paper ("the law of rules") which i referenced above at 10:48am,

you will read that "superdelegates" were included in the democratic nominating process,

in 1984,

precisely to deal with such a stalemate as is unfolding in the democratic party this year.

to assert that one criterion - "total pledged delegates", for example, or "popular vote" MUST determine how those superdelegates vote

is either

- to miss the entire point of their inclusion in the nominating process

or

- to make an argument to influence their decision.

no harm in either,

so long as we do not cloak our personal biases in moral imperatives.

note:

i have commented frequently here for the past several weeks.

this evening, for the first time ever, my comment was rejected fro lack of a valid email address, though i have used a particular email address (bogus)for at least three years where it is permitted.

hmmm.

steve soto -

kos fever.

catch it.

Thought I'd wait and see what the Obama people had to say about your post before I congratulated you on another great post. This is my favorite site because the people who post don't all read from some talking points memo and regurgitate it over and over again.

But one thing is certain. Regardless of what anyone posts that says anything other than Obama has won the nomination will attract the well paid hard working staff and some volunteers to converge on that post. But I thought Obama already won, people? Ah, it's about questions of legitimacy in a Democracy? Sadly, thanks to Obama's obstructionism and demonstrated disrespect for the popular vote, he will not have that legitimacy.

Not that that matters to those running the DNC. Or those progressives or liberals who have clearly shown it's not important to discuss policy and proposals, it's just important to respond to a post using bits and pieces of the never changing talking points and get points for the number of times you've responded to a positive mention of Hillary Clinton.

I do hope that all the Obama supporters have something to do after the convention. Historically, the follow up has been wretched. Democrats have let the media and fringe groups rip them to shreds, then have the election stolen from them with the same spineless surrender. And where will the misogyny be directed then? Where will all the outrage about race based inequities be directed then? Who will continue to advocate for the end of the occupation of Iraq 2 years from now? Who will speak for the poor? Who will speak for the right of young people to live with their parents? Who will keep track of who gets all those great new green jobs?

orionATL, I'm confident that unless you used extreme language against any person or group, you were not blocked because of the content of your post. I had a comment blocked today because I had too many links. Sometimes you bump into people posting at exactly the same time. I don't think there's anything nefarious going on.

Turkana, I actually calculated Obama's lost votes in caucus states by assuming the 12% Obama advantage used by poblano in his analyses. Even after shifting the results toward Clinton I got 151,000 additional net votes for Obama without Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

orionATL,
one "best interest" might be to support obama because he has the majority of pledged delegates

Because it respects the will of the voters...

another "best interest" might be to support clinton because she has been the stronger candidate in the very large states that are critical to a democratic victory in november.

General election polls this far out have little correlation to what happens in November, but if you believe them neither has a clear advantage over the other overall. Clinton does better in Florida, Arkansas, West Virginia and maybe Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama does better in Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Both will win California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc.

if you read prof auspitz's paper ("the law of rules") which i referenced above at 10:48am, you will read that "superdelegates" were included in the democratic nominating process, in 1984, precisely to deal with such a stalemate as is unfolding in the democratic party this year.

to assert that one criterion - "total pledged delegates", for example, or "popular vote" MUST determine how those superdelegates vote

is either

- to miss the entire point of their inclusion in the nominating process

or

- to make an argument to influence their decision.

Super delegates can make their decision for any reason. That doesn't mean they should or will do so arbitrarily. In 2000, Democrats rightfully were indignant at GOP assertions that the contest was very close, so it's fine to just give it to the Republican. Just because the decision would be made by a couple hundred people instead of 9 wouldn't make it any better.

An arbitrary decision to award the nomination based on the feelings of a couple hundred Party elites instead of millions of voters would not be accepted well by a large portion of those millions of voters. In a democracy, we count on the losers accepting the outcome as if it were unanimous (sorry I forgot who said that). If the Democratic nominating contest became a case of "heads I win, tails you lose" then the obvious choice for many would be not to participate in such a game.

The super delegates are not dumb, and their primary interest is in winning in November. There is no chance in hell they would install the candidate with less pledged delegates, less "popular votes", less money, and higher negative ratings while basically telling the next generation of Democrats and African-Americans (among others) that their votes don't count. It absolutely will not happen.

Shorter jeter... it's all Obama's fault!

What a pathetic puke!

capj-

you are peddling personal preference as political analysis.

even in the academic world that's called sophistry.

consider:

[orionATL,

one "best interest" might be to support obama because he has the majority of pledged delegates

Because it respects the will of the voters...]

o.k., capj,

your support for the voters who voted in florida and michigan,

is that forthcoming shortly?

