Pennsylvania forward

46, or whatever, days until Pennsylvania. I agree with Bowers that Obama has to win in PA, but I don't think he will. It's also true that Clinton has to win in PA, and she probably will.

There's a couple of good reads on the next big primary, in the WSJ and on Expertinent.

The wildcard is how Obama looks going negative. I doubt it wears well on him, especially the petty tax return stuff, which sounds like Republican talking points to most Democrats. Terry Madonna tries to find some sort of path to victory in PA for Obama, but among Democrats that have voted in nearly all the previous states, Obama trails heavily, and that's all whom are going to be voting in PA.

Following PA, a winning streak for Clinton seems much more plausible, especially with a firehouse primary (registered Dems) in Michigan and a Florida primary, than it does for Obama.

The story of this election thus far has had three parts, and they've all played out about the same.

First act: Obama won a maverick-like victory in Iowa, upsetting both Clinton and Edwards. He went on the national covers, and lept to the lead in NH polls. Nevertheless, Clinton came back and won convincingly in NH.

Second act: Obama won a huge blowout in SC, and rode out of the state being declared the next JFK for Dems, with all the Kennedy & Oprah hoopla you could imagine, leading up to the Feb 5th states, especially the California primary. The polls and press said that Obama would win it all that day. Nevertheless, Clinton won the bigger contests, including the pivotal CA contest by 10 percent.

Third act: Obama had the best February past the 5th imaginable, winning every single contest, many by blowouts. He took the lead nationally against Clinton, and outraised her 2:1. Riding into the OH and TX contests, he only needed a victory, and with the help of outside forces, outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin in OH & TX. Nevertheless, Clinton won, in Texas by 4 percent, and in Ohio by 10 percent.

Yes, there is a pattern.

It's pretty rare that an upstart candidate gets a shot at beating an establishment candidate even once, and yet, Obama's had three swings and missed each time. He's not going to have another shot at putting away Clinton with everything going from him, as he did his first three chances.

The problem for Obama is that he's run out of chances to put Clinton away. Now, with the next big contest looming in PA, she's the one favored and riding the momentum. I'm sure that Clinton will raised $20-30M, more than enough, to win, even if Obama does raise $50M in March. The national poll numbers have already swung back to favor Clinton. With the potential of having FL & MI contests, it'll be up to Obama to upset the equation, starting in Pennsylvania. Are super-delegates are going to be swayed to vote for a candidate that loses the trifecta of PA/MI/FL, but points to a delegate lead due to wins in Republican states like a caucus like WY and a primary in MS? I doubt it.

I should add that neither Obama or Clinton has, or can possibly have within reason, the number of delegates needed to win this outright. A rule of thumb I have for recognizing the campaign that's 'losing' at the moment is to listen to which one is making their argument based on 'the math' or 'the numbers' of the delegates that are nevertheless not enough-- this won't be won on a technicality.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

299 Comments

Re: Pennsylvania forward

"which sounds like Republican talking points to most Democrats"

Hello pot?  Meet Mr. Kettle...  The 3am thing was straight out of the Republican playbook, and it worked for y'all, so don't complain when the same kind of stuff is thrown back to you!

by LordMike 2008-03-06 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I guess you don't understand. There are no Obamacans for Obama to appeal to with that dumb tax return argument in the PA primary. You might have missed the '90's, but Democrats know where that argument against the Clinton's is sourced pretty well.

It's basically just Obama trying to stay off the Rezko defensive, which I doubt he'll be able to do, given the Chicago press attitude.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-06 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

So...are you saying that you're in favor of such attacks when directed against Obama?

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:00AM | 0 recs
yes BUT

you can't seem to add; HILLARY can't make up the total delegate deficit if she continues to let states go uncontested; SIMPLE MATH;perhaps, you should try it

by jjgtrs 2008-03-06 06:03AM | 0 recs
Simple math is

that neither HC nor BO can win the required number of pledged delegates. There just arent enough up for grabs in the remaining primaries, regardless of whether HC contests.

by Fast Pete 2008-03-06 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

You know, we actually don't know much about the Clintons' financial dealings since Bill left the whitehouse.  And there's no doubt that the GOP will use any and all info that's in there against her in a GE.  If Obama was refusing to release his tax returns, I suspect you might have a different  view on whether it was important information.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

You're correct. Here is where it is.

AP

March. 5, 2008

CHICAGO - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday blamed his primary defeats in Ohio and Texas on rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticism and news coverage that he argued benefited her at his expense.

The presidential candidate said he planned to do more in the days ahead to raise doubts about his opponent's claims to foreign policy and other Washington experience. In a television ad that her campaign credits with helping her win, she portrayed herself as most prepared to handle an international crisis.

"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."


by shergald 2008-03-06 06:09AM | 0 recs
Pledged delegates aren't a 'technicality'

They're the ones that are won through actual voting.

Even with re-votes in FL and MI, HRC still needs to beat Obama by 58-42% margins in each of the remaining contests (or in the net) in order to win the pledged delegate lead, which is a tall order. See the simple math here.

As for Rezko, the press needs to look hard at Clintons' stories like Mark Rich pardon, some messy affair with Peter F. Paul, Norman Hsu, etc, instead of waiting to deal with them in the general election. That's the sort of "vetting" Clintons have got to be put through by the press. Here is a catalog of Clinton money scandals: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Clintons' shadiest donors.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-06 06:13AM | 0 recs
Mark Rich?

I think that's a dead horse. People are more likely to focus on Hugh Rodham taking $400K from a drug-dealer BC pardoned.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates aren't a 'technicality'

Why would the press look at the story when federal prosecutor with a mandate for investigation and subpoena power hauled everyone before a Grand Jury and couldn't find any reason for indictment.

This is why Clinton has been vetted and Obama hasn't and why the vetting argument won't work for anyone except Republicans and the OFB.

Every single aspect of Clinton's life, every phone call and every check written from the time he began running for his first office, and has been thoroughly looked into by various independent counsels with subpoena and even, a partisan agenda. Yes, even the pardons. First Mary Jo White, who reportedly can indict a ham sandwich, looked into it and then James Comey - the guy who took over the DOJ when Ashcroft was in the hospital and appointed Fitzgerald to investigate Scooter Libby. That James Comey says he doesn't like the pardons, but there was nothing there.

So, yes, Hillary is more vetted than human being in history. And she has survived the $70 million dollar plus investigation to prove it. And you guys can deny that all you want - but it isn't going to change the fact that an independent looked in to every single aspect of their lives, using over 500 FBI agents and issuing untold subpoenas to do so - and even went through Chelsea's underwear drawer looking for hidden documents - and found nothing.

Do you guys not actually know anything about Clinton that you didn't learn from the Republicans? This is so bizarre.

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates aren't a 'technicality'

A LOT has happened since the investigation into older Clinton scandals, eg, Clinton Presidential library donation, eg his Khazak Uranium scandal. I don't recall pardons given in 2001 just before he left office being investigated throughly.

Even the old scandals (all kinds: sex, money, influence). Republicans zeroed in on the Lewinsky scandal as there was enough to impeach Clinton with (and lay the baggage on Gore's shoulder in 2000). The rest of the baggage is likely eagerly awaiting and hoping for another Clinton nomination by the Democratic party.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-06 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates aren't a 'technicality'

And yet, they came up with nothing. They were reduced to springing a perjury trap (which they didn't quite pull off) because they could find nothing of substance. As you will recall, over 70% of the US was opposed to the impeachment. But then actual historical reality doesn't seem to register with most Obama supporters. Not much party loyalty either. Amazing how quick you guys are to recycle Republican smears.

Man, there isn't much daylight between Obama supporters and Limbaugh.

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 10:26AM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton hobnobbed with Rush Limbaugh

trolling for Republican votes just a couple of days ago.

Even as we speak, Hillary Clinton is SHAMELESSLY AND FALSELY slamming Obama vis-a-vis McCain, by saying that McCain brings a "lifetime of experience" and that "Obama has a his speech in 2002". Does she have no shame to be smearing Obama recklessly and irresponsibly by pushing up McCain and pushing down Obama (who at this moment is the more likely Democratic nominee for President)?

She's throwing the kitchen sink not at Obama alone, but instead on the entire Democratic party. This gibberish from Hillary Clinton should be cut short.

Clintons, their egos and their self-serving ambition are the Limbaughs in the room are.

For the record, Obama has 20 years of public service including 11 years in elective office, as both IL and US senator, with many important bill and results in the areas of ethics/lobbying reform, healthcare, poverty, civil rights and the enviroment: Obama's Record Reference.

And, he did everything he could prevent us from invading Iraq and making the worst blunder we have made in a generation.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-06 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton hobnobbed with Rush Limbaugh

The only gibberish I'm hearing is out of Obama supporters who are busy recycling old rightwing smears since they don't really have any reason to oppose Clinton on substantive grounds. The fact of the matter is - whether you like it or not - Obama's foreign policy experience is nearly negligible and his first foray into the field as a Democratic presidential candidate - his speeech at the Foreign Policy Council - resulted in rioting in Pakistan and him burned in effigy. Not a resounding success.

A lot of Dems have great foreign policy experience. Obama doesn't. Nor did he bother to get more than he had. Couldn't manage to hold a single meeting of his sub-committee - not one. Didn't make it to Iraq. Didn't make it to Afghanistan.

if you run for president on that kind of paltry resume, you're gonna get calle on it - by your fellow party members (who don't want a lightweight to get the nomination) and then in the general. If Obama is going to fail on this topic - he damned well better do it before he has the nomination. Because McCain has a huge amount of experience and he's gonna run hard on it and likely whoop Obama's butt on the topic.

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 11:44AM | 0 recs
She just said on TV

again that "McCain brings a lifetime of experience and Obama brings a speech". The gall she has. Obama needs to push this woman's reckless and selfish smearing (even to the benefit the fucking Republican nominee) back as hard he can.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-06 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: She just said on TV

It's the truth. Obama's entire campaign is based on one speech he gave as a Democratic candidate running for a  part time state senate position in one of the bluest districts in the nation.

Hillary has been working on foreign policy issues since the moment Bill was running for national office and she was a dominant member of his administration on both policy and execution. She has foreign policy cred - Obama doesn't.

McCain has a lifetime of experience starting as a POW and he is going to take Obama to the cleaners and wring him dry on the subject. Remember, the general election isn't between blue and bluest  - it's between purple and red. McCain isn't going to be going after Obama supporters and changing their mind - he's going to be going after Reagan Dems and hoping to bring them back to the GOP fold. Obama's gonna have a tough time combatting that.

Obama should have prepared better for the run. He shoulda gotten himself to Iraq and Afghanistan, and held plenty of meetings of his subcommittee. He just didn't prepare seriously for this run, and it's going to hurt him badly if he makes it to the general.

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 01:11PM | 0 recs
Nonsense. Obama has 20 years of public

service and 46 years of lifetime experience.

To demean his lifetime with this smear is not only false, but disgusting for any Democrat to engage in for selfish gain (partisan gain on your part).

"She has foreign policy cred"

Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for the war w/o reading the national intelligence estimate. (link).

That makes both of them derelict in their duty and wrong on their judgement. Neither should be President given the enormous cost in lives and money as a result of their recklessness.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-06 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Nonsense. Obama has 20 years of public

He's a part time state senator who didn't introduce any bills until his final year in the senate. He's a Harvard graduate who is the son of a Harvard graduate married to a Harvard graduate and he has done very little in his life. He did organizing work for a couple years before he went to law school. He got out of law school and went to work for a well-connected real estate firm, representing no less than Rezko who was digging up tens of millions of dollars and running slums with the money. He got into the state senate, did nothing for eight years and then his final year, had bills attached to his name. Go ahead - produce the bills he authored and got signed into law before then. He won kudos from the health insurance industry by watering to their satisfaction a bill that they hated.

He's had a thoroughly mediocre career and at the age of 45 has 1/10 of the accomplishments either Clinton had at that age.

It's all about judgement and Obama's has proven to be seriously flawed. He doesn't know the difference between the opinion of a private citizen and the legislative duty of an elected official. He's shown no interest in working full time. He wasnt' smart enough to not bring Rezko into the deal. He wasn't smart enough to get some kind of real foreign policy experience to his name before he ran.

He's a thoroughly medicre politicians who knows how to work an audience - that's it. He's shown no interest in doing things that better the lives of others, he's shown no interest in working full time, he's shown no interest in foreign policy. He seems thoroughly self-absorbed and thinks himself entitled to the nomination. He is outraged, OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU, that anyone would dare call him on his part time record and lack of action.

He's a joke. He's as privilege as it gets and he and his wife have done nothing with their good fortune that benefits others.

Mediocre, entitled part time state employee, adjunct professor and real estate attorney married to a state bureaucrat - that's who and what he is. He is not Abe Lincoln, or JFK or MLK - he doesn't have any of their accomplishments before the presidency. Just eight years working part time and no bills to his credit until his final year.

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 04:17PM | 0 recs
But otherwise, you really like him?!

I had to smile. Perceptive stuff there, Otter. You write well. And I strongly endorse this point, further above:

"Obama should have prepared better for the run. He shoulda gotten himself to Iraq and Afghanistan, and held plenty of meetings of his subcommittee. He just didn't prepare seriously for this run, and it's going to hurt him badly if he makes it to the general."

He jumped in 4 years too early. He should have jumped right out again, weeks ago. Hard to see how he'll ever be president now, with his negatives rising daily.

by Fast Pete 2008-03-06 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: But otherwise, you really like him?!

Thank you kindly. I agree. Four years to early. Or hopefully, eight years...

