Great post.

Yes, the super delegates will have to make the final choice, but if they don't go with the candidate that has the most delegates, McCain wins.

and many feel the same about the possibility of clinton winning the popular vote and being denied the nomination. i won't whine, whatever happens. you obviously might.

I agree that given the state of things, Clinton should stay in throughout the primary schedule. As you say, she could possibly pull out an upset. Obvious to all but the most obtuse, Obama (now leading in every category except announced superdelegates) should also remain in. Let's just run the thing out and see what the totals are. What would be great would be it both candidates focused on policy and thumped McCain/Bush every single day. Turn a negative into a positive...gang up on the old coot. Lets see who does the best job of that.

Good post Turkana. Thank you for creating a tiny corner of sanity around here.

agreed. very nice balanced post. May the best candidate win and may they team up and knock the stuffing out of McCain/Bush in the fall.

but if they don't go with the candidate that has the most delegates, McCain wins.

Obviously, if the supers swing toward Hillary, she'll be the one with the most delegates, and vice versa for Obama. And McCain loses either way.

I wonder just when the popular vote got to e a criterion for the primaries. Total popular vote has nothing to do with the election in this country. I think it is a MSM trick to push Obama who they feel is the weaker candidate. Please consider stop using it.
BTW how is the popular vote in caucus states apportioned???

Obama has maxed out his "hope and change" support. No substance. And in the general election, why would independents and Republicans looking for a "uniter" take a chance on an empty suit with nasty associates (Ayers and Rezko and Wright, oh my!) when they can vote for McCain the Maverick? L-O-S-E-R.

There is a fundamental problem with all this analysis. The bottom line is that there is ONLY ONE metric by which the race can be analyzed: delegates. Popular votes, big states, etc., etc. DO NOT MATTER. Just as Dems learned to their chagrin in 2000, the only "score" that matters is the one metric by which we declare winners and losers. In 2000, it was the electoral college ... in 2008, it is delegates. You may not like the rules, and you are welcome to try to change them, but you cannot do so (with any legitimacy) in the middle of the game. At this point, Obama cannot lose by the metric established BEFORE the game started. No matter how close they end up being, Obama will be ahead in pledged delegates. There is no other outcome possible. And, you cannot bring in Florida and Michigan to tip the balance ... they are no longer part of the story. Again, by those rules that ALL agreed to play by. The bottom line is that for Clinton to win, she will have done so only by getting the supers to "change" the results of the election. Popular vote totals are interesting, but since the rules are that the delegate winner is the winner, they are irrelevant (not to mention, some states are apples and others are oranges, i.e., primary states vs caucus states ... how can you possibly sort out that?) Thus, for the supers to give the nomination to HRC will be viewed as illegitimate and a death knell to Dem prospects in November. How can it be any other way.

It sucks to be rooting for a team that loses by a close score (or in overtime), but it is still a loss. Clinton has lost (and did so back in February when her vaunted campaign machine failed to have a plan B after Super Tuesday). Everything else is rationalizations.

The bottom line is that for Clinton to win, she will have done so only by getting the supers to "change" the results of the election.

There are no "results of the election" to be "changed". This is not an election, it's a nominating process comprised of many parts. Primary elections, caucuses AND voting by super delegates. See, what you've done here is completely disregarded the existance of super delegates within the rules established by the party. It's you who seek to change the rules. There will be no changing of any results. The delegates awarded as a result of the primaries and caucuses will remain as they are. And neither candidate will have the number required to secure the nomination. There is no final result until one candidate has achieved that number. So it will fall to the super delegates to determine who will best represent the interests of the party. And, based on the fact that both have demonstrated wide ranging appeal amongst the electorate, the supers will be justified in deciding either way, Clinton or Obama.

westcoast wizard - you are just silly if you think Florida and MI dont count. Of course they count. And in a tight election OF COURSE popular vote counts. Just cause you dont want it to matter does mean it doesnt matter. You kniow that, right?

And the Supers know it, too.

ww,

you're right. the only metric is pledged delegates. and since neither candidate can prevail with pledged delegates, i guess we'll just have to go without a nominee. either that or we'll have to allow the superdelegates to put one of the candidates over the top. and since the rules allow them to vote for whomever they please, the rules allow them to pick clinton. if you care about the actual rules, as they are, rather than as you would like them to be.

Great essay Turkana, simple in it's logic and direct in it's conclusions.

aeolius,

i didn't say the popular vote was the metric, i said it is a metric, and a legitimate one. should clinton win the popular vote, that gives her a strong argument. it doesn't mean that argument will prevail, but it does mean that if it does prevail, it will be a legitimate resolution. as for the caucuses, all they can do is release the vote totals. that those totals are relatively tiny is an argument that cuts both ways, because caucuses are undemocratic, by nature. but they are part of the current system.

Yes, the super delegates will have to make the final choice, but if they don't go with the candidate that has the most delegates, McCain wins.

Posted by at April 23, 2008 12:48 PM

Makes no difference-McCain wins either way.

Take it to the bank.