OrionATL [if you read prof auspitz's paper ("the law of rules") which i referenced above at 10:48am, you will read that "superdelegates" were included in the democratic nominating process, in 1984, precisely to deal with such a stalemate as is unfolding in the democratic party this year.

to assert that one criterion - "total pledged delegates", for example, or "popular vote" MUST determine how those superdelegates vote

is either

- to miss the entire point of their inclusion in the nominating process

or

- to make an argument to influence their decision.]

your response was, capj:

[Super delegates can make their decision for any reason. That doesn't mean they should or will do so arbitrarily. In 2000, Democrats rightfully were indignant at GOP assertions that the contest was very close, so it's fine to just give it to the Republican. Just because the decision would be made by a couple hundred people instead of 9 wouldn't make it any better.]

so, capj,

is there any condition under which the superdelegates could award the nomination to clinton? please discuss.

and by the way, capj, did you get around to reading that paper, which addresses precisely the issue of the latitude that the superdelegates were intended to have?

capj says

[The super delegates are not dumb, and their primary interest is in winning in November. There is no chance in hell they would install the candidate with less pledged delegates, less "popular votes", less money, and higher negative ratings while basically telling the next generation of Democrats and African-Americans (among others) that their votes don't count. It absolutely will not happen.]

you call that analysis, capj?

i call it partisan rhetoric.

i've no problem at all with partisan rhetoric, capj,

except when it is clothed in righteousness and disguised as analysis.

coyote (a wise animal in american indian lore),

thank you for the advice.

i wasn't sure.

outsiders like me never quite know where the safe paths are in the boggy interior of a political weblog.

Gop exposed for rigging MI and FL.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-pic_b_94158.html

In fact if we went by the rules Obama broke many of them. He shouldn't get a delegate from either state.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/93114/2956

your support for the voters who voted in florida and michigan, is that forthcoming shortly?

I have expressed my desire for revotes in both states, but it isn't happening because the states don't want to do it. There's certainly no reason to validate the results of the votes already taken, as that is arbitrary and undemocratic. In fair contests, I expect Obama would win Michigan and Clinton would win Florida by single digits. As a practical matter, Clinton might gain a few delegates but not alot.

is there any condition under which the superdelegates could award the nomination to clinton? please discuss.

As I mentioned above, they (theoretically) could give the nomination to Clinton for any reason. They would be not at all likely to do so unless a political cataclysm were to strike Obama (indictment, failing the live boy / dead girl test etc.).

and by the way, capj, did you get around to reading that paper, which addresses precisely the issue of the latitude that the superdelegates were intended to have?

I'm well aware of the intent behind having super delegates. That does not affect the reality of what would happen if the super delegates used that power to reject a viable candidate chosen by the voters whose views are in the mainstream of the Party.

you call that analysis, capj?

What criteria do you think will guide the Super Delegates' votes, orionATL? Why would they vote for Clinton? Here are the reasons they will vote for Obama:

- More support from voters as expressed in pledged delegates and Clinton-favoring sham popular support
- More fundraising
- Better campaign organization
- Better campaign strategy
- 50 state organization will help down-ballot races
- Bringing young people into the Party
- Supporters are more motivated
- Better favorable / unfavorable ratings
- Charisma

Either way Obama loses. Why?

Because if he were really so inevitable, if he'd really already won, Clinton's actions would be absolutely irrelevant to him, and to his campaign. He'd be acting to unify the party right now. The ONLY way he could truly win is by fighting for MI and FL, and also by roundly condemning the hateful attacks on Clinton, and the behavior of his own supporters as well as that of the media.

But he can't or won't do these things because he hasn't actually won. And, Kos or no Kos, big states ought to matter more to superdelegates than states like Wyoming.

His campaign is inherently negative, mostly based on stirring up "Hillary hate" (with a bit of conflating himself with MLK thrown in - in a paranoid, 'everyone is out to assassinate little old me/therefore I must be great' kind of way).

The "aura of inevitability" strategy uses coercive force in place of persuasion. Problem is, people don't like bullies, and people are getting mad at Donna Brazile (who appears to be Obama's bodyguard?). That is his own fault, not Hillary's/voters. By attacking Hillary's legitimacy, Obama is in fact attacking Hillary's supporters, suggesting they aren't a legitimate and valued part of the party.

So why expect loyalty in return? You can't just slap someone down that hard and then expect them to fetch you coffee. When Clinton is gone it will be harder to blame her for everything, but obviously his supporters are setting themselves up to try.