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 08:32PM | 0 recs
'making it' to Iraq or Afghanistan

doesn't absolve voting to authorize the war.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-06 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: 'making it' to Iraq or Afghanistan

No one running on the Dem ticket voted to authorize the war. Obama didn't vote because he was still working part time as a state senator. And Clinton, as she stated, to support the ability of the weapon inspectors to finish their jobs. Maybe you know more than Hans Blix about what was necessary to achieve unfettered inspections, but I doubt many Americans will believe you.

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Pledged delegates aren't a 'technicality'

Vetted up to 2000.  Nothing since then.  Plenty of stuff to discover in those tax returns.

Calling that issue petty is bullshit Jerome and you know it.   I'm surprised to see you take the bait on that.

by swarty 2008-03-06 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

that dumb tax return argument

Clinton and Wolfson didn't think this was such a "dumb" argument whent the Clintons were broke

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/6/11234 9/5280

as for "sourcing"... are you referring to the hate-radio host who spent two weeks telling his listeners to vote for Clinton? Or the little troll she was flirting with on FoxNews yesterday?

And as if the campaign isn't odd enough, Hillary appeared on Fox & Friends this morning.

"I'm told no one won the party's nomination in recent history without winning their party's primary in Ohio."

She sounds ebullient, as she makes a reference to Karl Rove, who had appeared a moment ago.

Then Rove passes a note to Steve Doocy, "More U.S. presidents have been born in the month of October than in any other month. Hillary, you were born in..."

She laughs, and not the preprogrammed cackle. "October! Thank you, Karl. The omens are just stacking up, what can I say?"

Yup. That Karl.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-06 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Your bias is plain, Jerome.

by hawkseye 2008-03-06 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Also, I thought it was important to make sure all the candidates were "vetted."  Heck, that's been one of her primary arguments the entire campaign and she's gonna have to disclose her tax returns during the GE.  

If there's nothing in them, why not release them now?  I mean, this is info we KNOW the GOP is going to have access to later.  It seems, by her own logic, this is a legitimate issue.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Another thing that hasn't been vetted - "35 years of experience," including 8 in which she may or may not have been working behind the scenes in the White House.  She's had a free pass on that so far.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

That's a technicality. Like the number of pledged delegates.

And I hope Armstrong understand that Bowers's argument isn't 'Obama needs to win PA and Clinton needs to win PA'.

It's, 'For this to be over, Obama needs to win PA.'

I'm pretty fond of both candidates, but some of the trash being written by supporters--especially when pretending a sorta of above-the-fray journalistic neutrality--is embarrassing.

by BingoL 2008-03-06 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

And it saddens me greatly that this is what Jerome A. has become. There are so many absurd things written in this entry that it is astounding.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-03-06 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

All indications are that going into PA, Clinton will actually be further behind in pledged delegates than she was before tuesday.  With even fewer available delegates out there.  Moreover, Obama is gong to continue to win states after PA as well, so we won't see a scenerio where Clinton rolls into the convention on a huge winning streak.  Looking at all of that, I think your prediction here couldn't be more wrong.

Also, I would add that you seem to ignore the many times that Clinton has failed to knock out Obama.  She closed in Iowa and if she would have won there this thing never would have gotten started.  She was up everywhere on Super Tuesday but ended up losing the delegate count there handidly.  And then she lost everywhere for an entire month.  You can keep spinning that as signs of strength for the campaign that came into this contest as the presumptive Democratic nominee, but I don't see it at all.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

The diarist cannot apparently do math.

Hillary Clinton needs a 30 point victory in Pennsylvania, then 20 point victories in every other contest, just to pull even.

And that's in delegates allocated, so the electoral math is even worse for her.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-06 06:43AM | 0 recs
myDLC

Built into this post is the oft-repeated myDLC assumption that Hillary has already won the primary because she is the "establishment" candidate. I'm sure Hillary and Bill believe that themselves. Hillary deserves this because, in their minds, she is the first in line. Unless Obama defeats Clinton by a huge margin of delegates (to be determined by her no doubt) then she automatically wins.

Seem familiar? It's the same attitude that Bush brought to the 2000 election--this is mine so fuck you. It makes me retch to see a so-called Democrat trying to bully and lie her way into the nomination.

by anothergreenbus 2008-03-06 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

The WHOLE CAMPAIGN has been Hillary having to knock out an upstart despite massive structural/financial advantages in 2007 and not doing so.  

Frontrunners have to knock out upstarts -- that's how most primaries work.  Mondale eventually knocked out Hart, Clinton knocked out Tsongas in GA, Bush knocked out Dole in NH then Super Tuesday, W knocked out McCain in SC, Gore never allowed Bradley to get started.

Here, the frontrunner let the upstart win the entire campaign until Tuesday.  As a result, it goes to a delegate fight and that favors Obama.

Delegates matter at this point.  Spin doesn't.

by ChrisR 2008-03-06 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Did you read before your obama campaign memo post? The diarist is saying the delegate count isn't the issue. So you response is: did you do the math?

Listen, disagree if you want, that is great. But at least argue the points the diarist makes.

by Marvin42 2008-03-06 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I rather clearly disagree with the basic premise being offered.  Hadn't realized that wasn't allowed, sorry.  Feel free to continue arguing about how delegates don't matter.  Carry on.

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Yes, she's "inevitable" again after winning three states subsequent to losing 12 in a row, including one of those supposed "red states" that we won't win in the general election (but it's big, so I guess by the logic around here that cancels out the red state issue).  How anyone can say that she's favored when her path to the nomination rests entirely on winning a sizable majority of superdelegates is beyond me.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 05:57AM | 0 recs
When Obama ends up with more pledged delegates...

...and more popular votes, I really hope for the sake of the party that the superdelegates do the right thing at the convention. Because if they don't, there isn't going to be much of a Democratic Party anymore.

by MeanBoneII 2008-03-06 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: When Obama ends up with more pledged delegates

how do you calculate the popular vote?  do we count texas twice?

do we really count the caucus states despite all of the rules which eliminate all sorts of would be votes?

pointing to popular vote as a tiebreaker is impossible.  hell, pointing to pledged delegates is shaky at best when, like in texas, you have some segments of the population whose votes don't count as much as others.    

by oldnorthstate 2008-03-06 06:09AM | 0 recs
Why even hold elections under your theories...

...that popular vote is uncountable and pledged delegates are meaningless? This whole "democracy" thing is just too hard, so let's return to the old days of smoky backrooms where the insiders pick the nominee?

by MeanBoneII 2008-03-06 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why even hold elections under your theories...

get back to me when we have a truly democratic primary.

i agree, why hold an election if you can win a state, but lose the vote?

by oldnorthstate 2008-03-06 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Why even hold elections under your theories...

Pledged delegates and the popular vote aren't perfect, but they are as good a measure as any.  Certainly, they are better than taking the primary results from 2-3 "big states" and divining that one candidate will win the election based solely on those results (and without pissing off all of the Democrats in the "insignificant" states).

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:40AM | 0 recs
look we already got the memo

about insignificant states. No reason to reiterate it.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:34AM | 0 recs
jerome & kos

tweedle-dee & tweedle-dum? are these 2 for real? kos's predictions for tuesday were the worst EVER; is jerome trying to top him now?

by jjgtrs 2008-03-06 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: jerome & kos

I guess you missed mine, which pretty much nailed it on Tuesday.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-06 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: jerome & kos

Heh.  Kos was definitely off, though I'd rather rely on SUSA than you guys.

By the way, has anybody had their ability to rate posts disappear on them?  Is it a settings issue?  I haven't seen the rate bar for a day now.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:04AM | 0 recs
nope

i caught yours AND I was impressed(kos's sucked out loud); yours were good BUT the delegate count only changed slightly; sorry, but hillary can't make up the difference

by jjgtrs 2008-03-06 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

I think the point of this post is not that she can make up the difference, but that if she has all the momentum, victories in what superdelegates consider nearly all the biggest swing states, and a popular vote lead, then superdelegates may be inclined to give it to her rather than the one who got fewer popular votes, has less momentum, and lost the big key swing states, but has more pledged delegates.

by dcg2 2008-03-06 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

popular vote lead?? are you using kos/jerome math? by the time of PA primary obama will have increased on his already sizable popular vote lead; your argument makes no sense in that regard; however, it loses ALL credibility once you realise that the PA primary will only slightly close the delegate gap AND there will still be elections AFTER pa that obama will win because(once again) hillary will fail to put up a fight(she LOST this election already because even though she raised a ton of money; she spent it unwisely); her campaign's burn rate has been horrendous; blame her or mark penn or patti solis doyle(or the tooth fairy) BUT not being competitive in the caucus states(where, if contested, i feel she could have won many delegates because of the 15% threshold math) has killed her chances at the nomination; in TX, she LOST because of organisational deficencies of her campaign

by jjgtrs 2008-03-06 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

It's difficult to conceive as to how she would win the popular vote.  Moreover, four or five states haven't even released their vote totals and would likely show a net gain for Obama in that regard.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

Per DemConWatch, there are only 282 remaining uncommitted SDs.

Let's say they break for HRC 60-40.  Wouldn't you agree that this is very optimistic for her?

Well in that scenario, she nets only 57 delegates.  

You don't honestly hope or believe that she'll get ALL of the remaining SDs, do you?

by goodnbad 2008-03-06 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

I don't thing anyone's superdelegates are really set yet.

If Obama wins PA and blows her out in all the other states, her SDs will abandon her to make sure that he is the nominee.

Likewise, if over the next 3 months it becomes clear that the ultimate judgment of the voters is that Hillary should be the nominee (meaning if she is winning nearly all the states, has moved into a lead in the popular vote, seems to have the momentum, and maybe a lead in the polls), then I think even Obama's SDs will move to her.

by dcg2 2008-03-06 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: jerome & kos

First time that's happened, and you think crowing about it is the way to go?

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: jerome & kos

sweet jerone - you finally get one right and then mock people for it.
and then completely miss the ball again

penn is 7 weeks away, so much can happen between now and then... no one (including you) knows how it will go

you have been off so much this race, i think i'll err on believing your predictions will be wrong again and obama will win the nomination (she will drop out before the convention)

by chriscizzila 2008-03-06 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Well, I'm in one of those states that don't count, like Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon and Connecticut.

Just seventy-two insignificant electoral votes that don't matter.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-06 06:01AM | 0 recs
exactly

hillary's campaign let's states go uncontested; she CAN'T win that way; pure and simple

by jjgtrs 2008-03-06 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: exactly

i agree.

she's never win by not contesting utah.

by oldnorthstate 2008-03-06 06:11AM | 0 recs
YOU ARE AN IDIOT

this nomination is about delegates ONLY; not contesting states(and thus losing DELEGATES),was and is a STUPID campaign strategy; when she loses the DELEGATE count and thus the nomination, it will be HER fault alone

by jjgtrs 2008-03-06 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: exactly

Do you really want to put forth a nominee who writes off 35 states wholesale?

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I'm with you.  I didn't realize, when I agreed to be born in Nebraska, that living in a red state meant I didn't get a voice in the Democratic nomination.

"Technicality", right.  So long as Obama maintains a popular vote lead, his lead in pledge delegates remains anything but a technicality.  This is a democracy, and we are a national party.  You don't get to choose which votes are important or which voices will be heard.

by Ryan Anderson 2008-03-06 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

WYOMING:
Caucuses on March 8 with 12 delegates

MISSISSIPPI:
Primary is March 11 with 33 delegates

two more Obama wins and delegate pick-ups..but they don't matter..(well except it stops the Clinton momentum..and adds to Obama's lead.)

by nogo war 2008-03-06 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

First act: Clinton says she is inevitable.
Second act: Clinton says it will be over after Super Tuesday.
Third act: Clinton so far behind in pledged delegates she needs a blowout on March 4., even by her own campaign's admission.
Fourth act: No blowout on March 4.

Yes, there is a pattern.

by tractor 2008-03-06 06:02AM | 0 recs
Precisely.

This is great spin by Jerome. Each campaign can make the same case that Jerome just made here. For Clinton she could have knocked Obama out several times.

1. A Clinton win in Iowa would have ended this before it started.

2. A Clinton win in South Carolina would have ended this prior to Feb 5.

3. A Clinton win on February 5th would have given her the nomination. This would have been as simple as contesting all of the states.

4. Contesting and winning any of several of the February primaries which could have been close. She ought to have contested Maine and done more to split the the Potomac Primary. This would have limited the February momentum for Obama and allowed Clinton a March 4 landslide.

5. A Clinton landslide on March 4th would have allowed the campaign to reset. Clinton remains approximately 150 delegates behind and will only end up picking up 4 delegates on March 4th. Her campaign said they needed a landslide yesterday, they didn't get it.

by Obama08 2008-03-06 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

The media perpetuated the "inevitability" meme - not Hillary.

by annefrank 2008-03-06 08:39AM | 0 recs
They had better not

I really don't think that dems in GA and MS and WY should be telling me who I will have to vote for in the POTUS election...

by linc 2008-03-06 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: They had better not

Minnesota, Iowa, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Maine, Washington State, Maryland, Delaware, Vermont, Hawaii, DC, Illinois, Colorado, Missouri...

Any other states that you don't want in the fall?

by Wiz in Wis 2008-03-06 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

You are making a huge assumption that a revote will occur in Florida and Michigan. I doubt anything will happen in Florida, and a fireside vote will favor Obama in Michigan.

by mecarr 2008-03-06 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

You think Michiganders will look kindly on the fact that they must vote twice because Obama took his name off their ballot for no good reason?