Actually delegates or popular vote have become secondary. The reality now is that Obama without OH, PA, NJ and FL is going to lose in November in a landslide. Hillary will just lose.

The question for the super delegates is not which losing side to choose, but how to get to November with a chance to win. Pushing Hillary to quit will guarantee McCain in a landslide.

The problem is that you have two candidates that are viewed through an identity lense, not a policy one. At this point, it is probably too late to avoid some level of bad feeling ... if Clinton loses, her supporters will feel that she was cheated out of victory; same for Obama supporters. So, it is vitally important that the Supers pick on what are fair and reasonable grounds, so as to minimize the damage to those who identify with the candidates on those grounds. You can pick any metric you want, but the ones by which the nominating contest is determined is by DELEGATES. The cleanest and most defensible decision would be for supers to support the candidate with the most delegates. Anything else will be seen (rightly, imho) as stealing the nomination from the rightful winner. Woe to the Dem party if that happens (and I'm afraid we're already getting into very dangerous territory vis a vis the general election). Let's play this out... so at the end of all the voting, let's say Clinton is close (or even slightly ahead) in the popular vote, but still down 100+ in the delegate count. How does this end in such a way as to not totally alienate the 50%+ of the Democratic electorate that supports Obama?

In terms of money management, I think it is instructive to look at how the respective campaigns have managed their donations over the course of the primary cycle. Obama has raised about 45 million more than Clinton overall, and at the end of March, ended up with about 40 million cash on hand after debts that could be used toward the primaries. Clinton ended March about a million dollars in debt for the primary season, with about 30 million in the bank that can only be used for the general election because it was given by donors who have already exceeded the limits imposed by campaign finance laws. It would seem clear that Obama has handled his money more responsibly.

Keep in mind that no one expected Obama to win Penn. It is a significant win for the Clinton campaign, and the margin is fairly impressive, but the demographics also broke in her favor. A large win in North Carolina, expected to be about twice the size of Clinton's win here, is similarly not going to do much to build momentum or change the stalemate of the election.

To the argument that Obama's inability to win Penn is proof that he is unelectable, I would say the same thing for Clinton in North Carolina. If she can win North Carolina in two weeks, I will admit that she has turned the tide of the primary season.

You know, Turkana, I started out more pro HRC than pro Obama. By this time in the race, however, I think the HRC defenders have a fundamentally confused sense of what is really going on--I agree that the rules and the various methods of counting "the real voters" (popular vote, pledged delegates, superdelegates, caucus voters) can be confusing and are totally screwed up. However, the fact of the matter is that HRC can't catch up in pledged delegates. She can't. If Obama melts down, or is assasinated, or something utterly unlikely happens she might get to be first runner up or substitute prom queen. But absent that she simply can't win. She isn't going to suddenly win NC, any more than Obama was likely to suddenly win Penn. And if she is so confident that the superdelegates are going to go against their own states and their own expressed intentions why doesn't she call for it right now? Because she's bluffing in order to continue and in order to continue raising the money that she will need to pay off her campaign debt.

I've got nothign against continuing the campaign and I personally think its good for the party to have two such great candidates getting people fired up. But HRC has chosen a very ugly path in continuing, one that has been harmful to Obama if he is the ultimate nominee (which she, with her professional vote counters, has to know he will be) and she hasn't been so great for her own candidacy since she has attacked Obama with exactly the same poison pill accusations that McCain will level against her. She could have spent her time in the sun attacking McCain but she has chosen not to. That was an error of massive proportions for which I can't forgive her.

I'm a feminist, and proud of it. I've got daughters, and I was and am proud of HRC's campaign and her insistence on fighting it to the end. But the truth is the end has been reached, technically speaking. As I blogged over at my own site this isn't poker, and it isn't (come to think of it) fifty two card pickup. Even though she can insist to her loyal followers that there is some way she can pick up enough delegates to beat Obama that simply isnt' the case. This is more like chess. She loses under *every* ordinary scenario other than assasination, mass diversion of superdelegates from the stated preference of their constitutent states/voters, or utter collapse that causes Obama not to be able to compete in the remaining states. That is simply not going to happen. And continuing to pretend that she can win under the current system absent one of these extreme collapses is simply dishonest (of her) because it is misleading to her supporters.

aimai

All I ask of the Hillary supporters is to explain to me how she takes the nomination in a way that doesn't leave supporters of BHO feeling that the nomination was stolen? And with those feelings in tact, how does she win in November?

...let's say Clinton is close (or even slightly ahead) in the popular vote, but still down 100+ in the delegate count. How does this end in such a way as to not totally alienate the 50%+ of the Democratic electorate that supports Obama?

A brokered convention with a Clinton/Obama unity ticket. Then you ask people if they want 4 more years of a Bush 3rd term or if they want a Democratic administration in the White House with Obama developing a strong presence for a run in 2016. The VP's office ain't the door stop it used to be. 8 years as a strong VP could be better for him than 8 years casting votes in the Senate.

aimai -- your post is absolutely right. The game is over. There is no scenario in which she can win, absent an Obama withdrawal, that doesn't involve illegitimate (not illegal, but on some level immoral) means. Asking that the supers overturn the victor of the nominating process, is tantamount to political suicide. Why are the Clintons doing this?

snark -- why wouldn't the more appropriate ticket be Obama/Clinton?

despite the extraordinarily favorable political climate, both Democratic candidates have serious electability problems; and both candidates cannot legitimately blame anyone other than themselves.