Gender matters more than has been acknowledged, because Obama's story is shaping into a narrative about a fall that occurred because of a treacherous woman who refused to support him.

Win or lose, Hillary won a victory of sorts - like Rocky, refusing to give up, she defeated the opponent the moment the fight became about forcing her to sacrifice herself for him. She became a hero to women by the act of rejecting that narrative, and the more abuse gets poured on her for it, the more courageous she seems. And, yeah, it is genuinely amusing to see this woman refusing to get out of the race just because a weak male candidate desperately needs her to. It's great because of the gender challenge: she's too masculine, refusing to quit when a woman should; he's ... well, traditionally, men are supposed to be able to fight, they are not supposed to cry when they don't get their way.

drive by blog reader

Don't take your eyes off the road or the wheel!

drive by blog reader, you obviously aren't following Obama's campaign. He normally brings up McCain far more than Clinton. Still, she is getting alot more respect than most candidates (including Obama) would in her position - there is relatively little pressure for her to get out of the race relative to the long odds of her winning.

Oh, and if you think it matters which candidate we have for big states like California and New York, you really ought to re-enroll in Politics 101.

The illogic here among Hillary supporters is humorous. Yes, both candidates need the superdelegates to push the winner over the top. But let's look at the trend among superdelegates since February 5. Obama has picked up 70 and Hillary has lost 2. A lead of over 90 has now dwindled down to a lead of 24. Hmmm, what's the trend here?

The superdelegates can do as they wish. But they keep trickling in to Obama's side. Most of the remaining undeclared superdelegates have said they will go with whoever leads among pledged delegates. They don't HAVE to do that, of course. But they've decided that on their own accord.

Look at the polling numbers in PA for trends. A state hand-made for Hillary Clinton has gone from a 20-point Hillary lead to a virtual tie - with 3 weeks left. If Hillary wins PA by 6, she'll pick up about 8 delegates, which she'll lose in NC. Then she has KY and WV, which will get evened out by SD, MT and OR. I bet IN goes to Obama in the end as well. And who knows what Puerto Rico will do? Either way, the superdelegate trend is clear, the pledged delegate lead is huge, and the popular vote lead is too large for Clinton to make a difference. She's useful as a sparring partner right now and nothing else.

Oh, and some advice for you Obama fans: someone might want to drop by his website and see if you can't get the campaign to take down the "massa clinton" spew, the slave shackles imagery, etc etc.

I mean, unless it's essential to his strategy.

elrod,

your logic simply ignores the math. read oxendine and get back to me.

OrionATL thanks for the great input and thanks for posting in response to capj. I had another post ready making some of the points you did, but it apparently got blocked in transit in the tubz....and I didn't have time to repost.

Anyway, capj...you appear to be full of absolutes and certainties here about the future in a closely divided race. Although I agree with youthat Senator Obama is closer and more likely to win the nomination based on the current information and metrics, there's still 20% of the states and 12 million votes not yet cast let alone counted. (never mind what to do about those 2 million voters who already cast their votes but might not be counted). I'd certainly wait a bit before I talk in such absolutes about the future, because when you do I think that's to your detriment and makes you appear out of touch with the rest of reality. It sounds like arrogant trash talking in a game during the 7th inning stretch of a very close ballgame. It's not raining so the game won't be called and the teams are still playing to win....the future is unpredictable.

In addition when you talk in such a manner you antagonize Democrats that aren't supporting your candidate,the same democrats I know for a fact that you will absolutely and certainly need in order to beat Senator McSh*t in the fall.

I'm appalled by this entire conversation. Many of you Clinton supporters would prefer McCain to Obama? I hope that you'll put aside your personal feelings and put the actual interests of this country first.

One only need look at the maps in every single state that has voted. And, those maps are available. It is clear that Obama has won delegates on the basis of winning only a few counties in every state, while Clinton has won the vast majority of counties in every state.

But you can check every state that has voted so far to see the disturbing facts. The pictures tell the story. Click on a state on the national map to see who won what:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=0&elect=1&f=0

Doubting Thomas wrote:

If it were Edwards vs. Obama right now with Edwards getting the same wins, delegates, and popular vote that Clinton currently has, would Edwards supporters also think he needs to step out of the race for the good of the party?

Edwards wouldn't be acting like a Clinton, though, would he?

@Turkana: "pledged delegates are no metric."