There is zero chance, at this point, that state will go for Obama. He's insulted them. And we need their votes.

by Little Otter 2008-03-06 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

We'll have a brokered convention at this point either way.  Then one half or the other of the Democratic Party will threaten to succeed and somebody will force the two onto the same ticket.  I think PA determines who goes first.

The DNC does a massive rethinking of the primary process, Dean walks away from political life and the combined ticket wins in November.

That last portion can happen in any particular order.  That's how I'm calling it at this point.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:05AM | 0 recs
PA?

PA determines who goes first? Not the winner of the most pledged delegates and the popular vote?

by MeanBoneII 2008-03-06 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: PA?

I think Clinton can argue that Obama's advantage is caucuses and that they are unfairly skewed against her.  She has won Florida, Ohio and if she wins Pennsylvania, she can make the claim that they need her to win those states.

Now, Obama can argue about Washington State and a few others.  But, ultimately, we need Pennsylvania.  If he wins, great.  If not, do we want to push forward a candidate that's in trouble in Pennsylvania?

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: PA?

Why are they unfairly skewed against her?

That's the point of the argument that she and her followers have completely failed to make.

The truth is that they are NOT unfairly skewed against Clinton; the truth is that Clinton SKIPPED the caucus states out of hubris and didn't try and compete there, and now claims they were 'unfair.'

Horse hockey

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: PA?

Just look at Texas.  Doesn't make a lick of sense when you look at the popular verses caucus results.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: PA?

You also need Wisconsin and a slew of others.  Last I checked, Clinton was down by 10 in Wisconsin to McCain and Obama had a sizable lead.  Having a lead (a primary lead, mind you) in Pennsylvania is worthless if it simply means that she is on the defensive in other states that have an equal or greater number of electoral votes.  Clinton won't automatically carry the Gore-Kerry states, you know.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: PA?

Let me be the first to thank you for addressing the post you responded to directly.

Go look at the diary Obamafan has up right now, showing that both of them would win, but they would receive very similar EVs in their victories.  Thus, they're about par.  My feeling on it is that we'll have 16 years of Democratic leadership if Clinton goes first.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: PA?

Well, Democratic leadership is the goal of everyone here.  I probably disagree with your choice of candidate to accomplish that, but in the end either would be a good executive and certainly better than McCain.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

You said a mouthful.  Simplest is always best.  Why in the hell don't we just go to a straight up popular vote in every state.  Delegates could be apportioned in a ratio based purely on population, regardless of congressional district lines or precincts.

Primary elections should absolutely be restricted to registered Democrats.  I know, I know, caucuses are magnificent at party building, but we have to come up with another way to do that, since caucuses are time-consuming, confusing and undemocratic.

by jarhead5536 2008-03-06 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I've caucused in Iowa and Texas, and may I be the first to say that Iowa has it down to a science.  But, I think we need to switch to primaries, because I can't tell you how confusing caucuses can be and they disenfranchise a lot of voters in the process.

I think we need to think some about the order of states as well.  It never made sense to me the way the order went.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Oh and I totally agree with awarding delegates based on population - this rewarding loyal Democratic districts nonsense discourages voters in traditionally Republican districts from voting.  In Teas, Travis County (Austin) has eight delegates.  What the hell?  It's definitely not the largest city by far.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:28AM | 0 recs
tell ya what

first you come up with another equally good system for building up party participation and then we will talk about banning caucuses.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: tell ya what

Did you see the news this morning about the disasters in Texas?  Do we really want this to be the way the public sees our party?

Caucuses are great for the party faithful, but far too complex for the general public to undertake in any large numbers, as has been made clear during this primary season...

by jarhead5536 2008-03-06 07:51AM | 0 recs
they were not so problematic

when Bill Clinton used Texas primaries to win teh nomination.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Hmmm, that sounds much like what I've been saying all along!  Only thing I'd maybe disagree on is that I think OH already determined who goes first (they've been "right" for 44 years after all)--and PA will simply help reaffirm that, as did TX on Tuesday!  And let's just hope that the DNC does do some massic rethinking of the entire primary process!

Also, although I don't think it would be best for the country, I think that IF Hillary pulls out the nomination as I think she will she would in fact be forced to ask Barack to be VP for the sake of all the first-time voters that otherwise wouldn't stick around for the general election or even perhaps the future.  However, I think he might actually prove to be too prideful and too ambitious to actually accept (even though that would probably be the best possible thing for his own career as well--let's face it, he's followed in Hillary's footsteps on so much, he could continue gaining experience by following in her footsteps and then actually be more prepared to be a formidable candidate in 8 years).  

by ChargedFan 2008-03-06 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I'm more worried about him than her; I think she recognizes the need to have him, and what good he could do in the future and what an excellent candidate he would be after eight years as a VP (or hell, even four if she decides she doesn't want a second term).  If he wold just accept, he'd make me the happiest little ejintx he could.  I'd gladly support and vote for him with the blessings of the Kennedys and the Clintons in four or eight years.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:35AM | 0 recs
hell why even have any contests except Ohio then

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:43AM | 0 recs
I mostly agree with your analysis

I wonder, though, whether they'll be swayed by all the threats by Obama supporters to sit out the election if Hillary is the nominee?

Many seem convinced that even if she has the popular vote edge, a lead in national polls, all the momentum, the seal of a approval from late-deciding states, and victories in states that make up a solid majority of electoral votes, but a 1-pledged delegate disadvantage, that nominating Hillary would be "stealing" the nomination.

Further, because he has adopted the scorched earth tactic of branding her and Bill as race-baiters, that has had a divisive effect on a small, but important segment of the base.  

I just wonder whether all that stuff can bully the Superdelegates?

by dcg2 2008-03-06 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

Obama supporters that won't vote for HRC aren't Democrats.  Listen, I'd vote for Obama if he is the nominee but that would be a reluctant vote because I don't think he is ready to answer the phone at 3 AM.  What's he going to do, make a speech?

National security is something that I weigh heavily when I go to the polls.

by kydem 2008-03-06 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

Maybe you can explain exactly what Hillary's "national security" credentials are.  I've love to hear about them.  I know she did a bang up job on Iraq and her Iran votes are "awesome."  Anything else, besides her diplomatic missions with SinBad?  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis
What's he going to do, make a speech?

That's just so stupid.  All candidates make a lot of speeches.  Obama just happens to be really good at it and Hillary isn't. So she makes fun of him and her followers follow suit.  I trust Obama's judgement when answering that phone immensely more than Hillary's. She has looked like an emotional train wreck too many times on the campaign trail. Plus just look at their past histories to see who has the better judgement.  I don't see how anyone could want Hillary answering that phone.
by Becky G 2008-03-06 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

And you just took a sarcastic comment as being non-sarcastic.

by kydem 2008-03-06 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

Are you going to enlighten us on her national security credentials?  I'm still waiting...

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 06:32AM | 0 recs
Yes, please do tell about em credentials n/t

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

Somebody cited a poll the other day that more Clinton supporters will just not vote or defect to McCain than Obama supporters (it's like 25% to 10%).  Hence the need for a unity ticket.

Either way, the two houses of the Democratic Party have met and do not like each other.  I wonder how long we will be able to hold ourselves together without the unity ticket.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

Fair point.  I think it would be good to have them together, but I don't think it'll happen unless the party elders force them to do it (and they decide to  accept it).

I could more easily see Clinton/Obama than the other way around because I think Obama probably doesn't want Hillary's baggage on his ticket.

by dcg2 2008-03-06 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

Agreed.  I don't think it works with Obama at the top; both would have a hard time working on that.  I said on a different diary that if it's Clinton/Obama, we'll have 16 years of historic, strong Democratic leadership.  I think that's the ideal.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:30AM | 0 recs
yeah I am gonna need some numbers

on that.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah I am gonna need some numbers

25% of Clinton supporters would defect or just not vote for Obama, 10% of Obama's would do the same.  There's some numbers.  Are you arguing a unity ticket is bad or that Clinton shouldn't be at the top?

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:50AM | 0 recs
I guess the second point

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess the second point

So you don't want 16 years of strong leadership?

by ejintx 2008-03-06 07:12AM | 0 recs
sure,

Obama/Clinton shoudl be able to provide that.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: sure,

Is Clinton going to want to run in 2016?  Nope.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 07:29AM | 0 recs
I think predicting 8 years into

the future is a bit too much.

And that seems like thats what you base your argument on.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I think predicting 8 years into

I'm predicting that Obama would gain more than enough experience to make an excellent case in 2016.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 08:00AM | 0 recs
surely,

it does not mean he should stop making it now.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 08:15AM | 0 recs
Reread ejintx's words

"..the two houses of the Democratic Party have met and do not like each other"

How true!  But I believe that our disdain on the Clinton side runs much deeper and, so far, polls indicate that more of us would walk.  Doesn't surprise me.  Many of us in this coalition have walked before.  We don't like the McGovernite wing and, since we are older on average, our resentments have been baking and hardening for many more years.

by lombard 2008-03-06 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Reread ejintx's words

Funny, I thought you guys were the McGovernite wing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/pol itics/02texas.html

by enozinho 2008-03-06 09:32AM | 0 recs
Those are a few McGovern operatives

Hopefully, they have acquired more wisdom with age (as have the Clintons).

The present day counterparts of the McGovern movement are clearly supporting Obama.

by lombard 2008-03-06 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Reread ejintx's words

Senator McGovern, a genuine American hero, has endorsed your candidate.  Are you sure you should be so ready to throw him under the bus?

by Progressive Witness 2008-03-06 08:39PM | 0 recs
I didn't criticize Senator McGovern

I agree that he is a fine man.  I was referring to the wing of the party that championed him.

by lombard 2008-03-07 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't criticize Senator McGovern

Thank you.  McGovern has been maligned, and within this Party, a phenomenon about which us South Dakota Progressives get a little tetchy at times.  Chalk me up to that.

Thank you for clarifying.

I don't see McGovern v. the McGovern wing as a distinction without difference, necessarily, so I ask genuinely out of curiousity:  what do you see as the difference between McG and his team/supporters/fans/etc.?  Tone, policy, or something else?

by Progressive Witness 2008-03-07 10:05AM | 0 recs
Idealists vs. Pragmatists

One writer for the Economist stated that a large segment of Obama supporters are the liberal equivalent of "values voters."  They are less concerned with policy specifics than they are with themes and the dreams of a transformational political culture.  

Personally, I find that paradigm unappealing.  I believe that successful political leadership is more often than not incremental, less ambitious in rhetoric, and, yes, more conservative in its basic nature.  If we manage to get pragmatic, incremental, and well run government like we did in the late 1990s again, we will have achieved something admirable.  Hoping for much more usually gets you less.

I'm sorry that I used the "McGovernite" reference.  It is not fair to him and I am probably guilty of being mentally lazy by not searching for a better and more descriptive term.

by lombard 2008-03-07 10:52AM | 0 recs
Nicely said.

And no "sorry" needed so far as I'm concerned.  Shorthands are necessary sometimes.  And the "idealistic dreamer" label that often gets put on Sen. McGovern as well as on his supporters is not entirely unjustified.

I have to admit that even after 44 years on this earth, I am still inspired by the big dream stuff, but find it's necessary to balance it out with pragmatism.  Henry A. Wallace is one of my political heroes, and "pragmatism" was one of his big bywords, as it was of the historic Progressive movement in general.  Wallace was both a visionary and a pragmatist, not always keeping them perfectly in balance, but usually trying.

by Progressive Witness 2008-03-07 11:26AM | 0 recs
Thanks! And Henry Wallace was a hero of sorts.

One could disagree with his positions, but he took courageous positions at the time (in contrast, I don't see Obama as a figure who has been particularly courageous in his career).  Wallace's positions toward relations with the USSR could be defended within the context of fairness at the time.  No nation contributed more nor suffered more in defeating Hitler and the USSR had good reason to be paranoid of its neighbors and the western powers considering their historical antagonism (whether deserved or not) toward the Soviet state.

by lombard 2008-03-07 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah I am gonna need some numbers

In the words of Wikipedia...Citation needed

by Wiz in Wis 2008-03-06 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah I am gonna need some numbers

I'm looking; give me a second.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 07:15AM | 0 recs
by ejintx 2008-03-06 07:28AM | 0 recs
that link does nto have popular vote n/t

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

Remember, people online and people on the tee vee are not people in real life.  Or, rather, they are people in real life but they are people in real life who spend too much time online or on tee vee.  

I think that most Democratic voters like both, but some don't.  We'll have to convince the some that don't that they are wrong, once we have a nominee.  I find it mildly ironic that - after Obama talked widely about how he'd get Clinton's voters but she wouldn't get his - it now appears that the opposite is true as well.  Maybe there's some resentment of that kind of arrogance.  Maybe Senator Obama doesn't understand that about 50% of Democrats like Hillary Clinton really alot and want her to be president, too and that insulting them is not the way to get them on your side.

Still, I don't think the party is as close to splitting candidate partisans would like you to believe, and I think that candidate partisans who are trying to split the party to get their candidate (EITHER ONE) elected are shortsighted donkey butts who should have their rhetoric handed to them on a big sloppy platter covered with steaming donkey dung and a great big fork.

by mgee 2008-03-06 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

I don't necessary use MyDD as the gold standard of party feelings, but I will say this: the media sure has made this look like an internal war among Democrats.  To use the loosest definition I can think of, "wine drinkers" verses "beer drinkers."