Actually I'd say the lion's share of the blame goes to the corporate press, who have been doing their utmost to promote petty bullshit, tear down whichever Dem is in the lead at the moment, put whichever Republican is in the lead at the moment on a golden pedestal, and thwart the informing of the electorate.

Absolutely, democracy is good for the Democratic Party. I'm even fine with the superdelegates waiting until after the primaries and caucuses are done before announcing their intentions. That said, every time a Dem hawks a Republican talking point, it hurts us in the general. That goes for both Obama's "Harry and Louise" healthcare ad and Clinton's national security fearmongering.

The long, early primary process also hurts, though that die was cast last year.

Asking that the supers overturn the victor of the nominating process...

There will be no "victor of the nominating process" until the super delegates have all cast their votes. Why must you continue to dishonestly frame it as you do?

snark -- why wouldn't the more appropriate ticket be Obama/Clinton?

You asked for a scenario where the nomination went to Clinton, did you not?

I'd have absolutely no problem with an Obama/Clinton ticket. Just as I'd have no problem with a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Snark -- It's not a dishonest frame, its a descriptive one. "Victor" of the nominating process means the person who is ahead at the end of that process. I could have said "leader" and the point would be the same. You will agree that Obama has more pledged delegates, don't you? And that he will have more pledged delegates at the end of the voting process (barring an unforeseeable disappearance)? You are then asking for the supers to vote for someone other than the person who leads/won the voting part of the contest. There is no way around this point. To argue that supers should vote based on some other metric (popular vote, big states, national polls, phase of the moon) is to ask them to determine the outcome based on a different data set. I'm not saying they can't do that, I'm saying they shouldn't. If it does happen that way, there will be hell to pay. I suspect there will be hell to pay already, since the Clintons clearly have decided that there is nothing they won't do to win ... and too many of the followers are happy to sign on with them.

simplify,

i generally agree, although i think some- but not all- of clinton's alleged fearmongering has been overstated. but you're right that both candidates have crossed the line, and both have used repug framing. and we're clearly in agreement that the rules need a radical overhaul, once this is all over with. as for the media, well- it's only going to get worse, once we have a nominee. and i don't think the hardcore supporters of either candidate realize how ugly it will get...

ww,

in case you missed the ncaa basketball final, there is a difference between a leader and a winner. and you are framing it dishonestly. the facts remain:

a) neither candidate can win with pledged delegates.

b) the superdelegates will decide the winner.

c) there are literally no rules as to how they make their decisions. which means that whatever they decide is within the rules.

aimai,

it's a given that she can't catch up in pledged delegates, but that's not the basis of her campaign. the popular vote is. she's not calling for the superdelegates to decide now because she's currently behind in the popular vote. her legitimate argument is that she still has a chance to come out ahead in the popular vote, but she can't make that call unless it happens. as to negative campaigning, obama's done plenty of the same, and he's been doing it all along. of course, the media and the shrillosphere make much bigger deals of it when she does it, but that doesn't mean his hands are anywhere close to being clean.

It's not a dishonest frame, its a descriptive one. "Victor" of the nominating process means the person who is ahead at the end of that process. I could have said "leader" and the point would be the same.

No, the point is very different. "Leader" is accurate. "Victor" is not. As part of the "nominating process" is the voting by the supers, and since there will be no candidate who can win without the votes of the supers, there will be no "victor" until the supers vote.

You will agree that Obama has more pledged delegates, don't you? And that he will have more pledged delegates at the end of the voting process (barring an unforeseeable disappearance)?

I wouldn't bet against it.

You are then asking for the supers to vote for someone other than the person who leads/won the voting part of the contest. There is no way around this point. To argue that supers should vote based on some other metric (popular vote, big states, national polls, phase of the moon) is to ask them to determine the outcome based on a different data set.

Not me. The party is asking....no, not asking...the party has EMPOWERED the super delegates to use their discretion to vote how they see fit. That is why they are not tied to the results of the "voting portion" of the process.

If it does happen that way, there will be hell to pay. I suspect there will be hell to pay already, since the Clintons clearly have decided that there is nothing they won't do to win ...

Yup, the Clintons are teh Evil!

...and too many of the followers are happy to sign on with them.

Yet, in your scenario it's the Obama devotees who will take their ball and go home? I'm gonna vote for whichever one is the nominee.

"anonymous,"

her campaign's money management, not to mention strategy, have been terrible. but that's beside the point, going forward. the bottom line is that more states have yet to vote, the odds are that those states will confirm obama's popular vote lead, and that clinton will have no credible case to take to the superdelegates. but the odds have proved wrong, more than once, this primary season. maybe obama ends it, in two weeks. maybe he doesn't, but still holds off her late charge. maybe she gets the votes she needs to win the popular vote. time will tell.