What are you talking about? It's the only metric that counts. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be writing for a political blog.

emal, baseball analogies don't work because Clinton can't hit a grand slam in North Carolina. There is a reason why the Clinton campaign is saying they won't match Obama in pledged delegates - his lead is too big. The same follows for the popular vote, even though that skews toward Clinton because of caucuses. After the add-on delegates are chosen, Clinton will probably need over 80% of the remaining super delegates to get the nomination, yet the super delegates have almost entirely been endorsing Obama in the last couple months. Ask yourself: why would all of that suddenly change?

Predicting the future isn't always like gazing into a hazy crystal ball. If a rock is rolling downhill, you can predict with high reliability that it will keep rolling down the hill. It doesn't matter who you support - you can see what will happen.

capj,

your double-standard on caucus states is rather interesting. on the one hand, they've helped obama build his pledged delegate lead, which is okay; but on the other hand, they've minimized his vote margin, which is not okay. as i said- interesting.

Turkana, both of the things you say are true, and they do not conflict with each other. Obama has done well in caucuses, partly from the process and partly from having disproportionate support in states in the Plains and Rockies which happen to hold caucuses. Because turnout for caucuses is low, however, he does not get the popular vote margin. It's not that complicated.

capj,

yes, it's not that complicated- the broken system works to obama's favor, it's okay; it doesn't, it's not.

Turkana, I'm not going to defend caucuses but the are part of the system and Clinton had the same opportunity in caucus states as Obama. Her fatally flawed strategy included ignoring most of them. That's not Obama's fault.

you're right- and i'm consistent on that. even though the caucuses heavily skewed towards obama, they're part of the system, and that's okay. but using their vote counts as part of the overall popular vote count is also part of the system, and that's okay, too. until we change the system. which doesn't seem to be happening, but should be.

Caucuses aren't by nature skewed toward Obama relative to primaries - his campaign just out-competed and out-organized Clinton's. Isn't the whole idea of Clinton's "popular vote" metric to try to show that the people really want Clinton, as if we had a national primary? There's no way in hell we'd tolerate such a system if voters in states which favored one candidate had to caucus while others could vote in a primary - that's why we have delegates.

The Clinton campaign keeps coming up with fake metrics after the voting to try to come with a scenario by which Clinton wins - "big states", "important states", and the sham "popular vote". Yet she can't win even by her own undemocratic metric.

and because obama's results in caucus states skewed more heavily that they would have had the states held primaries, he got disproportionately more delegates than he would have gotten in straight primaries. which is okay. that's the system. but you can't say it's okay in one respect, and not in another. and obama has conveninetly skewed the metrics in his favor, too. imagine that- politicians behaving like politicians. and if you're so certain that she can't win the popular vote, then just sit back and enjoy the ride to victory.

The system is to say how we are going to choose the nominee before the voting begins. That means delegates from all states but Florida and Michigan plus superdelegates. It speaks poorly of Senator Clinton and her supporters that they must try to change the rules in the middle of the game. The invention of an undemocratic "popular vote" as somehow representing the will of the voters should make any Democrat cringe.

But yes, I fully expect Senator Obama to beat Clinton using her own metric as well as actual delegates.

yes, the popular vote, and the voters of fl and mi, and the original dnc rules, which were changed to punish fl and mi even more are irrelevant.

I have read the vast majority of the postings i this thread.

The vast majority of the attitudes displayed by the Obama-anians are the main reason why the US electorate was so ably screwed by the Republican Party (two stolen elections, and an 8-year constitutional crisis). They do not do their homework, and run some very serious decision makiing based on what I term the "GWB" "I'm the decider" philosophy: If it feels good, it must be right. If the MSM keeps yammering negative memes, they must be telling the truth.

Get your heads on straight.

Obama is in the process of "jumping the shark." The PA primary (upcoming, and in which I am voting) will make that abundantly clear. And several others that will follow.

Obama-anians are slavishly devoted to polls. Problem is, the polls (no matter what news organization or Pollster Inc. claims)are all inaccurate--save two key polling results. One, the primary being held in that state; and two, the general election in the Autumn.

Obama isn't new, and he isn't JFK. Obama hasn't even served a complete term in the US Congress. Obama has a whole trend record of caving to special interests in Illinois when he was part of the State legistlature. Obama hasn't a clue on how to run a complex, byzantine bureaucracy (none of his job experience even can be counted in this direction); hell, I don't even think he has been exposed to the inner workings (as in being around it) of such a complex, byzantine bureaucracy.

And to top all of that off, when he does have a chance to gain experience in the complex, byzantine bureaucracy (that subcommittee that he heads, which has yet to have even one meeting), he blows it off.