I'm a "beer drinker" that doesn't quite fit that mold.  But I'm not a fan of being portrayed as a redneck like the media would have you believe.  They've almost made this a war along every line they could: race, gender, alcohol preference (economic status accordingly), age and education.  I don't buy into those false divides but some might.  I sure hope not though.

by ejintx 2008-03-06 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

I have to say, I agree.  I'm not sure whether I'm a beer drinker or a wine drinker by their definition.  Economically, I'm a beer drinker, but I'm a total liberal, and like both beer and wine.  I don't buy many lattes.  I can't afford $5/day for coffee.  I do have a milk frother at home, though.  What crazy definitions these crazy people create.

I have resented, however, Obama supporters online complaining about low information voters or working class racists or claiming that "simple Democrats like Clinton supporters" will vote for anything with a D, in a way that devalues the voters' choices.  Blah.  Phooey.  But I still think that the "divide the party" dramallamas are the worst of the worst, and I hate their silly mugs on my tee vee, especially when they are DNC members or party activists whose salaries I pay with my meager (but annual, and consistent) contributions or my eyeballs on their advertisements.

by mgee 2008-03-06 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I mostly agree with your analysis

dcg,

There are a lot of ifs in your post.

I don't think Hillary will do half as well as you give her credit for.

by obamania 2008-03-06 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

If all goes well, KY will still be in play.

by kydem 2008-03-06 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I think people around here are pretty quick to write off a Clinton win in Pennsylvania, since there's, what, 6 weeks left before it happens?  That's a lifetime in politics.  Take it for granted at your own peril...

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward
...and since the contemptuous (and contemptible) demagoguery on NAFTA that they used to win the primary in Ohio may just backfire on her in PA, to say nothing of MI, if that re-vote happens.
I wonder if any of the blue collar/union voters she played for chumps are gonna drive across the borders to spread the word on that
by BlueinColorado 2008-03-06 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Agreed.
Should be more than enough time for Obama to put together a win there.

Good luck to him.

by carrieboberry 2008-03-06 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward--All the Way to June

[A] source at the DNC told me [Howard] Dean is in no hurry to intervene.

"He wants to let the voters have their say," the source said. "We need to take a step back. We still have 10 states [plus Guam and Puerto Rico] left to vote and 600 pledged delegates to be determined."

[...]

But some think, ultimately, there is no real choice: Florida and Michigan have to be counted.

"If two of the most important states in the country are not seated at the convention, it has incredible implications for the Democrats in November, and the Republicans will use it against us," said Tad Devine, a former member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee who is not aligned with any campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/8869.html

by Tennessean 2008-03-06 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward--All the Way to June

I'm confused. Can you please explain to me how the candidate with an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates "has to win in Pennsylvania."

While I understand that Billary are masters at manipulating the rules and believe that rules don't apply to them, it also appears that they are going to lose the race for superdelegates, excuse me, automatic delegates, their lead in same having declined from 100 to 41. In fact, Obama has gained more in the super-delegate race in the last three days than Billary gained in the pledged race on Tuesday.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 06:14AM | 0 recs
So is this race over? Ok Obama can go home...

If this nomination is all locked up for Obama and his lead is insurmountable and Clinton has "no chance" etc, etc why doesn't Obama just go home and relax.  He can also stop answering reporters questions about those pesky issues he has been avoiding and the media can stop covering all the upcoming primaries.

I've been seeing a lot of nervous Obama supporters for the past week.  Even more so after March 4th.  Shouldn't Obama's camp be exhibiting cool, steely confidence and be smiling?  It's smooth sailing for him from here on out right?

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:29AM | 0 recs
yes, yes

lets count all the Michigan Obama votes. I am sure that one is fair.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:47AM | 0 recs
what i don't understand

Is how you can make the jump from "Obama can't beat Hillary in the big states" to "Obama will lose the big states to McCain?"

Most Dems are relatively satisfied with their candidates - and I would venture to guess that the number of Hillary supporters unwilling to support Obama is matched by the Obama supporters who dislike Hillary. BOTH candidates are going to have to work very hard to consolidate the "base."    

by highgrade 2008-03-06 06:11AM | 0 recs
Tortured Logic: Second is the new First?

Clinton barely saved herself -- once with a razor-thin win in NH, once with a Super Tuesday performance that was good, but still failed to earn as many delegates as Obama, and once with a razor-thin win in Texas, in which Limbaugh inspired Republicans had a hand (if not a decisve one.  Really, check this:  Republicans voting in the Democratic Primary in WI: 72-28 for Obama; in Texas? 52-47 for Obama).

So after all of that Clinton still trails in delegates, has had exactly ONE day since the first of the year in which she has made a net gain of delegates, and she should be the nominee for it?

Also, that bit about calling for a release of tax returns as "petty"?  Petty?  Listen to yourself.  This is about accountability, and knowing where the Clintons get their money from.  You may not want to know, but that's not being high-minded and principled.  That's called having your head in the sand.  (And don't think there wouldn't be a call for the same information after the convention, should Clinton emerge, improbably,a s the nominee.   For the good of the Democratic Party, that information must be out there now.

by NewHavenDave 2008-03-06 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Tortured Logic: Second is the new First?

exactly. either will win ohio and pa in this environment, as long as their is no self-destruction of the party

by chriscizzila 2008-03-06 06:44AM | 0 recs
Do You Even Read What You Write?

Sometimes I can't believe you, Jerome.  Not your Obama-hatred--we're all used to that.

But you worked on Dean's campaign, and by early 2004, the Establishment was accepting the fact that he was going to be the nominee.  Then--like that--he fell apart.

Things can change quickly, and 7 weeks is a long time.  Remember, by Pennsylvania, Obama will be back to having a winning streak (albeit 2 states).

Also, Clinton has a lousy ground game, and Obama's is exemplary.  Didn't you write a book or something about that?

Your opinions about Obama are predictable, but at least hold firm to your beliefs, or let us know that you now favor top-heavy, media-driven campaigns over "people-powered" ones like Obama has put together.

by rayspace 2008-03-06 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Do You Even Read What You Write?

Agreed that Jerome appears to prefer candidate Clinton. But he in no way demonstrates Obama hatred.

Pointing out Obama's weaknesses or the fact that he seems to have difficulty closing isn't hatred.

Reminds me of watching tennis. Some players get to the Wimbledon final again and again, but just can't close out the win.

by carrieboberry 2008-03-06 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Do You Even Read What You Write?

And the last post by Jerome pointing out any flaws in Clinton came when?

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Do You Even Read What You Write?

Gee, Carrie, I guess you missed the snideness and sarcasm of this little gem

"declared the next JFK for Dems, with all the Kennedy & Oprah hoopla you could imagine"

Anytime someone mentions Oprah, they are trying to denigrate the candidate, as if they are as light and meaningless as a talk show.  It's clear what dog whistle Jerome is sending out to the Hillary faithful, except most of them are so old and deaf they can't hear it.

by rayspace 2008-03-06 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Do You Even Read What You Write?

Guys I agree that Jerome favours Hillary. But I think it's good to read generally civil negatives about your own candidate. I think it helps when you understand their negatives. First step in overcoming them.

I think Oprah hoopla was a huge win for Obama. To suggest that citing Oprah hoopla is dismissive or somehow lightweight sounds sexist to me. Oprah isn't a lightweight.

Strange that you equate light and meaningless attitudes about someone like Oprah with Hillary Clinton supporters. You're more likely to find the opposite. People like me who really admire Oprah and respect that she is supporting Obama, but really wish that she was supporting Hillary.

I'm sure most Clinton supporters would rather have the Oprah hoopla on our side than on Obama's. Unfortunately for us, she prefers him.

by carrieboberry 2008-03-06 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Do You Even Read What You Write?

I was suggesting that Jerome's snide and dismissive tone about Oprah suggested that Obama's candidacy was all about celebrity, not substance, since Oprah is not a political player.  (He could have cited Janet Napolitano, or Claire McCaskill, but he didn't).  I don't think Oprah is a lightweight, but I think that is what Jerome intended to convey.

And I will note that while you are carrying Jerome's water on this, he has failed to respond to my point about the quality of the campaign that Obama has run, rather than the pollster-driven, media-based campaign that Clinton has run.  Is this the kind of "leadership" we can expect out of his candidate, too?

by rayspace 2008-03-06 07:30AM | 0 recs
Petty tax return stuff?

Funny, Hillary was for releasing tax returns before she was against it...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9C06EFD61E31F93AA1575BC0A9669C8B6 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so, raising suspicions about whether he had the kind of financial problems that have tripped up other politicians in New York in recent decades.

The campaign of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something.

''Rick Lazio can't explain why it took three months to release his taxes,'' said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman. ''Now he won't come clean with New Yorkers and reveal the real cost of his reckless trillion-dollar tax plan. It's time for Mr. Lazio to stop playing games and start talking straight.''

========

Jerome - so petty's ok as long as Hillary's the one being petty?  She looks kinda foolish to me, since it was so important for her in her last race that her opponent released his returns...what's she hiding?

by FlashStash 2008-03-06 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Petty tax return stuff?

Um, Lazio was the nominee of his party back then, and as such was required to release the returns.  Hillary is not yet the nominee of her party, so she doesn't have to release anything.  She has the instincts of a lawyer, which are to say nothing until you have to, and I really don't have a problem with that...

by jarhead5536 2008-03-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Petty tax return stuff?

Doesn't she have to be "vetted"?  Eight years is a long time not to release one's taxes.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Petty tax return stuff?

You don't have a problem with her hiding where she got the 5 million to donate to her campaign?  She is possibly in violation of several laws due to Bill's overseas work.

Don't ever say she's 'vetted' if this is your attitude.  She isn't.  A candidate who has secrets is not vetted.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 06:52AM | 0 recs
Seriously?

Bill gets a minimum of six figures for speaking engagements.  Hillary has published four books I think.  Her profit from the last one alone (her autobiography) was $15 million.  These guys are not hurting for money, legitimately earned.  Apparently, however, it is bad for a Democrat to have a pile of money, unless of course your John Edwards.  He is far, far richer than HRC will ever dream of being, you know...

by jarhead5536 2008-03-06 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Has everyone forgotten about the Unpledged Add-On Delegates? It could doom HRC.

Clinton leads the overall superdelegate tally this morning, 241-198. Add in the UADs whose commitment have been determined, and that shrinks to 248-221. Even if she enjoys some success at grabbing UADs from states that Obama has won, she faces an uphill battle - almost all of Obama's likely UADs are already locked down, and almost all of Hillary's have yet to be determined. And to offset each UAD in that Obama lead, Hillary needs to win another pledged delegate or superdelegate to her cause.

So add this to the long (and lengthening) list of reasons why the numbers just don't add up for a Clinton nomination. And every time you see a tally of the 794 superdelegates, look closely to see how it treats the 76 UADs. These procedural details matter more than most people think - by mastering them, the Obama campaign has built a clear lead despite the remarkably even split between the campaigns at the polls.

by mecarr 2008-03-06 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Sorry...

As one who thinks that the only stupid questions are the unasked ones... Could someone tell me

What are UAD? Unpledged add-on delegates?

by carrieboberry 2008-03-06 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Here.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-06 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

thanks

by carrieboberry 2008-03-07 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Wow I hadn't heard of these at all.  Interesting.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-06 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Will you please not stoop to Republican tactics and refer to him as "BHO"? We know what you are trying to do with his middle initial. It makes you look lowly and pathetic.

by mecarr 2008-03-06 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

There is nothing wrong with Obama's middle name. It's common to refer to Clinton as HRC and it's OK to refer to Obama as BHO.

Sounds less offensive than BO.

by carrieboberry 2008-03-06 06:26AM | 0 recs
I'll take your Obamabots

and raise you Hillbots

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll take your Obamabots

Funny! :)

by carrieboberry 2008-03-06 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

A lot of BHO's Flying Monkeys out today. I also use the shorthand you claim is a "Republican Tactic." My shorthand for the other nominee is HRC. Would you prefer BO?

by JohnS 2008-03-06 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I getting really tired of the "Obama can't win the big states argument."

First of all, everyone knows there's no way the democratic nominee is going to lose New York, New Jersey, California or Massachusetts.

Secondly, even if you argue Hillary would be stronger in Ohio and Florida, you could also argue that Obama would be stronger in Iowa, Missouri, Colorado and Virginia.

The bottom line here is that we have two excellent candidates that are splitting the base in the primaries, but regardless still have an excellent chance of winning the general.

by Wade 2008-03-06 06:17AM | 0 recs
Don't be so sure

Some SUSA numbers just came out that showed Obama struggling and neck-and-neck against McCain in Massachussetts in a possible general election matchup.  It was within 2 points.  Pennsylvania is another state where he would struggle and so is Ohio.

Clinton wins all those states easily according to SUSA.

Oh and about Florida -- Obama has no chance there.  Clinton would at least be within striking distance according to them.

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't be so sure

The day the Democratic Party loses Massachusetts is the day that this party is doomed.  I have no doubt that either would win MA.  

Clinton would have a very hard time winning WI and a number of other Mid- and Southwestern states that are crucial for our chances.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Don't be so sure

McCain is quite popular in NJ and Mass.  I believe I saw polls showing him beating Obama in NJ.  And Mass sees an empty suit in Obama, similar to the unpopular Patrick

by tiffany 2008-03-06 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Exactly. That's what I keep saying. Either Dem will win those states in the GE. Hillary is being disingenuous when she says the candidate must be able to win the big states. All thinking people know that it's important to be able to win the big states in the GE, not the primary. She's purposely trying to confuse the issue. The superdelegates know better.

by Becky G 2008-03-06 06:25AM | 0 recs
Nice post Jerome

You pretty much said everything I would have wanted to say about the election going forward.