Read my post anonymous ... you are either being dishonest or have poor reading comprehension. The point was/is that since there are no rules for how the supers vote, they are free to vote however they please, the question is how "should" they vote? By what metric will a victory given by the supers be seen as legitimate? My argument is that the only metric that will/should be seen as legitimate is the one established at the start of the process ... delegates. And by that measurement (groping for another word other than metric), Obama is ahead and will likely stay so. So, what supers "should" (not "must") do is ratify the primary/caucus process that was established to choose a nominee.

The supers could all vote for John Edwards, and then we would go into the convention with no nominee. It would be very interesting from a socio-political perspective, but probably not the best scenario for Democrats being victorious in November.

No Hillary supporter has an answer for how she wins the nomination in such a way that it isn't seen by many Obama supporters as an illegitimate power grab. Now, you can argue that Hillary supporters feel the same way, and I don't doubt that some do. There may be no way around this. But if you dispassionately look at the case Obama can make versus the one Clinton can make, his is straightforward and directly connected to the nominating process (ie, I have the most delegates - a demonstrable fact) versus her more convoluted case (e.g., I am the most electable - not a provable fact; I have the most popular votes - not a provable fact with the primary/caucus distinction; I would make the best president - again, not a probable fact). Tell me, who has the better case?

and you ignore reality, ww...

if clinton wins the popular vote, and loses the nomination, plenty of her supporters will also consider it illegitimate. because the superdelegates were put there to resolve problems with the system. and the bizarre and undemocratic rules about allocation of pledged delegates is a problem. and if clinton ends up ahead in the popular vote, and obama ends up ahead in the pledged delegate count, that will only underscore the depth of the problem. because even though some people apparently don't care about the popular will, some consider it a legitimate and moral metric. and if clinton does prevail in the popular vote, the superdelegates will have legitimate arguments for both candidates, and will vote their consciences. people like me, who understand the rules, and understand that there are valid claims to both metrics, will not whine, while some supporters of both candidates will whine, if their candidate isn't chosen. you, clearly, one of them.

Turkana - you impute many things to me that are not in my post. It's your blog, guess that's your style. Beyond all the rhetoric you are simply muddying the waters by trying to give equal weight to some mythical "popular vote" to the metric established by the party as the means by which a nominee is chosen (ie, delegates). I assume you can point me to your past writings about the unfairness of the Democratic nominating system (as well as HRC's past statements and work to reform that system). Oh you can't? Sounds like trying to change the rules in the middle of the game to me. Sorry, all you have are assertions (tell me the measurement for "popular will" when you have a mixed system of primaries and caucuses). I have a number -- pledged delegates.

And yes, despite your snark, I will support the Democratic nominee. I'm just asking those who would have Clinton be the nominee to explain how they can do so in a way where Obama supporters won't have a legitimate grievance with the party. You can't.

So it's true that Clinton stays in the race and it's true that pledged delegates alone won't get Obama the nomination. Nobody thinks that. But what is going to persuade the superdelegates to swing to Clinton in the numbers she'll need, especially given the pace at which they've been swinging her way since Feb. 5? Is there any indication of that happening? The only argument Clinton could possibly have is that if you count the votes in Michigan, she won the popular vote. She may be able to make that claim. But if that becomes the basis for superdelegates handing her the nomination -- that she should get the benefit of votes in a primary where Obama wasn't even on the ballot and which Clinton herself had said "would not count" -- there will be civil war in the Democratic Party.

In short, given the current math, there is no way Clinton can take the nomination without causing an intra-party civil war that would make Chicago '68 look tame by comparison. Which means that, given the current math, there is no way Clinton can take the nomination in a way that would allow her to win in November. Nor is there a way for her to take the nomination in a way that wouldn't cause tremendous damage to down-ticket election prospects.

And given that situation, what superdelegate in his or her right mind would hand Clinton the dynamite to blow up the party?

ww,

actually, i've been writing about the absurdity of the system since before iowa. but don't let facts interfere with your rants. and you continue to ignore another basic fact: that superdelegates are delegates. there is no rule or metric that states that pledged delegates are more important than superdelegates, or that superdelegates have to abide by the allocation of pledged delegates. that's the system. deal with it.

Kaleidescope says it much better than I...

kaleidoscope,

there are still states left to vote. not to mention puerto rico, which could give clinton a margin of hundreds of thousands of votes. that's the case she's trying to build- let people vote, and then let's see the final popular vote tally. it's not complicated.

oh, ww...

btw- as to that "mythical" popular vote- i assume you were perfectly happy that bush won the electoral college, even though gore had half a million more actual votes? some of us weren't.

Turkana -- one more post. Sorry to piss you off ... you wrote a post about why Clinton should stay in the race ... because she still can win (ie, democracy is a good thing) so we should let the vote play out. While I agree that democracy is a good thing, and that the campaign has by and large been a very good thing for the candidates and the Democratic Party, I'm afraid we have/are quickly reaching a point where it is being more destructive than helpful.