The experiences of GWB (clueless) and Barack Obama (basically, equally clueless, but gives better speeches) do not agur well for this country.

I was watching TMZ last night (yes, at times, I look at what the pop culture trends are via the papparazzo reports ), and former Playmate Shauna Sand was a "highlight"--and she is voting for McCain. It was a sad thing to see.

But unfortunately, a lot of the Obama-anians are in the same boat as Ms. Sand. All decisions based on feelings. Feelings might be good for selecting an ice cream cone flavor. But not for choosing the submission of either four-year or eight-year chunks of everyone's life to an unexamined life.

An uninformed electorate voting == Totalitarianism

Troubled, I really think you ought to talk to some Obama supporters and learn why they support him. Hint: it's not what you assume.

Most of this argument is simply a statement of what is a no-brainer: the nominee will be whomever gets a majority of delegates' votes in Denver.

Much of the rest is spin cast in the form of refuting pro-Obama spin. For example:

In other words, "the pledged delegates chosen directly by Democratic voters" have been allocated completely arbitrarily. They reflect nothing other than the eccentric rules of the Democratic nominating process. They do not represent the will of the people as well as does the popular vote. But the rules are the rules. They are not fair and they are not democratic. But they are what they are. And Barack Obama has worked them well....

The state parties are autonmous entities and are allowed to come up with individual schemes for apportioning delegates. Saying that this sort of autonomy is "not fair" is a de facto rejection of state-party autonomy. If you want to make a case for that--for having the same rules in every state--then by all means make that case. Just don't do it by stealth.

And if Hillary Clinton ends up ahead in the popular vote, she will have a credible democratic argument to take to the superdelegates that she has earned the Democratic nomination. That doesn't mean her argument will prevail, but it does mean that if it does prevail, it will have done so fairly, honestly, and democratically.

Let's envisage a scenario in which Clinton has a lead in the aggregate popular vote but Obama has a lead in delegates. Let's further assume that neither candidate has engaged in fraud or coercion. Would there be any reason that Obama could not also claim to have done everything "fairly, honestly, and democratically"?

Obama bloggers want to scare Clinton supporters and Clinton donors. They want to create an aura of inevitability for Obama such that any Clinton victory will be seen as a theft. This makes Clinton look petty and dishonest, and her supporters, at best, delusional.

A few things: (1) If someone actually feels threatened by rude, nasty comments on a blog, for gawd's sake, they've probably got no business in the blogosphere in the first place. And they can always close their browser window. (2) Weren't Clinton's supporters trying to "create an aura of inevitability" for her several months ago? Au aura of inevitability that got rudely torn away on Super Tuesday? (3) It's fascinating to see Clinton supporters saying that they're being labelled as "delusional" by Obama supporters...the latter being, of course, precisely the people who have been repeatedly called names such as "cult followers" and "Kool-Aid drinkers" by Clinton supporters. It turns out that nobody likes being called "delusional", and that both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters have been making their choice on the basis of rational considerations.

No matter how you define victory, Barack Obama holds an insurmountable lead in the race to earn the Democratic nomination.

What's so sad is that I really didn't think Markos was this intellectually dishonest. Honestly - no matter how you define victory? How about if I define it as the person who ends up with the least amount of delegates? Well, then - that makes the rest of the article suspect.

How about if I define it as the person who ends up with the least amount of delegates? Well, then - that makes the rest of the article suspect.

Heh! I think you've got Markos there, Julene! Granted, Clinton's victory party would be a little awkward with Obama getting the nomination and all, but a win is a win, right?

How is it spin to note that the Democratic nomination is decided by the choosing of delegates, and the first candidate to gather 50% + 1 is the winner? How is that spin?

Regardless of how anyone wants the rules to reflect, the rules as they are value delegates. And far from Clinton being able to get enough superdelegates to become the victor, she's lost a net of 2 superdelegates in the past 60 days while Obama has gained 69. So what exactly is going to come down the pike to shake up a nearly unbroken two-month trend?

I don't much care who wins but the events as they are suggest that the winner is pretty much decided.

dday,

you really think that the superdelegate dynamic will remain the same if she changes the popular vote dynamic? you really think so many supers remain on the fence because they're not watching to see what happens in the remaining states? you really think none will switch, if she wins huge in her remaining states, and holds down her losses in his?

yes- the first to get 50% + 1 wins. but neither candidate does that without super delegates. and however much the obama bloggers want to pretend they've already ended the race, no one is yet at 50% + 1. and if the super delegates wanted to put a candidate there, they'd have done so.