I agree with every single point you made.  It is getting to be a bit comical to hear all this talk of "the Math" when everyone knows it won't come down to that.

This race is basically reset and is now a stalemate.  Might as well throw out the delegate count because the rest of the way will be all about narrative, electability, and momentum.

When will we know we have a nominee?  We will know the moment when we see it.  Everyone just be patient...

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice post Jerome

Well, but you can't throw out delegate count and the mat because that's how these races are set up. Sheesh! If you had math on your side you'd say just the opposite.

by Becky G 2008-03-06 06:27AM | 0 recs
Not necessarily

But a joint ticket would be required.  Obama didn't seem as open to that as Hillary Clinton was recently.  There's all kinds of realities that need facing and the fact that the only way our party will survive this is a joint ticket of both candidates.

Oh and if Clinton had the delegate lead I still wouldn't be gloating and saying it's over all over the blogs.

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice post Jerome

Why does 'everyone know' that it won't come down to that?

What is it that YOU think will decide the race, if not the math?  Counting Super-delegates, Obama is up by about 100.  He will probably increase his pledged delegate lead before the convention, at worst maintaining it.  The unpledged add-on delegates give him another 25 or so advantage.

The math is HOW THE CANDIDATES ARE CHOSEN.  No other process selects the candidates other then math, and votes at the convention.  You are substituting your fever-dreams for some sort of rule change or magic event to save Clinton, in place of the cold reality of the situation.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice post Jerome

It's odd that a lot of people here stereotype Obama supporters as supporting a "Christ-like" and "messianic" leader, when Clinton supporters disregard "the math" and take it on faith that somehow she will win the nomination, I guess at the moment of revelation that you describe.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Jerome!  "Obamacans"??  "I guess you don't understand."  It does the party no good, and certainly not your reputation, by resorting to this condescending crap.

by WHackwhacker 2008-03-06 06:21AM | 0 recs
I thought I've seen a few call themselves that

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I thought I've seen a few call themselves that

Once again, cut the crap.

by WHackwhacker 2008-03-06 06:30AM | 0 recs
Once again?

I don't think you've spoken to me before. And this is the last time.

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:36AM | 0 recs
Revote!

If the DNC won't allow Florida and Michigan to seat their delegations, they must allow a full primary revote, and work to fund it in both states.  If that is too expensive, they should seat the Florida delegation, and fund a full primary vote in Michigan.  I think that both campaigns should make a symbolic contribution (say $500,000 each) to help fund the new Michigan primary, and have no idea why the DNC isn't doing a better job leading on this issue.

I get it.  Rules are rules, and we don't like people breaking them unless those people are from Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  Okay, but rules are rules are not rules like the electoral college rules, which are embedded in our constitution (promoting the general welfare and all that) that would require a full amendment of the constitution to change.

No, these are DNC rules that the DNC changes based on the DNC's wishes, and right now the DNC is faced with a pair of candidates whose actual votes in actual primaries to actual date differ by .05%, maybe, who are raising money like crazy from loads of dedicated supporters and volunteers, and who want to be president of these 50 48 United States of America.  Unless Michigan has seceded to join Canada (for the delicious universal health care and the power of the loony) and Raoul Castro has succeeded in taking over Florida (or maybe Spain asked for it back?) voters in Michigan and Florida should matter.  

If a revote is the way to make it stick, the DNC should work with the states to make it happen.  Srsly.  And not let the nutty idiot pundits spend 8 weeks talking about how Michigan and Florida don't matter!!!1111!!!!  Want a 50 state strategy?  Lead the way.  

by mgee 2008-03-06 06:23AM | 0 recs
Chris Bowers

I've been reading Mr. Bowers' postings over at Open Left, and I can only conclude that Mr. Bowers believes Senator Obama already has a successful claim on the nomination and that a loss in PA will only hamper Senator Obama's GE campaign. Mr. Bowers' thinking amazes me because it seems that he has taken a total emotional investment in Senator Obama's winning the nomination; at one point he even claimed to quit the Democratic Party if Senator Obama does not receive the nomination. I don't know what to say but to hope that when Senator Clinton starts to fight for superdelegates, that Mr. Bowers does not find that surprising or that he does not abandon his activism for the Party altogether.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-03-06 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Yeah, all those counties in Pennslytucky that Clinton win 900-100 aren't going to add up to squat.  This is going to play out in the Philly suburbs.  If Obama wins the suburbs, he wins. If Hillary wins the suburbs, she wins.  This is the swing area where they both have appeal.

by NJIndependent 2008-03-06 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Even if she does win by 10 points, Obama will retain a massive delegate lead.  You ought to admit this.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

What evidence do you have to support your argument?

It's as if you don't realize, that for every Pledged Delegate Obama leads, it's one less opportunity for a super-delegate to vote against Obama and over-turn the thing.

I think you are also ignoring the fact that the VAST majority of uncommitted super-delegates, who have been asked, have stated that they don't think it's right to over-turn the pledged delegate leader.  You are relying on some sort of back-room deal in order to get victory for Clinton.  Not a strong argument.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I've not heard anyone outside my family use the term "Pennsyltucky" in a long time.  Do you also celebrate the Fourth of J'newyear?

by mgee 2008-03-06 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

You are the one who is absolutely incorrect.  I have lived in central or SE PA for 2/3 of my entire life.  The people who live in the exurbs and mountains are not Democrats, and certainly not Democrats that are going to be voting in the primary in anything more than a trickle.  Nice try, though.

by NJIndependent 2008-03-06 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Sheesh, this argument gets more Orwellian every day.

Jerome, you're arguing, essentially, that if a football team scores 3 touchdowns in the last 5 minutes of a game, they should win the game even if they were down 28 points.

But keep telling yourself that the Super Delegates will buck the popular will, and that somehow that won't destroy our chances in November as we watch half of the disillusioned young, as well as black vote, sit out November, and as independents desert "election-stealer" Clinton in droves for McCain.

This is a contest for delegates, pure and simple.  The only argument Clinton could POSSIBLY make at the end is if she wins the popular vote, but it's unlikely she'll have that either.

by leshrac55 2008-03-06 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Counting FL and MI, she is winning the popular vote.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-03-06 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: No

correct.  and that's including a state where his name was not on the ballot at all.  My fearless prediction is that Obama would have one at least a single vote in Michigan.  :)

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: No

INCORRECT.  Ugh.  Seriously: counting Michigan and Flordia, the popular vote is a virtual tie.  Clinton is behind - at most - by 300,000, counting Florida but not Michigan.  Okay?

You can feast your eyes on it right here dearie.  I did a further analysis with estimates for the three states (Iowa, Maine, and Nevada) that have not released vote totals, and conclude that Obama leads by maybe 12,000 votes, but seriously, stop peddling clearly wrong information.  It just undercuts your point.

by mgee 2008-03-06 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: No

Ahh, counting Michigan is an interesting angle when you're trying to argue she is tied using a democratic metric.  But good luck with that argument.

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: No

I'm not arguing that Michigan should count.  I'm correcting disinformation that Clinton is behind by 300,000 votes if one includes Michigan in a count.  You appreciate the difference, yes?  

by mgee 2008-03-06 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: No

You are correct, however between now and the nomination he will win a number of primaries and the popular vote totals remain to be seen.  Again, though, the MI and FL totals are spurious, considering that the voters themselves were told that their votes would not count, which obviously affected turnout, and a sizable chunk of the "uncommitted" MI vote was presumably for Obama.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: No

I grant you that the Michigan vote total is not a good metric.  I agree.  I included it because I was correcting the disinformation spread above.    I don't think that Florida is spurious, though.  It's fair to include Florida.  People voted in Florida.  So, by a fair metric, Clinton is behind by about 300,000 votes.  She won Ohio by 220,000.  Obama's lead in popular vote is not insurmountable.  Considering that - what - 26,000,000 people have voted?  It's super tiny.  

by mgee 2008-03-06 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Sorry, but this is a plain lie.  I wish you would stop repeating it.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

There are 4 states that haven't even released vote totals.  Presumably, they would favor Obama.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

"The hardest part for BHO, as you mention, Jerome, is that it is a MUST-win for Obama. He is getting routed in crucial large states and is systematically losing any argument to present to SD's that he should be the nominee."
WRONG!!! He lost New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, all gimmes for ANY Democratic candidate. He won the crucial swing states of Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Virginia, all by huge margins. The only swing state that Billary has won so far is Ohio.

"Tuesday was the beginning of the end for Obama 2008."
WRONG again. Tuesday was the end of the end for Billary. They picked up a handful of delegates and the flood of super-delegates to Obama continues unabated. 5 more in the last two days.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: It's actually been over since February

"Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party."

Please explain how he's done? He has an insurmountable lead in pledge delegates and super delegates continue to flock to him in droves. Hillary closed the delegate gap by 4% on a day when 38% of the remaining delegates were designated.

Are you aware, perhaps, of a special rule allowing a former president to circumvent the party rules and designate his spouse as the party nominee? That, my friend, is the only way Hillary gets the nomination.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 06:54AM | 0 recs
I remember when

Ohio and Texas were Clinton firewalls.

They were gonna bring hilary back and all woudl be good.

Ohio held, but Texas is a smoldering ruin for Clinton.

Its so democratic of you guys to claim that caucuses are no good but rely on SD to win. SD's are definitely democratic.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Caucuses are garbage

Boo hoo.  Can't change the rules of the game in the middle, so why bitch about them?

Clinton had every chance to win those caucuses, but she did not.  It's her team's fault and nobody else's.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 07:21AM | 0 recs
Please come up

with alternative, equally good way to shore up participation and then we will ban them.

Also you did not actually address the isssues undemocratic of super delegates who actually have more votes then literally hundred or thousands of people.

Also come to thin of it, Clinton currently has 12 delegate lead in Ohio, thats not much of a firewall. seems liek camp fire at the most.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-06 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

This is a great article on the delegate math.  Even under the rosiest of pro-Clinton scenarios, it will be nearly impossible for her to keep Obama from reaching 2025 in pledged + supers and getting the nomination.  

If the supers revolt en masse and reject the leader at the end of the primaries, the Dems will not only have successfully fallen on their sword once again for this election, they will have successfully alienated another whole generation that is starting to believe in and get invovled in the political process.  Nice going, there...

by NJIndependent 2008-03-06 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Depends on how you define "leader." It really does; I'm not being cute. If, as is distinctly possible, we wake up after a FL/MI revote with the following situation, and you were a superdelegate charged BY RULE with choosing the best candidate for the party, what would you do?

1. Obama leads by about 60-70 in pledged delegates, which amounts to about 1.6% of all delegates and 2% of pledged delegates;

  1. Obama has accumulated that lead mostly in states neither Dem has a chance of winning in the Fall, which doesn't mean they don't count, but it should play into the superdelegate calculation;
  2. Clinton leads in all votes cast comfortably;
  3. Clinton leads among registered Dems more than comfortably (in fact that is already the case);
  4. Clinton leads in the national polls easily (which can no longer be attributed to name ID);
  5. With the exceptions of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado, Clinton won all the key battleground states, most particularly the four most important ones: OH, FL, PA, and MI.

Try to take the borg implants out for a minute. What would you do?

I think it's entirely possible the superdelegates could choose Clinton and the party would heal eventually, especially if Obama agrees to the VP slot.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-06 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Sorry but ... he leads by around 140 delegates in pledged delegates.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-03-06 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

coloradokook - she hasnt won penn yet

also, key battleground states include missouri, virginia, perhaps minnesota (it was very close last election)

she didnt win mi either

by chriscizzila 2008-03-06 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

"Obama has accumulated that lead mostly in states neither Dem has a chance of winning in the Fall, which doesn't mean they don't count, but it should play into the superdelegate calculation;"

Actually, Billary has accumulated most of her delegates in states that no Democrat can possibly lose in November. (NY,NJ,MA,CA) The only swing state she's won is Ohio.

Obama has won all the critical swing states (IL,WI,MO,IA,MN,VA) save Ohio.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

+ME,WA,DE,CO

by Wiz in Wis 2008-03-06 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

True enough, except for Delaware, which, like NY, CA, and MA are states that no Dem could possibly lose.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

All the "key battleground states" are "most important" if combined they only get us a little over 270 electoral votes.  Fail to close the deal in one, and McCain is the president.

Obama will soon have roughly 250 superdelegates.  Granted, they can switch at any time, but I assume that they will remain pretty loyal.  Combine that with Clinton's 250 or so, and the remaining number is very small.  Regardless, it is clear that many of the superdelegates are behaving in a partisan fashion and are not acting as the philosopher-kings that you make them out to be.  Surely some may weigh intangibles such as "momentum," but many will be swayed by their personal preferences or those of their constituencies (or perhaps even other superdelegates with whom they are friends).  That is not the sort of mindset required for Clinton to dig herself out of a pledged delegate hole at the convention.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

With the exceptions of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Colorado, Clinton won all the key battleground states, most particularly the four most important ones: OH, FL, PA, and MI.

Um.... Minnesota? Washington? Missouri? Maine? He's way ahead in Oregon. Virginia is in play. She "won" Michigan because she was the only major candidate on the ballot; 'uncommitted' got 40%. Florida is not in play this year. Joe Lieberman is going to be campaigning hard in Connecticut (he doesn't seem to be grateful to the Clintons... what a surprise).