This is not a general election campaign -- it is a nominating contest ... popular will and moral mandates are not , the purpose of which is to , we are talking about a nominating contest ... the rules are a bit different.

I think that we all can agree that:
1. No candidate can win with pledged delegates;
2. It is very unlikely that we will see an electoral result during the remaining primaries (especially post 5/6) that will be a game changer;
therefor
3. The super delegates are going to decide this race.

So, even though I'm all for Indiana and NC voting (as if my opinion has anything to do with that), I think it's time to figure out an exit strategy that doesn't involve losing two more months (or longer) of the general election campaign. Whether it be Clinton or Obama, let's move on. I think that after May 6, the supers need to "come out" and declare one way or the other.

The supers are going to have to decide based on something, be it conscience, popular vote, pledged delegates, free jet skis... The only argument any of us have to make is to those super delegates. I've made my argument. I just don't think your popular vote argument is as strong. I guess we'll see what they end up doing. Hopefully, sooner rather than later. The idea that we are going to give away another two months (or more) to John McCain is just crazy!!

Facts:

0. The nominating process of the Democratic party is based on delegates not popular vote. Each state has the ability to choose the means by which those delegates are selected. Those means were well established before the beginning of the election season.

1. Obama will have a lead in pledged delegates, but not enough for nomination, heading into the convention.

2. Superdelegates will give Obama or Clinton the nomination. This class of delegate would have to break overwhelmingly for Clinton for her to win.

3. No Democratic candidate has been elected without the support of the African American vote since FDR.

Observations:

1) Changing the rules about what counts, e.g., popular vote over delegates, is fundamentally unfair.

2) Claims of being more electable are based on self-satisfying criteria.

3) Obama is bringing many voters to the process who would ordinarily stay away.

4) Media outlets seek to generate conflict in this process because conflict means drama, drama means narrative, narrative draws viewers, viewers mean advertising revenue. Just because the chattering classes pickup, repeat and amplify the bogus discussion about vote counts and electability does not make them valid.

Senator Clinton should put the country before personal goals and recognize the damage she is doing. If the polished and urbane Seward could do that and go campaign enthusiastically for that backwoods hick, Lincoln, surely she can also.

I just heard BO basically say that Black people will go ape shit if the nomination is 'stolen' from him. That is the message that is being told on Black Radio, Black television, and to the superdelegates. If that isn't fear mongering, I don't know what is.

This whole thing is ridiculous in my mind. We all know the reality. Superdelegates WILL decide this race, barring something unusual happening. They may not like it, we may not like it, but that's the REALITY. If both camps just continued the race and focused on winning the states they need to, then I doubt there'd be this much animosity going on between the camps. Calling Clinton the evil destroyer of the Democratic Party bc she refuses to give up is doing nothing to help Democrats. Huckabee stayed in it until McCain reached the magic number. Why is Clinton so different? When Obama reaches the magic 2025, then its over.

btw- as to that "mythical" popular vote- i assume you were perfectly happy that bush won the electoral college, even though gore had half a million more actual votes? some of us weren't.

Would you have wanted the Bush campaign to decide what the popular vote was in Iowa, Maine, Washington, and Nevada after the race, or to have those states ignored entirely? Would you want to use popular vote to decide the winner if a dozen Gore states used voting equipment which recorded votes at only 1/5 the rate of other states?

The "popular vote" espoused by the Clinton campaign is profoundly undemocratic. Please do not conflate her plight to that of Gore.

T -- No, but I wasn't advocating for Gore to be President because he was the popular vote winner. I was advocating that he won Florida, and thus he was the electoral college winner - and therefor President. Whether I liked the electoral college wasn't the issue - just as the fact you don't like the current nominating system (even though you started writing about it "before Iowa" ... your candidate and every other candidate accepted those rules) is at all relevant. Your "popular vote" standard doesn't exist -- except in your head. _

kaleidoscope: "And given that situation, what superdelegate in his or her right mind would hand Clinton the dynamite to blow up the party?"

Taking your own premise to its logical conclusion -- "They better give the nomination to Obama, or we'll sit this one out or vote GOP" -- what superdelegate in his or her right mind would fold up like a lawn chair in the face of your childish, emotional blackmail?

In Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama had an overwhelming financial advantage that allowed him to drop $11.2 million in ad buys alone over the past month, outspending his weakened opponent Hillary Clinton by nearly 4-to-1 in the process. Further, he clearly enjoyed the open support of many denizens of both the Democratic Party's resident Beltway establishment and the Beltway's resident media establishment and punditariat.

Despite that running start, he got his rear kicked, failing to clear 45% overall and win anything outside a major metropolitan region, in yet another state critical to Democrats in November.

To add salt to the wound, the Boston Herald today reported out polls indicating that Obama is tied with John McCain in -- of all places -- Massachusetts, a state which should otherwise be a lock for Democrats come November.

Excuse me for stating the obvious, but if the remaining primaries go the way I think they'll go, it would be the height of irresponsibility and tomfoolery were the superdelegates to simply hand over the presidential nomination at their August convention to a candidate who peaked in mid-February, and who proved himself on at least four different occasions unable to close the deal with the party's "lunch bucket" rank-and-file.

Nuf ced. Aloha.

Donald, do you suppose if the Democratic nominee dumps $11 million into Utah, we'll win it in November? Money helps, but there are limits to its power.

BTW, you should ask President Dukakis about how accurate polls are before Labor Day. If you really want to use general election polls to judge electability, go here and look at all the states. You'll find electability based on polls to be a poor argument.

westcoast wizard: "[Turkana, your] 'popular vote' standard doesn't exist -- except in your head ..."

Well, to be perfectly blunt, neither does your own standard -- "Obama wins because he's ahead in the pledged delegate count even though he hasn't reached the 2,025-delegate nominating threshold"* -- except in your own mind.

* And you can make that 2,214 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, if Florida and Michigan are to be counted.

CA pol junkie: "Donald, do you suppose if the Democratic nominee dumps $11 million into Utah, we'll win it in November? Money helps, but there are limits to its power."

Then, rather than present me with an absurd hypothetical about Utah, perhaps you should instead ask yourself why Obama dumped $11 million into Pennsylvania, given that by your own logical insinuation he knew he couldn't win there. If that's indeed the case, what does that say about his political judgment?

westcoast wizard, I missed reading your earlier post where you stated otherwise about pledged delegates and the party's nominating threshold. I'm sorry about the snarky remark to the contrary.

Then, rather than present me with an absurd hypothetical about Utah, perhaps you should instead ask yourself why Obama dumped $11 million into Pennsylvania, given that by your own logical insinuation he knew he couldn't win there. If that's indeed the case, what does that say about his political judgment? - Donald from Hawaii

Actually, it says he's running a smart race. This is a race for delegates, and he kept Clinton's delegate margin down to 10. It's exactly the strategy Clinton didn't use in caucus states and post-Super Tuesday. As a result, Super Tuesday was basically a draw and then Obama racked up 11 straight big wins and put the race for pledged delegates out of reach for Senator Clinton. Obama's delegate win in Idaho exceeded Clinton's in Pennsylvania - a little spending there by Clinton would have done alot of good even though she would still have lost the state.

Turkana, and the rest of you, Clinton does not lead with the popular vote and she will not win the popular vote. Clinton does not lead in pledged delegates won through caucuses and primaries and she will not lead in pledged delegates won through caucuses and primaries. She will have no rationale for the superdelegates votes except that she won some big races.

I do not believe the remaining, undecided superdelegates are stupid enough to go against the results of the popular vote or the pledged delegate lead that Obama commands and will continue to command until the last contest.

The only way the superdelegates toss a victory to Hillary is if they really want to lose in the general election and all foreseeable elections, because such an action would cost the Democratic Party it's most liberal members and its African-American members, it would literally tear the party in half at this point.

You Hillary supporters need to understand you're supporting the Clintons and their narcissism, not women's lib. You all want to keep this campaign going like this and keep agitating for those superdelegates, feel free, but be aware of what you're risking. And don't give me crap about how you'll sit out if Obama gets the nod, because it is not and won't be the same thing seeing as Obama has won by all other measures but the superdelegate vote while Hillary has lost.

You Hillary supporters need to understand you're supporting the Clintons and their narcissism, not women's lib.

Wha?? You really have no idea what an offensive piece o' shit you really are, do you?

And you really have no idea how offensive you are, do you, Coyote?

Turkana,

I liked this posting. It was very direct, and very understandable.

When I got up early this morning and saw bits and pieces of all the network early morning shows, the pundits were so upset and angry that Hillary Clinton took PA.

And visiting Huffington Post, and reading a large number this evening of the responses posted over there, there is indeed a great deal of unhappiness in Obama-rama land.

Either Obama's supporters believe in Democracy, and the primary electoral process, or they are just as bad as Bush/Cheney by giving it lip service, but not really wanting it.

Which are you?

Let this entire primary season run its entire course. Just because such a primary season hasn't existed in the memories of anyone alive doesn't mean it's not a good thing.

And we'll see, at the end of the process, where things stand.

Personally, I hope Hillary wins enough of the remaining states to make her case to the Super D's.

But I already knew for at least a month that neither Obama or Clinton were going to be able to win the nomination outright. And it shall remain so.

I don't see anything wrong with living in "interesting times."

So, Brian, your answer's "no," then. Color me surprised.

By the way, Coyote, instead of personal insults, why don't you actually address the substance of what I said?

Do you really believe the left-wing rank-and-file and the African-American vote is going to stick around for the general election if Hillary loses the popular vote, loses the pledged delegate contests and still gets the nomination through superdelegate votes?

Keep in mind, she will not win the popular vote or the pledged delegate races, it's an impossibility for her to do so, really. She'd have to win by like 70 or 80% in each of the remaining races just to take the popular vote and that is NOT happening.

So, again, do you really believe the left-wing rank-and-file and the African-American vote is going to stick around if Hillary loses the popular vote, loses the pledged delegate contests and still gets the nomination through superdelegate votes?