Doesn't help that Clinton is out there telling people her good friend John McCain is just as qualified as she is.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-06 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

It would take exactly that rosiest of rosy outlooks for Clinton to have all of those things true at the end.  If they are, then there is a real decision (and likely both have lost...).  However, it's more likely that, even if Cliton wins PA and there is a re-vote in FL and MI, Obama will finish with a delegate lead of about 100-150, a small lead in the total popular vote, and tied in the national polls.  If that is the case and the supers give the nomination as a gift to Clinton, the Dems will have successfully fallen on their sword once again.

by NJIndependent 2008-03-06 09:17AM | 0 recs
How do you do it?

You allow way too many people to take a crap all over you on your own blog Jerome.  Just my opinion.  There should be some level of respect at your own place.

Fight back!

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Arguing is something else entirely

It looks like its a sport to take potshots at him with personal insults, but whatever -- since he hardly defends himself he probably doesn't mind and I'm not gonna fight his battles.  Already said what I wanted to say on the topic.

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Even if Clinton wins PA, Obama can win IN and NC. Obama might have to win PA to stop this from going until May or June (or the convention), but it wouldn't be a deathblow to his campaign. And like it or not, a delegate in WY or MS is just as good as a delegate in TX or OH. Stop acting like this is a winner take all contest. Winning by 4% in a large state is just not the same as winning by 17-20% in three medium states.

What I find hilarious is that you're using the fact that Obama won 12 contests in a row as a negative against him. He won 12 in a row and only closed 10 or 16 of a 20 point gap in two states in two weeks. He's surely a goner!

by College Progressive 2008-03-06 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Uh, why would he have to win Pennsylvania? He has to win the majority of delegates, period.

The only people playing the stupid expectation game still is Hillary Clinton. I think the reason why is obvious.

No one is buying this but Clinton supporters engaged in wishful thinking.

So if Obama wins 11 of the next 12 and loses Pennsylvania by 2 or 3 points, he's out? If he wins the majority of the popular vote, states won and pledged delegates he'll be disqualified if he loses Pennsylvania?

When did winning California, New York, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania become the only measure of who wins the nomination? Oh ya, when those became the only states Hillary Clinton could win.

That's how ridiculous, and desperate, the Clinton position has become.

Contrary to Clintonian spin, every state counts.

Who ever has more delegates wins, plain and simple. Let the best man win.

by obamania 2008-03-06 06:34AM | 0 recs
Yes, yes, quite...

(In stuffy British accent while smoking pipe).

You are exactly right, sir/madam.  Sen. Obama cannot close the sale, and his last chance to do so was Tuesday...

by jarhead5536 2008-03-06 06:35AM | 0 recs
Along with many others,

taking a long break from DailyBarackos.  I plan to return sometime in June...

by jarhead5536 2008-03-06 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward
I'm sitting in NW PA right now and there is no way Obama has a chance here.
Quite a shock I'm in Minneapolis one day and Obama is the hope of the future. The next day I'm in Elk county and Obama is the next Herbert Hover and he will usher in the "greater depression". Oh the war gee thats a tough thing but ....
by Judeling 2008-03-06 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

And like it or not, a delegate in WY or MS is just as good as a delegate in TX or OH.

No, ultimately it is NOT. You did either not read the post, or you are so busy clinging to your "delegate math" lifeboat that you fail to see what is happening before your eyes.

She is poised to win from here on out. Those are her demographics, her people. They are not leaving her. MI and FL are hers as well.  

Obama supporters: eventually you are going to have to leave your "delegate math" lifeboat and deal with the fact that it looks very likely that Clinton will be the nominee.  

by cc 2008-03-06 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

So what you're saying is that the candidate with enough delegates to achieve the nomination will be denied the nomination? What process would you call this. (Hint: start by eliminating "democratic process.)

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

But why are you assuming HIS demographics are going to leave HIM ?

by Benjaminomeara 2008-03-06 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

She's poised to win from here on out?

Oh really?

She may win in Pennsylvania and then what? There are contests in Wyoming and Mississippi this weekend, will she win there?

Will she win North Carolina after getting clobbered in its neighboring states? Will she win in Kentucky where African Americans make up what 40% of the electorate. Will she win in Indiana with all the African American votes in Gary and Indianapolis? Or how about with South Bend and the entire northwestern part of the state being a suburb of Chicago?

You Clinton people are really starting to look ridiculous. She didn't even net 10 more delegates against Obama on Tuesday. She still trails in the popular vote by 600,000 votes.

If Clinton wins from here on out, and overcomes Obama's advantage in popular vote and comes pretty close in pledged delegates, then yes i'll agree with you that Obama will be hurting.

But buddy, honestly, that's a pipe dream. My prediction is that Obama will win 10 to 11 of the next 12 primary contests.

by obamania 2008-03-06 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

cc,

You're crazy. You're drinking from the Clinton kool-aid water fountain methinks.

She had a good night after a string of bad nights. Don't get ahead of yourself with ridiculous statements that you won't be able to back up.

by obamania 2008-03-06 07:07AM | 0 recs
Obama doesn't need to win PA

Clinton does, and she must win with 70% or more of the vote.

Obama could lose by 20 points and it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on his lead.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-06 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need to win PA

You keep repeating this and it is dead wrong. You are ignoring the Florida and Michigan revotes (which she could win easily) and the possibility of her winning the majority of remaining superdelegates. If she wins PA by 20 points she could EASILY be within striking distance, and he'd be in big trouble as far as the media narrative goes.

Do you really want the Dems to nominate someone who just got beat by 20 points in one of the five most important swing states in the country? Really? Then you are truly masochistic.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-06 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need to win PA
But he wins the delegate count even with FL and MI as they stand now which is where he does not get any MI delegates and much fewer delegates from FL he would get if he had campaigned there.
So arguably he would still have his lead even after a revote and arguably a larger one @!
by Benjaminomeara 2008-03-06 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need to win PA

You need to realize something:  there ARE NO FL and MI revotes to hang your hat on at this point.  None.  They are a possibility which MAY happen.  Yes, the math will change when that happens.  But until then it's farcical to insist that these events which MAY happen will pull Clinton's fat out of the fire - and that's assuming that she will WIN these re-votes, that she will win them by bigger margins then the amount the previous votes went for.  That isn't going to happen.

It is a fatally flawed argument, one that is built upon events which may or may not happen.  I'll go with math any day.  At the convention, the person with the most combined SD's and pledged delegates will win.  Right now, that's Obama, by about 100 delegates.  That's a lot for Clinton to make up, seeing as he's going to increase that lead in MS and WY this week, and probably NC, ID, OR.  You can't just ignore these states like they don't exist, just b/c they don't fit your narrative.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need to win PA

The math will indeed change if you add Michigan and Florida back into the mix. 313 pledged delegates get added into the mix, as well as 54 super delegates. That brings the total number of delegates up to 4416 which means 2209 will be the requirement to nominate.

The math on the requirements to catch Obama would go back to where it was on March 3. She would still need blowout wins in all reamiaing contests to catch him.

End of the day, nothing really changes.

One side note, Obama could be picking up another super delegate on Saturday if Foster defeats Oberweis in the IL-14 special election.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-06 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need to win PA

Wrong again, you must have failed mathematics.

If Florida and Michigan are added back into the delegate pool, there's a totally new magic number and again, apportionment comes into play, so she needs blowouts in both states.

Again, do the math. She needs 62% of all remaining delegates if there's a revote. Simple electoral math due to apportionment dictates huge marigns as a requirement, even with Florida and Michigan added back in.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-06 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Will Obama get to 2024 delegates by the convention? If not he isn't the nominee. Fight on Hillary! And Obama going after Clinton on experience opens him up to some SERIOUS scrutiny.

Ummm Senator Obama if Hillary is to inexperienced to be President what does that make you???

Also Obama better be careful not to pull a "Rick Lazio" on Hillary, women voters are watching

by rossinatl 2008-03-06 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I can't believe how delusional the Clinton supporters are.

You win 3 primaries after losing 12 and suddenly you think you're a rock star.

No super-delegate will vote against the will of the voter. It is simply ridiculous to think otherwise.

NONE.

I don't know what special power you think Hillary has, but this won't change. Obama will win the vast majority of upcoming states, most he'll win by overwhelming margins.

Whoever has the most delegates and the highest popular vote and most states won will win the nomination. That's it. The super-delegates won't overturn that.

Otherwise we just had a whole primary season, where we shattered voting record after voting record, for absolutely no reason at all.

by obamania 2008-03-06 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Who ever has more delegates wins, plain and simple. Let the best man win.

Those are YOUR rules. They are not reality, and I guarantee you they will not carry the day. The delegate gains that Obama received from his arguably undemocratic caucuses in red states are going to be a very hard sell at the convention.

Delegate Math Lifeboat. Getting a little damp in there?

As for your petty little sexist shot at the end "let the best man win" I'll let it pass because I am really starting to feel sorry for you. Your house of cards is about to collapse.

by cc 2008-03-06 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward
So delegates won fair and square in caucuses will not be seated but the delegates from MI where Obama was not even on the ballot will be ?
You guys are absurd.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-03-06 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Obama should move fast and agree to seat the MI and FL delegations as they are now.  He would be taking a big chance to go into a re-vote in these states - he would probably spend a lot of money, lose and end up right about where he is today in the delegate score with two devastating last-minute big state losses too.  Better to give her a modest boost and get on with it.  Since it has been reported that he has the a majority on the Credentials Committee, he could make this happen and in so doing probably even cut a deal with the superdelegates in these states to keep his losses from such a deal to a minimum.  

by Jdid 2008-03-06 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I bet he would actually get a delegate or two from Michigan, which would be a large improvement over the 0 he has now.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-06 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

This entry is just ... sad.

by Benjaminomeara 2008-03-06 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Another fact worth considering when figuring who's the stronger candidate: Hillary won on Tuesday despite being outspent 3 or 4:1. In fact that's been the case in every state since Super Tuesday and almost all states period. Neither will have a significant money advantage in the Fall, so what does that tell us about who is the better vote getter, money being equal?

by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-06 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Actually, they'll both have a significant money advantage in the fall.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

No offense, but your analysis has been consistently wrong during this primary cycle.  It is the height of hubris to claim that either candidate will be "obliterated" in an election 6 weeks away.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

Wrong wrong wrong.  Including Florida and Michigan the race is virtually tied.  Obama leads by about 10,000 votes, or maybe trails by 3,000.  I've seen difference counts.  Obama leads by 300,000 including Florida but excluding Michigan.  That's less than the popular vote difference yesterday.

by mgee 2008-03-06 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

Clinton is up by a very narrow margin if you give her all of the Michigan votes and 0 to Obama, but he will win states both before and after Pennsylvania.  I think he wins the popular vote.  Of course, then people will change the goal posts to say that only "real Democratic" votes should be counted, despite the fact that not everyone self-identifies as a Democrat and those percentages are based on possibly faulty exit polls.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

and, as I mentioned below, that doesn't even count 4 states that haven't released their totals.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

I did an analysis elsewhere where I included Washington primary totals, and estimated votes in Iowa, Nevada, and Maine.  I concluded that Obama leads the popular vote by .05%, or about 12,000 votes.

Clinton won by 220,000 votes in Ohio yesterday. I can see her winning Pennsylvania by that number. Some of the upcoming contests favor Obama, some favor Clinton, but fundamentally - by any reasonable person's interpretation of votes cast to date - they are near-about tied in popular vote, and the line pushed by the poster to whom I was responding is complete hooey.  

by mgee 2008-03-06 07:13AM | 0 recs
New Rasmussen numbers are out -- BIG CHANGE

A great example of the kind of thing Jerome was talking about is the latest Rasmussen tracking poll... It shows Hillary Clinton riding some kind of tsunami wave surge that now has her up 15 points over Obama...

52% Clinton
37% Obama

If those are the kind of numbers the superdelegates are looking at after a potential Clinton win in Pennsylvania (for example) or later on after Florida and Michigan are resolved... they just aren't going to put Obama at the top of the ticket.  100 delegate lead is not going to make people ignore that kind of strength.

by diplomatic 2008-03-06 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

You forgot to add that Maine, Nevada, Washington, and Iowa have not even released vote totals.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Tax return thing? C'mon.

Why hasn't she released them? What is she hiding? Is she hiding anything? These things will come out just in time for the GOP to use them against her if there's something there--and if there's nothing there why hide it?

If Clinton wins, prepare to be marginalized again!

by MNPundit 2008-03-06 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re:William Howard Taft, the plusses, Texas numbers

Obama's strategy is to roll up huge wins in solidly Republican states to offset smaller Hillary wins in the states that Democrats do carry.  The math works but will this states even potentially shift to the Democratic column in November?  No way.  It's the strategy notably used by party regulars to shut down insurgents.  In 1912, for example, William Howard Taft was nominated instead of the vastly more popular Theodore Roosevelt because of a soliod bloc of southern delegates.  The states all went predictably to Wilson in the fall. Well, Obama is no Taft (and I suspect Hillary is no TR) but the strategy points out a weakness in the structure.  It also says that David Axelrod ran rings around Mark Penn or whoever decided to leave the "little" states uncontested.

Way back, states got a lot of extra delegates for electing Democratic governors, senators, and winning the state in the last Presidential election.  It was called "Democratic potential" in the allocation process.  Does it exist and does it play as large a role as it did in the late 60s?

One huge plus.  For the first time since maybe 1976, evrybody gets a say.  Thank God that NH did not agree with Iowa in either party.  I strongly suggest (as always) that the odds of that double vote be limited by holding Iowa and New Hampshire on the same day (preferrably changing Iowa from a caucus to a primary at the same time).  The republicans had an interesting convention fight with Gerald Ford edging Ronald Reagan.  Great theater.  One other plus about that year that may (or may not) be related: fully 30 states were in play during the campaign including both New York and California.  I'd argue that there was some relation between the two tight nomination contests and the wide scale number of states up for grabs in the fall.