Don't tell me the rules permit it or aren't against it after she lost the popular vote and pledged delegate contests. I KNOW the rules permit it. I'm talking about the political reality that would follow if the Democratic Party's superdelegates did such a thing. It would destroy the party.

Why don't you address that, instead of insulting me.

ww,

you just make up your own standards as you go along. that's fine.

brian,

as usual, your reading skills astound. show me where i said clinton was ahead in the popular vote. thanks.

troubled,

thanks. apparently not understandable to some, though...

Brian Bell,
What you fail to realize is that the Obama campaign has alienated 'rank and file' democrats most of whom are not liberal. Most democrats are moderate. If David Axelrod continues to shoot his mouth off about the base of the Party and blaming underlying racism for every Obama loss, the base won't necessarily vote for McCain but they won't vote for Obama either. Remember, we WON the majority in 06 with MODERATE and CONSERVATIVE democrats. Who do you think they represent? We need these people to win in November.

Oh, and about an earlier post of yours, please try and keep the misogyny to a minimum.

The easy way, one that lets one of the candidates get the required delegate count is for one to withdraw. One would have to be adult enough to make the proper decision. Being that this will probably be Clinton's last hurray, she won't go. Obama's not use to losing, only that once when he tried for a Congressman's seat, he won't go. Kacey is on th something up there. Whats BET and other Black entertainment outlets putting out there? They seem to be poisoning the water a bunch. He's the divider, his fans and all.

So far Clinton has won states worth 277 Electoral Votes, Obama 151. Shouldn't this be what y'all want to pay attention to?

Um, the metric used in the general election is electoral votes, not delegates. The winner of the popular vote in a state wins the state's electoral votes.

Delegates, in contrast, are apportioned based on district, how 'strongly' Democratic it has been, and a variety of arcane, undemocratic metrics.

Also, if Obama thinks he can win without the support of Hillary's supporters, he's going to be surprised. He CANNOT win against McCain without the votes of women, blue collar workers, Catholics, Jews, Hispanics, long-time Democrats, older voters, Florida, and Michigan. He needs them just as much, if not more so, than Hillary needs African-American and liberal elites.

Kacey, most progressives don't like those voter groups you attributed the 2006 wins to. they would like to toss them out of the party and replace with more progressives.

peter,

i'm not only progressive, i'm proudly liberal. and neither clinton nor obama is liberal. by interest group rating standards, perhaps, but not in the real world. but i'm not looking to toss any democratic demographics. not even the most annoying bloggers of the shrillosphere.

The bottom line is that superdelegates can consider ANY METRIC they want.

Can they consider pledged delegates? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider popular vote? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider primaries vs. caucuses? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider big vs. small states? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider red vs. blue states? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider swing states? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider Florida/Michigan? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider Democrat vs. GOP/Indep vote? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider that McCain is polling higher than Obama in those small red states and swing states? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider that McCain is polling higher than Obama in that arguably bluest of blue states Massachusetts? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider that Mass. is not the only blue state McCain could turn red? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider that women make up 60% of the electorate? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider electoral votes? YES THEY CAN.
Can they consider electability? YES THEY CAN.

So many things they can consider, and that's not even bringing up the media missteps of each candidate. But they get to consider those, too. And it's all WITHIN THE RULES.

From Andrew Sullivan today:

"To stay in the game, the level and suicidal quality of [the Clintons']attacks on Obama require a similar form of tactic in response.

But Obama will not and should not go there. The one profound difference between him and the Clintons is that he will actually not do some things for the sake of power. God knows the Clintons have brought him to the verge of that - but pure cynicism would rebut his core message and destroy his candidacy as surely as the Clintons are trying to do. And to say what needs to be said about the Clintons - the truth about their character and their shared pathologies - would be a horribly divisive and brutal move. It would render the Clintons even more unelectable than they already are, undermine the Obama message and give the White House to the GOP.

What's striking to me about this race is that it is the young insurgent who is still acting as the responsible party elder; and the former president who is behaving like a man who will destroy his own party in order to soothe his own sense of entitlement and ego..."

Well said; hopefully not prophetic.

tfitz,

if you want to impress people, quote andrew sullivan. way to go!

heh- well said, misty.

Turkana,

Is that all you have to say?

Does that mean that you agree or disagree with Andrew's assertion? Don't be so reflexive; read between the lines.

Besides, its poor form to criticize me on that level. After all, your buddy eripostal perfected that tactic - scour the 'net for opinions from commenters of all political persuasions that, in or out of context, seem to support your intractable convictions.

Turkana - my thought exactly. I find it really bizarre that any self-respecting Dem would use Sullivan as a reference. I mean, come on. The guy is an emotional roller coaster. Which is fine and fun for a laugh,and he is a very good writer and his husband is cute and I am happy he found true love (I mean that) and the view from my window is sweet - but you cant take him seriously. He is flakey.