Nobody much is talking about the internal county by county results from Texas.  Just fascinating.  Obama won Dallas County by 70,000 votes but barely won the less sophisticated and neighboring Tarrant (Fort Worth).  Hillary racked up her win by getting a big vote from the Hispanic community.  The win was by only 30,000 in Bexar (San Antonio) by 40,000 in El Paso County (more than 2-1 and by enormous margins in the Valley counties along the Mexican border.  One of them was by 33,000 to 8,000 and the others had some similar percentages (fewer votes).  I wish my knowledge of Texas geography was better but there are so many counties that to a non Texan only the big ones and the stand outs get attention.

by David Kowalski 2008-03-06 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re:William Howard Taft, the plusses, Texas numbers

"Obama's strategy is to roll up huge wins in solidly Republican states to offset smaller Hillary wins in the states that Democrats do carry."
Like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Illinois, Missouri?

You should change that last line to "Hillary wins in states that Democrats can't lose." New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Here's the argument.

  1. Neither Obama nor Clinton get reach the magic number of delegates.
  2. therefore counting delegates is a silly waste of time
  3. Superdelegates will vote for Hillary overwhelmingly because they think she better.

First problem: Just because no one can reach the magic number of delegates doesn't mean that the millions of votes cast are a waste of time or silly. It's means something for one candidate to have more delegates than the other. getting from 31 to #2 would require you assume pledged delegates is completely useless. Well, I think THAT's silly.

second problem: Not surprisingly, Clinton supporters seem to think that left to their own devises, superdelegates will flock to Clinton.  Problem is that the overwhelming recent trend has been superdelegates flocking to Obama instead.

Oh well...

by poserM 2008-03-06 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

The flood continues, even in the wake of Billary's "blowout" "comeback" this past Tuesday. This basically means that Billary is farther behind than s/he was on Monday.

3-4-08 - Added DNC Carol Fowler (SC) , DNC Mary Long (GA) , DNC Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX) for Obama
3-5-08 - Added DNC Rhine McLin (OH) , DNC Jane Kidd (GA) and DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL) for Obama
3-6-08 - Added DNC Connie Thurman (IN) for Obama.
- Added Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA) for Clinton.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward
Pennsylvania is just like Ohio. As far as I know.
If anyone thinks that her "as far as I know" remark was not calculated then you are a fool.
I will vote for Nader before I vote for Clinton. I do not care about the Supreme Court or a hundred years war. I will not sell my soul to the Clintons. I will not choose between Satan and Lucifer. A liar is a liar and I will not pull that lever for Clinton. End of story. If she is allowed to steal it that will be the end of the democratic party. I am on the democratic executive committee in my county and I will resign and become an independent if this lying, dishonest, woman steals the nomination.
by forjoeb 2008-03-06 06:59AM | 0 recs
CDS

by JohnS 2008-03-06 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Jerome and Chris are not the only ones who think it is Obama's back against the wall at this point. Wapo has a very interesting areticle today and it should be a MUST READ for every Obama supporter who is so hung up on 'the math'.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s .html

Just a taste:

There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.

This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.

The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.

by americanincanada 2008-03-06 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Chris doesn't think Obama has to win PA.  He thinks that he needs to win PA in order to win without things getting ugly.  But good luck with your argument.

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

The Washington Post is shilling for Clinton as is their custom.

Who cares what they think.

by obamania 2008-03-06 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

So you think a popular vote count that includes all of HRC's votes in Michigan and gives Obama '0' votes out of the state is actually worth discussing?  That's hysterical.  

OK, I'll officially skip over your comments from now on.  Wow.

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

Your arrogance is palpable.  Congratulations!

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

My god, what a hack you are.

You can't count MI, Obama WASN'T ON THE BALLOT!!!!  That's about as unfair a situation as can be imagined, really.

The truth is that you are willing to go to any length, torture any logic, as long as it shows a lead for Hillary.  

For a guy who got 'served' in TX, Obama sure seemed to come out with more delegates.  And in the end, months from now, the 'shine' from winning the state will be gone for Clinton.  The delegates will remain.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

Your arguments are a combination of Assertions without factual backing, and Ad Hominem attacks.  You have no actual, logical arguments which show Clinton winning without the rules somehow changing between now and the convention.  If you do, present it!

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Survey Says: XXX

I read every comment you wrote today.  None of them show a clear path for victory for Clinton without changing the rules of the game, IE, including FL and MI.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-06 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Clinton HAD to win Ohio and Texas.  Obama doesn't HAVE to win PA.  

No matter what happens, Obama will be in the lead in pledged delegates by the time the convention rolls around.

More democratic voters getting a chance to vote is a good thing, so I don't care if he's not picked until the convention.

But they sure as hell better not GIVE the nomination to Clinton when Obama has, and will have, no matter what, more pledged delegates than Clinton.

Clinton shouldn't have lost 11 in a row before March 4th, and then she wouldn't have been in this losing situation.

by RussTC3 2008-03-06 07:05AM | 0 recs
Won NH Convincingly? Obame Can Win PA

Clinton won NH by 2-3%, that is convincingly? She had led there by a significant margin before Iowa.

Obama can win PA, he might have at least gotten to within a few points in OH (the polls that proved to be most accurate in the end showed him about even a few days before)if he had responded quicker and more effectively to the last-minute Clinton smears.

by Davidsfr 2008-03-06 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Winning based on delegates awarded as a result of actual people voting in primaries and caucuses would be winning "on a technicality"

Are you F'N kidding me?

by WellstoneDem 2008-03-06 07:27AM | 0 recs
Hillary

I was playing basketball the other night against some really crappy player.  We were playing to 21 and right when I was beating him 17 - 6, he says "next basket wins".  I laughed at him and ended up beating him 21 - 7.

by philipdenver 2008-03-06 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Jerome,

I admire your optimism, but it just isn't going to happen.  No doubt you've already seen this, but just in case-

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/output /print

There is no imaginable scenario where Hillary can go into the convention with a lead in earned delegates. None, zero.  So your only hope is that the superdelegates are so impressed with her likely win in PA that they overlook Obama's lead in delegates and are willing to risk blowing the Democratic Party apart in order to hand Hillary the nomination.

Are you prepared to explain to the millions of newly-inspired African American voters and youth that have come to Obama's campaign that a bunch of party insiders have trumped their enthusiasm and have deemed it proper to give the nomination to Clinton?  I cannot believe that you still haven't grasped the ramifications of that-- it would be catastrophic for the Party, and it would take decades to recover.  Why do you insist on driving us into the ditch?  Are you so passionate about Hillary as a candidate that you're willing to take a grave risk with the future of the Party?

by global yokel 2008-03-06 07:44AM | 0 recs
Wow

The state of denial Jerome is living in these days is simply stunning. This comment is particularly amazing:

Obama's had three swings and missed each time.

Hmmmm. Let's see. He's had far more victories with 20+ percentage points. He took on someone who seemed "inevitable" just a few short months ago and has overtaken her as the front-runner of the race. He has the most pledged delegates, leads in the popular vote ...

What exactly has he missed?

by sam2300 2008-03-06 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward
Speaking of state of denial...what about Senator Obama's
duck and weave on the press?
www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com VIDEO
by darlamc 2008-03-06 08:06AM | 0 recs
Ignorance is bliss ...
The ONLY way I see SD's swinging to Hillary is if (a very big IF) she is leading the popular vote after MI/FL is seated.  Then, they have the cover on popular mandate, versus the sordid pledged delegate mess.  
BTW - we see NOW why McGovern lost 49 states .. this is an absolute mess.  While I agree with proportional representation, a primary should not last longer than 3 months AFTER the GOP picked their candidate.  
Does anyone have an update on the 50 SD's supposedly pledging to Obama this week?  I heard it from Brokaw ... and Rep Clay referred to it as well ... is it substantiated?  
by stryan 2008-03-06 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

As an Obama supporter I will openly admit that there are legitimate reasons to prefer either candidate.  That means that one can make solid logical arguments for why Hilary would be a better choice for the democratic nominee.  (I thought we Obamabots were glassy eyed fools who couldn't possibly say what I just said.  Holy crap!)  Please, continue to make such arguments.  Let this thing drag on until convention.  I don't think that's a good idea, but at least it's building the local resources in every state and it's democrtic even if not smart to let her keep fighting.  But to claim Obama needs to win Pennsylvania?!  Come on.  

All Obama needs is to not take a whole bunch of collosal loses in the few remaining states that Hilary can actually win.  Demographics don't favor her in half of the remaining states anyway.  He has 50 more superdlegates to drop on her this week and even without them he is comfortably in the lead.  

The only thing that Pennsylvania will decide is whether he goes into Denver with a really big lead in delegates or a really really big lead in delegates. Winning in the primary season is measured in delegates.  She is extremely unlikely to catch him.  Even if he lost Pennsylvania by a fairly large margin she would still be unlikely to catch him.

You are an invaluable asset to the progressive cause.  Please don't sacrifice the credibility that you need in order to continue to be an asset by writing this kind of silliness.  The nomination is a done deal and it has been since Hilary settled for a field goal when she needed a touchdown in Texas.  Let's keep it all reality based, shall we?  

by lockewasright 2008-03-06 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

The wildcard is how Obama looks going negative.

And you think it looks good on Hillary??? What were the exit poll figures on March 4th on "Who campaigns dirtier?" with Hillary getting about 52% to Obama's 38% (very close but can't recall the exact figures)

Riding into the OH and TX contests, he only needed a victory, and with the help of outside forces, outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin in OH & TX. Nevertheless, Clinton won, in Texas by 4 percent, and in Ohio by 10 percent.

Oops, sorry to upset the apple-cart but it seems that he did win in TX as after the caucus votes are tallied he will most likely end up with more delegates than HRC from TX. Sorry to deflate some of the hype - but then again, who cares about delegates?

It's pretty rare that an upstart candidate gets a shot at beating an establishment candidate even once, and yet, Obama's had three swings and missed each time. He's not going to have another shot at putting away Clinton with everything going from him, as he did his first three chances.

Why is it so important that he deliver a death-blow? Obviously, that will never happen for either based on broad support for both. Why not be happy with ending up with more pledge delegates? Oops, there's that delegate thing again.

I love how HRC supporters present arguments like...if this, this and this and this happen, Hillary's got a great chance! Yeah, and if Barack is run over by a bus, she'll win too!

The way things are going it will be hard to envision a convincing argument for Hillary at the convention. Let's see how it sounds...she lost countless states, was bludgeoned in many... BUT...she won the "important" states like CA and OH and PA!!! (BTW, VA doesn't count). And by hypermagical theoresis, that means she would do better in the GE!

You try to present cogent points on the campaign going forward but your overriding support for Hillary completely ruins your objectivity and makes your diary sound like just another cheerleading piece.

And please! Enough of the electability polls! Just yesterday, an ABC poll had Obama up over HRC by 6 points.

Take a step back and let someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome read your stuff before you post it.

I've never seen this the level of sheer animosity amongst Dems that I have in this campaign. Personally, I find this bitter divide between HRC and BHO supporters to be utterly unhealthy and disturbing. I'm fine with either of our superb candidates but it seems to me that for some, the bitterness of the "loss" will be overwhelming.

by desertjedi 2008-03-06 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Agreed.  I grew up on a farm in southern Wisconsin, at which time I guess I was a member of the Democratic "base."  Sometime in the last two years, when I graduated law school and began work as a lawyer in New York, I crossed some invisible line and became one of those fringe limousine-driving, latte-sipping liberals that everyone apparently hates around here.  I had no idea that one could go from the core of the party to its reviled fringe so quickly.  It almost makes you wonder why we all stick together in the first place.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I just have to say that it is very sad to see one of the main proponents of the 50-state strategy to hang the hopes of his candidate on the over-emphasis of FL, OH and PA.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why these states are easier for Clinton and harder for Obama in a Primary... But for these three states to become the only three that matter, you would have to put forward some evidence that what Clinton gains against Obama in these states, she doesn't give away to McCain in the fall.

The reason he's down in these states is almost entirely based on demographics.  But those demographics are just as likely to turn against her and pick McCain as they are to pick her over Obama in the primary.

by enozinho 2008-03-06 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

What tripe. It's not Obama who has to lose as so many have pointed out. Clinton HAS to win by 65-35. She currently leads by 15%. She's got a lot of ground to make up.

Otherwise think of what will happen if Clinton games the nomination -- The supers pass over a black man who comes in with the most delegates and the poular vote and doesn't give it to him!
Kiss the African-American vote away for a generation and this middle aged white woman will be walking away with the.

by NYWoman 2008-03-06 08:27AM | 0 recs
Jerome, nice try, but

your Clinton bias is still showing badly.  Obama does not "have" to win PA.  That is Clinton spin of the highest order.  It is highly unlikely that the candidate with the most pledged delegates will not be the nominee come convention time.  The Clinton campaign themsleves stated that this was a race about delegates, but, in classic Clinton fashion, when the game isn't going your way, you just change the rules.  

by bigdcdem 2008-03-06 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Clinton states won so far: ~260 electoral votes
Obama states won so far: ~170 electoral votes

There's a 50 state strategy we can use!  'Nuff said.

by mikes101 2008-03-06 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I keep forgetting how a loss in a Democratic primary means that you will lose that state in the GE too.  How silly of me.