Brian, I'm a Clinton supporter and I consider myself part of the left wing rank & file. I am to the left of both candidates, and I chose not to support Obama precisely because of the way he is not taking strong progressive positions on the issues that are important to me. I feel that the process has been rigged by excluding the 9% of the voters who live in MI and FL. Why aren't you concerned about how I feel and what I might do?

Delegates, in contrast, are apportioned based on district, how 'strongly' Democratic it has been, and a variety of arcane, undemocratic metrics.

It's not that complicated really and hardly undemocratic. Each congressional district (and each state) is allocated delegates in proportion to how many people voted Democratic for president in recent general elections.

Denise, I live in Michigan. Your candidate Hillary doesn't give a damn about my vote as a pure exercise in democracy. If she did, Hillary would have agreed that any do-over in Michigan would have been a caucus run like an open primary, not a caucus run like a closed primary or an actual closed primary. Instead, she didn't support that. Her supporters like Gov. Granholm, Rep. John Dingell and Carl Levin colluded with Michigan Republicans by refusing to compromise with Obama's folks and Hillary's allies derailed a re-vote. That tells me exactly what Hillary and her folks were hoping to accomplish in Michigan. Some of us live here and understand what went down, Denise, and it wasn't Obama depriving us of a vote. It was Hillary's allies and Republicans. I think it's more than 9% of the voters, too. MI and FL constitute 2 top 10 states for population.

Turkana, my reading comprehension is great. And I NEVER said you claimed that Hillary was ahead in the popular vote. Apparently, you're the one with a reading comprehension problem, Turkana, as well as a writing one. What you did say is Hillary could win the popular vote, and she can't, it is not a possibility. Anyway, due to all this, I've determined that my reading comprehension is a lot better than your memory, because here's what you wrote, Turkana:
"...The pledged delegate metric is only one, and because Clinton cannot catch Obama in that metric, her entire argument rests on the possibility of her ending up with the most popular votes....

Yeah, that's not happening right now and that's not going to happen, Turkana. Next time, instead of insulting me and questioning my reading comprehension, which is great by the way, why don't you work on your's, and your memory, and your writing. Or maybe you're just disingenuous and insulting.

Kacey, I appreciate you trying to refute my actual argument, talking about how Axelrod has offended moderates. I will grant that it is possible that Axelrod has offended the moderates so much that they won't vote for Obama, but I don't think that logic's right for a couple reasons. First, because Obama is in many ways a conservative Midwesterner. Also, because I think you're wrong on the numbers. African-Americans make up about 25-30% of the reliable Democratic voters. Hillary has offended them so much, they won't vote for her. Maybe 10 or 15% of the reliable, Democratic-voting base are left-wing, like me, and we won't vote for her, either. That's 35-45% of your Democratic base that won't vote for Hillary, versus a nebulous "moderate voter" in the general election. I don't know about these moderate voters. Maybe you're right. Maybe we won't win them over with Obama. I grant that Obama may offend them so much that they won't vote for him. It IS possible. On the other hand, I know with 100% certainty that Hillary Clinton will not win the presidential election with 35-45% of the base sitting out. There's no doubt about this. This is what she and Bill get for playing the race card. So, take your pick. Believe that Obama has irrevocably offended this nebulous moderate voter -- which I admit is possible, but I don't believe there's that many bitter white crackers out there -- or like me, choose to realize the Democrats won't go anywhere with a third of their base willing to sit out if Hillary gets this. Also, Kacey, there is NOTHING misogynistic about observing that Hillary's race is all about her and her husband's narcissism and it has nothing to do with being a real sister. Real womyn don't get to be president by standing on their husband's shoulders. That's a liberating view, Kacey, not misogyny.

I think it's great that a RepubliPIG like Peter is defending the Hillary candidacy. That ought to tell you Hillary supporters what side she's really on.

can we quote Hitchens 2,

Well, unlike reactive/reflexive/insulting posters at LC, I am a true progressive and my politics are, no doubt, to the left of Sens. Obama and Clinton. I've been called worse than 'flaky' on this site by the likes of eripostal, Turkana, iamacoyote...

Basically the way it works at LC is that these posters and commenters, see your 'handle', dont process your content and insult you.

I don't limit my 'reading list' to writers who always agree with me. I dont' disagree with some of what you say about Sullivan, but he has a first-rate mind. As a 'small c' conservative, he has taken considerable risk by opposing most if not all of BushCo policies.

More to the point he is, IMO, spot on regarding the Clintons' FOLIE A DEUX as well as the following observation:

"...the young insurgent who is still acting as the responsible party elder; and the former president who is behaving like a man who will destroy his own party in order to soothe his own sense of entitlement and ego..."

There are more skeletons in Obama's closet that the media is withholding. Can anybody say Odinga?? Auchi??
The superdelegates will decide and they are obligated to select a candidate with the best chance to win in Nov.
Hillary!

While I'm not on board with HRC's "new math", or her personal attacks, she has a point regarding Obama's inability to win the large electoral states of NJ, Mass, NY, Tex., Cal, Oh. and Pa. In most- he wasn't even close.

That said, rules are rules.

we know, trfitz...

a writer's overall credibility is irrelevant, as long as they say what you want to hear.