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

If you don't think that's going to be a powerful factor for the supers, you are sadly mistaken.

by mikes101 2008-03-06 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I'm sadly  mistaken if I don't realize that supers are completely illogical and prone to drawing baseless conclusions?  Wow, I had no idea superdelegates were so stupid.  Thanks for the info.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Also, I guess we should put Texas on the board for Clinton in the GE too.  Exciting stuff!

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Actually yes - a recent poll showed Clinton doing better than Obama in TX in hypothetical matchups against McCain.  By something like 4 pts.

by mikes101 2008-03-06 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

And still losing by double digits to McCain in the state, which was my entire point.  Winning or losing a primary is a terrible metric for predicting GE success.  Any 'D' is going win NY and likely any 'D' is going to lose Texas.  Arguing that Obama will lose strongly Democratic states based upon primary losses is beyond stupid.  And that is, after all, what your original post was arguing, no?  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

I agree. Hillary is doing fabulously well in the states that no Dem can lose: California, Massachusetts, New York. Not so well in the swing states of Illinois, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington and more.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Please, Illinois as a swing state?  Give me a break.

by mikes101 2008-03-06 08:51AM | 0 recs
That's funny

McCain states won so far: 299 electoral votes

By this logic, democrats shouldn't even try to win this year.

by enozinho 2008-03-06 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: That's funny

Enozinho,

Way to set up a straw man argument!  

The real argument, if you want to make the comparison, would be that if Huckabee had won states totalling 299 electoral votes, and McCain had only won 120, wouldn't that be a powerful claim for Huckabee?

-Mike

by mikes101 2008-03-06 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: That's funny

They were both silly arguments, and you know it.  Mine was just intentionally so.

I'd like someone who's smarter than me to look at the demographics in FL, OH, and PA, and tell me where Clinton's gains are not negated by McCain.  The argument Jerome put forward was that if Obama can't beat Clinton in PA, then he can't beat McCain.  I don't disagree with that, although anything is possible.  I just don't see how Clinton does much better.

You would think Mr. "Crashing the Gates" wouldn't hang our party's electoral hopes on states that have been very disappointing in the past.  I'm willing to listen to arguments that say these states won't vote for a black man.  But I think they are just as likely to pick a war hero over a woman.  

Better to put up a fight everywhere, and that is not what Clinton will do, and we know that.

by enozinho 2008-03-06 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Yes, because he would never win CA, NY, et al...

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

He is not going to win FL, OH, PA, NJ, WV, and others... now explain to me how Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin might compensate for that?  Explain to me how the Democratic base is going to be inspired by running the guy who won Wisconsin, but not New York?

Obama = George McGovern 1972 all over again.

by mikes101 2008-03-06 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

GE polls would be a MUCH better metric if you want to make this argument.  Primary results as a measure of whether a particular democratic candidate will win the sate in the General is simply silly.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-06 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Where's your proof of this?  I have not seen any blowout leads for McCain in any of those states.  Heck, Clinton's the only one of the two that is LOSING to McCain in national polls right now.  Explain how that makes her more electable, if you can.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

You can check out Rasmussen reports (www.rasmussenreports.com) for some of the head to head comparisons.  

They show in terms of national popular vote:

McCain 46
Clinton 45

McCain 46
Obama 44

And in the New Jersey head to head for instance (which actually has some fairly recent data), they show:

Clinton 50
McCain 39

McCain 45
Obama 43

Some of the other data are several weeks old, but still show Clinton stronger than Obama in places like Florida.  And some of the states that Obama is supposed to win like Washington state are actually also currently:

McCain 45
Obama 44

McCain 48
Clinton 40

The point being that states like Washington are not necessarily "in the bag" for Obama either.

Keep in mind that now that Hillary has the momentum, these polls, and the ones at realclearpolitics (which also show her just barely beating McCain at this point) are likely to show momentum in her favor at this point, after 1 month of strong momentum by Obama.

by mikes101 2008-03-06 09:27AM | 0 recs
Pennsylvania forward

Mike,

Remember your cvics class -- this is a primary and caucus race = not the GE!

by NYWoman 2008-03-06 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

And the purpose of the primary and caucus race, as well as superdelegate choice, is to determine the candidate best prepared to win the GE for the Democratic party.

And again, right now in terms of electoral votes won, it is:

Clinton: ~260
Obama: ~170

It's not even close!  This says Hillary is the strongest candidate we can run in the most important states that we can win in so loud and clear, how can you even try to deny that?  Sure, Obama will win in places like California, but in other places like OH, PA, NJ, the evidence is stacking up that he will lose, and Clinton would win.  Plus she has the primary victories to back her up.  

How can you possibly run the guy who only has states representing 170 electoral votes?  I mean, I understand the DEMs could choose to do it, but it is political suicide.

by mikes101 2008-03-06 08:50AM | 0 recs
Hillary not looking so good in PA

A new poll, before the campaigning begins, has Hillary up by 15 points, a much smaller lead than she held in either Texas or Ohio before the people in those states got a chance to see them up close.

My best guess is that Hillary wins Pennsylvania by 7-10 points, picking up a handful of delegates along the way, far fewer than she needs to do more than dent Obama's big lead.

BTW, current Michigan poll for the GE has McCain four points ahead of Clinton, four behind Obama. The notion that McCain will do better than Obama in California, Massachusetts et. al. is a myth.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary not looking so good in PA

Correction on the last sentence: the notion that Billary will do better than Obama vs. McCain in California, Massachusetts, et al is a myth.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Could Obama People Please Clarify?

Which is Clinton's?  I've seen no policy papers on this.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 08:53AM | 0 recs
Article that elaborates on Jerome's argument

This article elaborates on what you are saying Jerome.  Great post.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2008/03/tough_math_on_the_democratic_s .html

by easyE 2008-03-06 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Article that elaborates on Jerome's argument

There's a glaring flaw in that article: it neglects to address those states that either candidate should have no problem winning (such as NY or CA).  It's intellectually dishonest to compare projected EV totals between two Democrats based on the primaries that either candidate won.  You would have to include head-to-head polls with McCain to achieve anything remotely approaching an electability analysis at this point.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Ok, so to have a chance it would seem Hillary Clinton needs to accomplish the following (assuming Florida and Michigan hold new primaries):

1) Win PA, MI, and FLA, probably by Ohio-like margins of 10 points.  Convincing victories and a clean sweep of the 5 big post-Super Tuesday states gives her the momentum.  

2) Pass Obama in total votes while holding a good-size total vote lead among Democratic primary voters.

3) Lead Obama in all the polls by convention time.

My question is, if she actually pulls all that off how close would the pledged delegate margin have to be to make her nomination a realistic possibility?

by Robert Rosen 2008-03-06 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

2) would be especially difficult.  Factoring in Michigan now, when Obama has 0 votes, only gives her a lead of about 30,000, and that's not counting four states that are favorable to Obama and which aren't releasing their totals.  Assuming he wins additional states between now and August (even excluding Pennsylvania), he would presumably have a popular vote lead at the time of the convention.

by rfahey22 2008-03-06 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Actually, I don't think number 2 is difficult at all.  Right now the popular vote totals are:

Obama - 13.5 million
Clinton - 13.2 million

And Clinton won by 350k votes on Tuesday, with 250k margin in Ohio alone.  Pennsylvania should also provide something around a 250k margin for Clinton, if not more.  Given a PA margin of 250k, the race is essentially all tied up - maybe Clinton is still down by 50-75k votes, or she could already be ahead if PA provides an even greater margin than OH (which I am inclined to believe it will).

Next you have to answer the major questions:

- What will happen in the other primaries like Mississippi, Indiana, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Puerto Rico?  My guess is Clinton could gain an additional 100k vote margin out of these states.
- What happens in FL and MI?

by mikes101 2008-03-06 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1 20476351914515053.html?mod=blog

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe predicted Sen. Clinton would net between four and 10 delegates, fewer "than we netted out of the state of Idaho."

Yessiree, that's one heck of a comeback on Tuesday...

by NJIndependent 2008-03-06 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

"the petty tax return stuff"
Ya know maybe to some Clinton not releasing returns since she was is the Senate might seem petty.
If it is petty why not release?
Her saying they will be released on 4/15 is fine for this year but c'mon the previous years?
Do she and Bill file a individuals or joint?

Clinton is neck and neck as our nominee.
Does what income, write-offs, tax shelters..etc
none of our business?

No need to go over her demands that Lazlo release his tax information when she was running for Senate the first time.

Should Clinton income be transparent?

from her website
"Government contracts should be transparent, subject to public disclosure, open to intense competition and accessible on-line."

full link
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/re alplan/

This is NOT Hillery bashing. This is just that the Obama campaign has the same right to make income transparency an issue as much as the issues the Clinton campaign brings up against Obama

by nogo war 2008-03-06 10:39AM | 0 recs
Mississippi Saunter

Even though most of us have picked a dog in the hunt, I think it's still possible to be objective about this.

This isn't about Pennsylvania...this about money. What Clinton is hoping to do is convince her donor base that they can last longer than Obama's fun-bus of young stary eyed volunteeers, novelty Republicans, MoveOn types, recovering Deaniacs, blacks, and the rest of the party that isn't a single issue voter on race, abortion, Israel, and the like.

Jerome's characterization of 3 Acts is misleading. What this campaign has been from the beginning is Obama finding a weakness in Clinton's strategy and her changing the rules to eliminate that. This isn't the product of some conspiracy...it's the system at work. Politicians always try to extend their viable lifespan beyond the movement on which they are borne.

For that reason, realize, this is just getting started. Even if Obama ran out of money and Hillary won every single delegate from here on out, there's a spot for him in the Green Party with Nader running independent. And speaking of Nader, I don't think Bill Maher and Michael Moore and going to beg him not to run if Clinton is the nominee. Meanwhile, John McCain is salivating at the thought of a disaffected black base should Clinton be the nominee. Remember, McCain does very well with veterans groups and could provide the GOP with a huge linkage there because too many whites in the US underestimate the role of African-Americans in the armed forces.

Nothing against the Keystone State, but I have a feeling it's going to get undue hype solely because it's between the major media centres of New York and Washington on Amtrak....nothing more.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-06 10:41AM | 0 recs
Another bad week for Hillary

Since Tuesday, Obama has gained the endorsements of 9 Super-Delegates, Billary has added 1. What little gain she made on Tuesday in the primaries has been over-ridden.

It's over. Let's get behind the nominee and send John McCain packing.

by vermontprog 2008-03-06 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

First act: Obama won a maverick-like victory in Iowa, upsetting both Clinton and Edwards. He went on the national covers, and lept to the lead in NH polls. Nevertheless, Clinton came back and won convincingly in NH.

How is a virtual tie when they break even on delegates a convincing win for Clinton?

by mattw 2008-03-06 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Don't know how HRC will do in PA, but it is a lot like Ohio and NY and it will probably go big for her.  Sorry, Obamaroids!

by krj47 2008-03-06 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

The superdelegates are not going to give Obama the nomination based on a small delegate difference AND his penchant for running out of press conferences re Rezko, which is going to keep on developing in interesting ways...His "judgment" will look poor, his not calling subcommittee hearings will loom large, his adviser Rice saying he's not ready for a 3 am call....and with a lot of his delegates gained from inviting Republicans to vote for him and his poor record in the must-win big states...if the party goes with this inexperienced phony, they're insane.  But many Democrats won't buy into it, which is another problem if they ignore all of this...Ed Rendell on BBC World last night was hinting at this sort of thing....

by Gloria 2008-03-06 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

So explain to us why Obama is losing the big states to her when he has such a better organization, so much more money, and no Mark Penn.

He wins little red states where there are caucuses that disenfranchise many of Clinton's supporters. Caucuses where intimidation is used. Where much of his support comes from Republicans and Independents, who will likely vote for McCain in the general. And my God, he's also ahead because of not seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida.

Why would you want to go against the will of the majority of Democrats? Why would anyone want to hand the nomination to somebody who is obviously going to lose in November? You say red state delegates are as good as blue state delegates, which strikes me as bizarre. Those states will be LOST in November. If you don't think there will be Democratic crossover for McCain in the swing states and blue states if Obama is the nominee, then you have poor reality testing.

I mean, can you imagine, if we're forced to have Obama as the nominee, despite the will of the people? And then he loses badly? Disaster to the party.

by cc 2008-03-06 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

Are you guys kidding? There will come a time very soon when you will wake up and realize that you sold all your progressive values away in order to become soldiers in Clinton's army. You will wake up and find out that you are supporting a corporatist, triangulating, republican-lite who likes to look tough by fighting wars and voting against gay marriage and free speech and the environment.  And you will ask yourself, why did I support Hillary Clinton and her lies? And there won't be any good answer.  

You are abandoning the progressive movement in favor of a woman who couldn't care less about your values, only about her own power.

Why?

by andrewbellinger 2008-03-06 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Pennsylvania forward

In counting the Obama wins. The General Election will NOT be a series of caucus' where he can intimidate voters, especially the older ones who were not able to participate to the degree that the trained forces of Obama could. Also, many people who are Clinton supporters, you've heard of them, they are the lower income, blue collars that maybe have to work two jobs, will vote in the General, when they couldn't participate in the caucus states (because of the strict scheduling involved)like their children who have plenty of time and internet savvy. But I would like to ask them to stay energized while we all try and bring about a huge Democratic majority in Congress. We'll need that besides whoever gets elected to the Presidency. I'm just afraid that they will not hang in for the long haul.

by glennmcgahee 2008-03-06 01:52PM | 0 recs
how lazy are you?

the spread in CA is 8.7%, and it's readily available at the SoS website.  Have the decency to get your facts straight.  Aren't we supposed to be better than the traditional media?

by dday 2008-03-06 05:56PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads