Obama's Magic Number: 283

This may be the first time that I've seen the race phrased this way, but Marc Ambinder puts the race in these terms following Barack Obama's endorsement by a Texas superdelegate and news that Obama will pick up three more add-on superdelegates from Illinois on Monday:

Texas DNC Member John Patrick, vice president of the Texas AFL-CIO. That's 12 for Obama since Pennsylvania. He needs 283 to clinch the nomination.

While technically there isn't a whole lot of difference between adding from the bottom up rather than subtracting from the top down, rhetorically there is a difference. Talking about the magic number -- the remaining number of delegates a particular candidate needs to receive in order to secure the Democratic nomination -- suggests an end game in sight. Indeed, with 187 pledged delegates to be decided just on Tuesday in North Carolina and Indiana, Obama's magic number will almost certainly be under 200 by the middle of next week (and perhaps quite a bit under 200 at that point). For reference, Clinton's magic number currently stands at over 400 (423, to be exact) and, even under the best of circumstances, will not likely be under 300 even after Tuesday.

It's not entirely clear that the establishment media will in fact pick up this metric in talking about the race for the Democratic nomination. Although Ambinder is very influential, both from having been an editor previously at The Hotline and from being widely read inside the Beltway in his current position at The Atlantic Online, there's no saying if such a meme would take hold on the cable nets and the big national newspapers, and if it did when it would. That said, Amnbinder's way of looking at the race does, at the least, provide a concrete reminder that, in the end, this is about delegate math, and Obama is a whole lot closer to securing the Democratic presidential nomination than Clinton is.

Update [2008-5-1 14:5:26 by Jonathan Singer]: Clinton unveils four New York add-ons of her won, lowering her magic number to 419.

Tags: Delegate Count, Democratic primaries (all tags)

Comments

150 Comments

Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

hes also a whole lot closer to losing to mccain.

by zane 2008-05-01 08:41AM | 0 recs
If the election were today.....

you'd have a point.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-05-01 08:47AM | 0 recs
And if you only look at the polls

that tell you what you want to hear.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

like, just about all of them.

by dark1p 2008-05-01 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

No, like only the ones that tell you what you want to hear.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-01 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

which is, every one I've seen in the past week or two. sorry, old ones don't count.

by dark1p 2008-05-01 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

You must not read many polls, then.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

like I said, just most.

May 01   
Electoral Votes: Clinton 291     McCain 24

Electoral Votes: Obama 243     McCain 269     Ties 26

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May01.html

Gallup Daily: Clinton 49%, Obama 45%
McCain leads Obama in general election; McCain and Clinton tied

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106945/Gallup -Daily-Clinton-49-Obama-45.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton has edged ahead of Barack Obama, 49% to 45%, in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update.

Polls hint at Clinton surge
Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor May 1, 2008 10:13 AM

A bevy of new national polls, plus surveys in Indiana and North Carolina -- which hold key primaries on Tuesday -- suggest that Hillary Clinton is closing the gap since her campaign-saving victory in Pennsylvania last week, and that the controversies dogging Barack Obama are having an impact.

In a national Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, Clinton leads Obama 44 percent to 41 percent. The Illinois senator is viewed unfavorably by 42 percent of all voters, up 9 percentage points since February. Clinton's unfavorable rating is still slightly higher than Obama's, but it has dropped slightly. And by 10 percentage points, Democrats now view Clinton as likelier than Obama to beat presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Democrats gave Obama a 4-point edge last month.

In a national NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, Obama's lead has narrowed to 46 percent to 43 percent, and his unfavorable ratings have also risen. In March, 51 percent of voters viewed him positively and 28 percent saw him negatively, but in the new poll 46 percent view him favorably, but 37 percent negatively.

In a national New York Times/CBS poll, Obama leads 46 percent to 38 percent among Democrats, but 51 percent say they believe he will be the eventual nominee, down from 69 percent a month ago. And 48 percent of Democratic primary voters said they believe he would be the strongest candidate against McCain, down from 56 percent a month ago.

And in a Quinnipiac University poll, Clinton runs stronger than Obama in match-ups against McCain in the general election swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Clinton would get 49 percent to McCain's 41 percent in Florida, leads 48 percent to 38 percent in Ohio, and 51 percent to 37 percent in Pennsylvania.

Obama is statistically tied with McCain in Florida and Ohio, while leading him in Pennsylvania by 47 percent to 38 percent, according to the poll.

The polls were being conducted as Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., was making a series of highly publicized speeches and as Obama repudiated him.

In North Carolina, a new WRAL-TV poll says that Obama's lead has narrowed to 49 percent to 42 percent, down from double digits in most prior polling.

In Indiana, where the race had been a toss-up in surveys last week, Clinton now leads in the three most recent polls. She is ahead 46 percent to 41 percent in a Rasmussen survey, 50 percent to 42 percent in Public Polling Policy survey, and 52 percent to 43 percent in a SurveyUSA poll.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/poli ticalintelligence/2008/05/polls_hint_at_ c.html

5/1: Is The Tide Turning?

Hillary Clinton's improved performance in head-to-head match-ups with John McCain -- coupled with yesterday's NC poll showing her leading Barack Obama 44-42% -- has pro-Clinton bloggers buzzing about the NY senator's momentum.

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/ar chives/2008/05/51_is_the_tide.html

by dark1p 2008-05-01 09:49AM | 0 recs
Um,....

You do realize that lots of the polls on electoral-vote.com are really old, right?

I thought you just said old polls don't matter. Which is it? Or do they only matter when they favor Hillary?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-01 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Um,....

Yes, but that's the electoral map that I could find most readily.

I agree, not ideal, but it is indicative, I believe. If you have one that's newer and better, I'd appreciate the link.

That's the problem with showing up at work, they expect you to actually work. Not nearly enough time for blog arguments and research.....damn them!

by dark1p 2008-05-01 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

argh. that first stat should read:

May 01   
Electoral Votes: Clinton 291     McCain 247    

the perils of cutting and pasting....

by dark1p 2008-05-01 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

Hillary is losing ground to McCain also in the Gallup poll.  The Dem's are hurting each other badly.

McCain, as evidenced by his gas-tax holiday idea (Hillary stole it) and his health care proposal, is now in the hands of a professional political organization that knows what it's doing.

McCain was tough to begin with and now between Obama/Wright and Hillary/Bosnia he appears to be the only 'honest' and 'trustworthy' candidate left and now he's playing pander politics!

McCain is on track to winning an electoral vote landslide in the fall.

by minnehot1 2008-05-01 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: And if you only look at the polls

Please give me a link to that newsflash. I haven't seen anything that points to McCain being on track to win anything but the undying admiration of GW Bush.

by dark1p 2008-05-01 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283
Thanks Jonathan,
We have to come to our common senses and support the Candidate we've now get regardless if it's painful or not.
I would Hillary or Obama support over McCain under any circumstances.
by Obamafan 2008-05-01 08:44AM | 0 recs
Then again..

This is based on bad logic.  No one has actually voted yet, and in particular, superdelegates are fluid (as we have seen).  The race will not suddenly end if one of the candidates hits the "magic number".

The only action that can bring this race to a decisive close before Denver is a defection of 100+ superdelegates from one candidate to the other.

Anything short of that, and this thing goes to Denver, in my opinion.

by bobbank 2008-05-01 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

Do you seriously think Hillary will keep fighting this after Obama has enough delegates?

How far do you want her to go in tearing apart our party?

I'm fine with her staying in until June 3, because Obama probably won't have enough delegates until then.  But she sure as hell better get out once he has the race tied up.  

It will look completely horrible for her to still be trying to sway delegates by kneecapping him after he has 2024 delegates.

by bawbie 2008-05-01 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

I am 100% certain that neither of these candidates will step down the instant one hits the "magic" number, which, by the way, is going to change once MI and FL are seated.

by bobbank 2008-05-01 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

Funny, I 100% believe that MI and FL aren't going to be seated until one of them steps down.
by bawbie 2008-05-01 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

I agree.

by stefystef 2008-05-01 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

If you are correct, then our odds of winning the White House, regardless of who becomes are nominee, are significantly worse than we thought.  Neither candidate is likely to win with half the party believing their victory was illegitimate.

I know for some folks this is hard to get their heads around.  For some folks "come together" means only "come to me", and "unity" sounds more like the Borg message of "be assimilated or be destroyed".  If you are one of those people, you will likely not understand how much damage Barack can do to himself by preventing solutions for these states.

by bobbank 2008-05-01 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

exactly. the magic number will not be the current one at the convention.

by dark1p 2008-05-01 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

They'll be seated and it won't harm his numbers. So once that's done (assuming it to be true for the sake of argument at least) there won't be any reason for Clinton supporters to believe his victory was not legit in your opinion right?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-01 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

Probably not.

It's stil possible that the guesstimations of actual votes comes out in favor of Clinton. He needs to have a clear victory there as well.

I'm currently supporting Obama because he's the only one that can currently hit all those legimization metrics even with Fl and Mi included. (Total and pledged delegates and total votes.)

But he really should hit all three of them. Unlike the saying with this contest two out of three would be bad. If it came to a candidate missing one of the legimization markers, I'd rather go for the person winning the popular vote then the pledges delegates. But I'm hoping that it won't come to that, and that Obama will earn the nomination on all metrics.

by Ernst 2008-05-01 11:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

Get over yourself.  Either candidate is a winner over McSame.  I'm sorry if your candidate doesn't score the big one.  Mine (Hillary) might not either, but whoever gets the nomination is by far better than McSame.  That needs to be your (and every Dem's) mantra.  Repeat after me: ____ is by far better than McSame and I'll support her/him no matter what!  It is time for our party to heal. You can be a part of the healing process, or you can choose to side with the Repubs and hurt us and our country!

by citizensane 2008-05-01 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

See my diary on this. For your point to have merit we would have to see evidence that Obama superdelegates are moving to Clinton or, at the very least, that scads of undecided superdelegates are going to Clinton. That's not happening.

by elrod 2008-05-01 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

My point has merit because what you have not seen is a large movement of superdelegates in any direction.  Particularly since PA results have been slightly in Obama's favor, but the spin-free way to describe it is that there has been a steady trickle of superdelegates on both sides.

You seemed to get on the defensive without realizing that I was not making a case for any candidate in particular.

by bobbank 2008-05-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

Today Obama is +5 on superdelegates.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-01 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

And Obama will still lose NC and IN on Tuesday.
So much for the supers.

Plus, supers who are being pressured by Obama are going to come out for Hillary.

Dean asked for this.  Be careful for what you ask for.

by stefystef 2008-05-01 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

Who are these supers that are going to come out for Hillary?

Are they imaginary?

by bawbie 2008-05-01 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

I remember having a previous impression of your not being able to read or have a mature conversation.  Enjoy your trolling today. :)

by bobbank 2008-05-01 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Trolling

is not denoted by disagreement.  It's a serious charge and deserves to be leveled on someone other than an apparent Obama supporter disagreeing with an apparent Clinton supporter.

by deminva 2008-05-01 09:37AM | 0 recs
You seem to fancy yourself

a paragon of logic and rationality in these discussions. Yet I never see anything from you suggesting that you comprehend that Obama's significant lead in pledged delegates matters to an almost decisive extent.

If the candidates split the remaining pledged delegates down the middle, Obama will need 87 PLEO endorsements to get over the top, and Clinton will need 223. Clinton got @ 53% of the PA pledged delegates with an approximate 10% margin of victory. Even if she were to achieve that margin of victory in the remaining contests and obtain 53% of the remaining pledged delegates, that would only increase her number of pledged delegates by 11. In that case Obama would need 98 PLEO endorsements to get over the top.

You also drastically underestimate the pressure that will be brought to bear upon Clinton once Obama receives these endorsements. He needs 30% of the remaining undeclared PLEOs. If he doesn't get them before June 3, he'll get them shortly after. At that point if Clinton doesn't bow out she'll confirm the party-wrecker label she's being branded with.

by Bipolar Disorder Democrat 2008-05-01 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: You seem to fancy yourself

It's been awhile since I've seen it, but aren't some or all delegates free to vote however they want after the first ballot?

I'm not saying it will matter this time out, but I seem to remember that from the hazy past when watching conventions was actually interesting.

Technically, though, 'pledged delegates' are precisely that. They have pledged to vote a certain way. This doesn't always mean they vote that way. I'd guess this is particularly true for SDs and not so much for the regular delegates.

If anyone has the rules handy....

by dark1p 2008-05-01 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You seem to fancy yourself

Delegates functioned a bit like as representatives back in the day. Officially they're chosen to make sure that the views and preferences of the people that voted them in are effectively represented. And they are free to do that in any way they chose to make sure their constituancy is represented to their fullest.

Nowadays that means the presidency mostly and the platform fights of yore are long gone. But officially the party convention is there to decide on all party matters of which the nomination is just one.

Since '72 the new delegate selection rules make that the nominee presumtive is in effective control of the delegates as the primaries make sure that people that are loyal to him are elected. However, as far as the national party is concerned that loyalty is mostly personal and up to the delegate himself.

As far as I remember the requirement to vote for the candidate on whose slate you ran on first ballot is a rule made at the state level by some and not even all. The actual realistic punishments for faithless electors is pretty much nill though regardless of the rules.

That's why the delegates are vetted as they are by the campaigns. And if you look at other countries that feature elections according to slates it's actually a quite dependable way to be sure of ensuring a straigth voting line from a delegation. So it's extremely unlikely to see large shifts in pledged delegates if any.

This is all from memory though so I might have misremebered here and there, so take it all with a piece of salt.

by Ernst 2008-05-02 12:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

If he wins NC, should she leave the race then?

by jbill 2008-05-01 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

If she wins NC, should he recognize that he's lost a lot of support even in his traditional demo mix and step aside for the good of the party?

I don't think he should, but neither should she. Obama supporters are the ones hand wringing over the destruction of the party--there was a poll on that the other day, wasn't there? Clinton supporters are not really worried. Probably because as a group, they have more experience in following and participating in politics by dint of age alone.

I know I've seen much more fractious nomination battles than this and everyone seemed to live. Sometimes the nominee wins the GE, sometimes not, just like any other scenario.

by dark1p 2008-05-01 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

IF Obama lost both NC and IN then there might be a discussion point.  In fact if he did lose both then I would say there is merit in discussing a forced joint ticket.  Barring that this thing is over in a few weeks.  Which is good, it gives Clinton enough time to raise the money needed to pay off her debt.

by kasjogren 2008-05-01 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

And +5 is a trickle.

by bobbank 2008-05-01 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

If you look at a chart of the superdelegates committing, Hillary opened a huge lead back when she was inevitable (100+) and Obama has been eating away at it ever since voting started.  

There is no sign of it changing or slowing down.

by bawbie 2008-05-01 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

let's see what happens next week.

in fact, let's see what happens in the next 35 days.

we can all argue about it, but it won't change anything. it's not in our hands. we're spectators.

gut feeling, the supers lag the public in terms of trend and changes thereof. as is usual with politicians. the public trend is away from obama and toward clinton, but this will have to continue for more than a week to penetrate the supers' skulls.

if it doesn't continue, obama is a lock. if it does, you may see very quiet defections. if you hear about them at all, in public. politicians hate to look like they made a knee-jerk mistake before the facts were in.

by dark1p 2008-05-01 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

If in fact there is a serious trend away from Obama toward Clinton, the superdelegates are in a bit of a pickle, because they know the party is screwed if they promote the second-place primary finisher to the nomination.  The only exception I can see would be if something truly devastating came out about Obama.  One may or may not believe that devastating things have already arisen, but I would suggest the polling disagrees.

But we may just as quickly see a reversal of the polling in the next few days, which may accelerate next week if Obama wins NC and comes close or wins in IN.  There's nothing like inevitability to help poll numbers.

And as for these polls, we're still six months from the election.  Remember where everything stood six months ago?  It's amazing to me how much has occurred and how much has changed.  And there's more to come!

by deminva 2008-05-01 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

IF Clinton has clearly gained the momentum, winning IN and maybe NC (or losing by a whisker), then winning pretty big in the next couple of weeks..

IF Obama's national Dem and electoral college-related poll numbers continue to fall, even moderately...

Then you might see the party elders take him aside and promise him a wonderful future with the party if he just steps aside and says the trend looks disappointing and he cannot escape what he feels is an untenable position....blah, blah.

Any negative news stories about him or his judgment regarding past associates would only exacerbate the need.

Big ifs, I do say, but not as impossible as they seemed a few weeks ago.

by dark1p 2008-05-01 12:11PM | 0 recs
For Hillary it would ge a trickle

But for Obama it's far more significant, since he needs but 30% of the outstanding PLEOs to lock this up.

by Bipolar Disorder Democrat 2008-05-01 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Then again..

Since this whole thread is about whether the magic number metric will catch on, I suggest that this is the other new metric. "Hillary is now only +N." or "In a turn of events, Hillary is now all the up to +N."

It neatly encapsulates the superdelegate battle, and  uses small numbers.

by anoregonreader 2008-05-01 02:21PM | 0 recs
I think it will catch on

the msm loves sports analogies!

by ashriver 2008-05-01 08:46AM | 0 recs
Obama's campaign

started using this number in each super-delegate announcement sometime in the last week.  So I don't think Ambinder thought of it.

by John DE 2008-05-01 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Of COURSE the media is going to take up that metric. It's brilliant.

You know why? SMALLER NUMBERS to deal with. Less ambiguity. Wolf Blitzer's coke-addled brain** can handle little else.

I'm just happy to see good ol' fashioned Math and basic counting back in vogue.

** Note: Before Wolf goes online and TRs me, let me clarify that was just a joke and Wolf Blitzer doesn't have a coke addled brain as far as I know. But wouldn't he be HILARIOUS on a binge? Can you just see him running around a Tapas bar with residue all over his beard calling everyone "Guy?" It'd be like Tom Cruise on Oprah, but with a substitute physic's teacher's head, voice and general self-awareness.

by Lettuce 2008-05-01 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Hmmm ... If failed to post this:

Note: Before Wolf goes online and TRs me, let me clarify that was just a joke and Wolf Blitzer doesn't have a coke addled brain as far as I know. But wouldn't he be HILARIOUS on a binge? Can you just see him running around a Tapas bar with residue all over his beard calling everyone "Guy?" It'd be like Tom Cruise on Oprah, but with a substitute physic's teacher's head, voice and general self-awareness.

by Lettuce 2008-05-01 08:48AM | 0 recs
there would need to be a more decisive S.D

swing to Clinton for her to win, and if she blows the rest of contest out of the water, she has a shot at gettting that swing I think, but it is definetly harder for her than Obama.  But big wins and a strong performance at the end is what HRC needs to have the S.D come to her side. She needs 2/3 of remaining and Obama only 1/3.

by rigsoHC 2008-05-01 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

That's too bad since now he is losing to McCain.  Will the Democrats really nominate the weaker general election candidate just because he has a 100 delegate lead out of 4,000?  Are they that stupid?  The Dems are beginning to sound brainwashed.  

by karajan72 2008-05-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

You do understand that a majority of democratic voters and disagree with you as to which candidate will be the weaker general election candidate.

You can call us stupid all you want, being insulted is not going to change our minds

by bawbie 2008-05-01 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

The Dems are always backing the wrong horse (Dukakis, Kerry, Kennedy) and lose the White House.

If Obama is the nominee, McCain is the President of the United States.

You can bet on it.  I won't vote in November because I'm tired of the Dems making choices from their groins, not from their heads.

by stefystef 2008-05-01 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Did you just accuse 40% of the female democratic voters of "voting from their groin"?

What the fuck?

by bawbie 2008-05-01 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Believe it or not, women have groins. They even have feelings down there.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283
No, she referred to the MALE candidates of the DEM past ...
Are you still offended?  
You should be ...
by stryan 2008-05-01 05:51PM | 0 recs
Note to Hillary supporters

For all that you accuse the other side of sexism, one of your own just wrote the most sexist thing I've ever read during this primary right up there.

Will you denounce and reject stefystef?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-01 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Note to Hillary supporters

<raises hand>  I know!  I know!  

"If a woman votes for Obama, it's because she's a traitor to her gender.  If a man votes for Clinton, he's just being smart."

I've learned lots of things during this primary!

by Wayward Son 2008-05-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
And I guess

sexism is just fine so long as it's coming from Hillary supporters.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-01 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

People are not choosing their candidate with their sexual organs, despite your highly offensive assertion that they do.  HRed for being overtly offensive.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-01 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Do you realize you are helping make it a self fulfilling prophecy with that sort of attitude?  I personally thought Dean was a better candidate in 2004, but I still wore my feet out volunteering for Kerry (and he won my state by a smidge).  I understand you like Clinton better, but Obama is still a waaaaaay better candidate than McCain, and you only have YOURSELF (and others like you) to blame if you stay home in November and let McCain win.

As for how Obama supporters made their choice... I was originally an Edwards supporter.  When he dropped out, I looked carefully at the remaining options, examined platforms, their voting records, their campaign structure, etc, and decided Obama fit with my ideals the best.  I also thought his grass roots organizing skills and embracing of the 50 state strategy would do the most toward building the party long term.  No kool-aid drinking involved, just rational, fact based analysis.  I respect that you have valid reasons for supporting Clinton (she has a long and accomplished political career), but it is possible for rational people to disagree on these things, I wish you could respect your fellow Democrats for having a different oppinion.

I just don't understand the circle logic of some people:

1. That candidate can't win in the general election, so...

  1. it is a mistake to nominate him/her, thus
  2. we must 'punish' the party for that mistake by
  3. making sure he/she loses the general election...
  4. ... refer back to 1.  Wash, rinse, repeat.

That is essentially what I got out of your post.  Sorry, I don't mean to sound so snarky, but this sort of defeatist talk really bothers me, regardless of which side is pushing it.  I have friends in Iraq that really want the war to end.  I know young women that might suffer under a reversal of Roe-v-Wade.  I care about the environment and our economy and energy independence.  We have two really good candidates.  We can argue about which one is better, but BOTH are WAY better than McCain.  Whoever wins, we all have a moral obligation to work our asses off for the nominee, or at least cast a vote for them in November.

Peace

by protothad 2008-05-01 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Hillary has to win North Carolina to have ANY chance to stop this - Period. She has to win at least one State on his Home Turf. She also has to win Oregon.

That is the truth and nothing as the truth.

by Obamafan 2008-05-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Look at the right side of Obama's website. He's set it up that way for the last week or so.

by recusancy 2008-05-01 08:54AM | 0 recs
What's Hillary's Magic Number ??

Far is far.

If you're going to post Obama's magic number, you should post Hillary's magic number.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-01 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Hillary's Magic Number ??

Hillary's magic number is unlisted.  LOL.

by Spanky 2008-05-01 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Hillary's Magic Number ??

heh.  Try calling at 3 AM.  I'm told someone is supposed to pick up then.

;)

by fogiv 2008-05-01 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Hillary's Magic Number ??

According to Democratic Convention Watch, her magic number is 429.  With 698 left, that's 61.4%, although the 64 remaining add-ons aren't strictly up for grabs.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-05-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What's Hillary's Magic Number ??

the problem is compounded by the fact that NC is by far the largest prize out there.

it would be interesting to see what the percentages are without NC's 100+ delegates.

by alex100 2008-05-01 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Funny i thought one candidate needed to get to 2025.  I guess there is a new set up rules.  If no one gets 2025 it goes to the convention and all bets are off.  

david

by giusd 2008-05-01 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

What do you think 283 is?

Its the number of delegates Obama needs to get to 2024.

by bawbie 2008-05-01 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283
Pretty.
Basic.
Math.
by politicsmatters 2008-05-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
also the # is bogus

all of the supers can change their mind until they actually vote.

see john lewis, joe andrew, etc.

So this isn't like  a playoff race where once you've won, you win.

if a big scandal or some other news hits, the rats will flee the ship.

Hillary or obama would be nuts to drop out when the AP announces, "obama has enough delegates to secure the nomination".

it could change the next day, with one court filing.

by yellowdem1129 2008-05-01 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

Hillary can suspend her campaign and wait for a scandal if that is the only thing that will give her the nomination.  She doesn't need to keep campaigning against the prospective nominee.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

But you don't understand.  A scandal has been her only way to the nomination for over a month now.

But she can't just wait for the scandal, she needs to be actively campaigning to create and encourage a scandal.

by bawbie 2008-05-01 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

I think you are right.  

At this point, Hillary Clinton no longer has the ability to surprise me.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

Yes, a big scandal, or Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky coming out of the woodworks.  I hear that Gennifer Flowers will be talking to the press soon.  It don't do the Clintons any good when Gennifer Flowers starts talking.

by Spanky 2008-05-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

Nobody cares about Flowers anymore.
She was Howard Stern and a couple of shows in the last couple of months and it meant nothing.

If she comes forward, I wonder if the Obama camp paid her.  If they are going to make accusations against Hillary, I can make it against Barry.

by stefystef 2008-05-01 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

While I agree that nobody does (or should) care about anything Flowers has to say, suggesting that Obama paid her is ridiculous.  What's worse is threatening to make unfounded accusations against "Barry". That's abhorrent.

Get ahold of yourself.

by fogiv 2008-05-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

The Obama campaign doesn't need to gin up scandal.  That's the point.  They have the superdelegates coalescing around the clear winner of the primaries.  

by deminva 2008-05-01 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus

How would court filings help?

The courts have no standing to get involved in internal party matters. There are multiple precedents on that.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: also the # is bogus
With one court filing ..
Thanks for parroting the REPUB talking points.
by stryan 2008-05-01 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Unless, Of Course -

The magic number isn't the magic number.

I suspect if Obama does poorly next Tuesday that many of his previous super delegates will have second thoughts.  And super delegates are not bound to stick with their first commitment - see John Lewis.

by johnnygunn 2008-05-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Unless, Of Course -

I agree... if Hillary beats him in both IN AND NC, then what will these Supers say?  Will they only count the races Obama won and not the races Hillary won?

Are they so determined, in their hatred for the Clintons, to bring down the entire Democratic Party???

The Obama followers are driving people made...and driving the party into the ground.  Hillary doesn't get distracted, she moves forward!!!

Hillary '08!!!  Because she's can win back the WHITE HOUSE!

by stefystef 2008-05-01 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Unless, Of Course -

Don't forget to factor in Ragnarok.  It's a game changer.

by fogiv 2008-05-01 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Unless, Of Course -

I'm confused, I thought red states don't count...

by hootie4170 2008-05-01 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Unless, Of Course -

If Obama loses NC and IN, he will be 30 and 17 in contests this year.  And he'll be ahead by more than 100 pledged delegates.

by deminva 2008-05-01 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Unless, Of Course -

Really, I think its a bit of a stretch to see Clinton hatred behind Obama's support.  SD's are mainly elected officials with their own self interest in mind.  They are looking at Obama's grass roots following, fundraising ability, and the potential for the 50 state strategy to help their local elections.  The same campaign strength that launched Obama into the pledged delegate lead is why he also has been steadily gaining superdelegates.  Obama's grass roots machine will pay dividends in November, down the ticket as well as at the top.

Yes, Clinton could win it also, but the DLC swing state strategy doesn't have the same coattails for all those down ticket races, and many of those people are superdelegates.

That really is all there is to it.  No hatred, just pragmatic self interest.

by protothad 2008-05-01 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Unless, Of Course -

Clinton lost 10 in a row and a ton of supers didn't jump ship. You win some, you lose some. They all know it. Only online do people not seem to know it.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-01 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

HIllary literally will have to stop out before you guys actually stop believing this will go to the convention won't she?

I mean there is no one else who has already said this is not going to the convention that you believe, not even her top supporters and aides like Terry. nope she has to actually drop out.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

I respect those who are fighting along with Senator Clinton and believe she can win. I am not one of you.

Yes, I am a biased Obama supporter.  However, I'd like to believe that even if I was a Clinton supporter, I'd take a step back right now, look at the math, and conclude that there really is no way, barring a huge swell of superdelegates rushing to Clinton, that she can win.  

At some point, she needs to do the same.  She needs to see that it is in her own best interest and the interest of the American people and the Democratic party to get behind the candidate that simple math seems to have declared our nominee.  That candidate is Obama.  

by bradical 2008-05-01 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think now is not the time for Clinton to drop out... it needs to be at a time and in a way that her supporters accept.  That is why June is being thrown around.  By then, the primaries will be done and enough supers will likely have declared that the final outcome will not be in doubt.  That is when the final hold-out SDs will likely swing to the obvious winner.  I expect that will be Obama, but I'm willing to wait for the primaries to finish and see what happens.

by protothad 2008-05-01 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

If/when MI and FL are seated the magic number required for the nomination becomes 2209? or something so Hillary ain't going anywhere. I fully believe the Clintons are in until Denver no matter what especially if she wins the remaining contests

by rossinatl 2008-05-01 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

So you fully believe that the Clintons are actually trying to destroy the Democratic party?

Or just sabotage the nominee by not letting him campaign against McCain from June through August?

by bawbie 2008-05-01 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

McAullife says it's over in June. It's not going to the convention. MI & FL will be seated in a manner that does not effect the results.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-01 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Could be.  It is also possible that Obama could hold enough of lead in pledged delegates and gain enough supers that FL and MI can be seated as-is without changing the outcome.  The hold-out SDs will likely break for the winner of the primaries, thus padding the delegate margin even more.  I could even imagine some delegates switching votes just to assure that margin... allowing FL and MI to be seated and removing any doubt about their potential impact on the result.

by protothad 2008-05-01 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

That is certainly a better way to put things than an inane argument about "The Math." Obama has finally realized that this is going on for a while longer, and that number will be going down for both camps. And of course his actual number is about 414, with Clinton at 422.

Given the cravenness of many Democratic elected officials Clinton has a tough fight ahead of her. But I've been hoping since Iowa, I'm not giving up.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

yeah because you know they don't know how to count, I bet Ambinder didn't even count did he.

he saw the number on Obama's website and didn't even bother to fact check it right? I mean he is not responsible enough to do that sorta thing.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-01 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

No, Ambinder has bought Obama's "MI and FL didn't happen" spin.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Most people have

There are only a few holdouts who thing MI & FL mean anything.  

Most people I have read or talked to believe both states will be seated at the convention after Clinton drops out of the race.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-01 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

CW is a fragile thing, events can make it turn on a dime.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

What events do you foresee changing the CW?

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-01 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

PA was the spark, a poorer than expected showing in NC will add fuel to the fire, and the remaining states are possible for Clinton. The media getting bored with Obamamania and beginning to take their cues from the Republicans will burn away what remains of Obama's electability argument (unifying, post-partisan, down-ticket).  Those combined with Obama's assaults on WVWV, a group that registers core Democratic voters, could alienate the party electeds who have drifted his way and who feed the party CW.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

I don't think any of those things are going to make Obama unelectable. That, IMO, is the only reason the supers will give the nomination to someone who lost the pledged delegate race.  

If there is a big scandal that comes out of nowhere involving Obama it may change the CW but it is hard to see how any current issue is going to make Obama unelectable.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-01 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

They're both electable, that is part of why the race is so close. The question is who is more electable, and right now Obama's case for himself is looking pretty tattered.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

You are going to have a hard time winning the more electable argument.  If Obama can win in November then there is really no reason to overturn the results of the pledged delegate race.

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-01 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

How the hell was PA the spark? Where is this momentum coming from? In the previous two contests (that don't matter of course) Obama gained +2 delegates in Wyoming and +7 in Mississippi for a total of +9.  Hillary gained 10 delegates in PA where there were over 3 times as many delegates available than MI and WY. All I've seen is that it has taken 203 delegates since Texas/Ohio to get a net gain of +1 delegate for Hillary.

by matchles 2008-05-01 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

You answered your own question. CW is driven by new information, Obama winning WY and MS doesn't tell us anything new about what will happen in November. Delegates remains close.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

No, CW tells us that if you have a 140 delegate deficit to make up you can't do that at the snails pace she is gaining delegates.

by matchles 2008-05-01 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Most people have

Yeah, the group that has been registering hundreds of thousands of new voters across the country, and was just vouched for by Obama supporter, board member, USAction president and Rainbow/PUSH voter reg director William McNary. See here. Attacking the voter registration groups was really dumb and self-defeating, no matter how badly he needs another trumped up controversy.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Obama will get to the magic number by June, once the voting is over on June 3rd, with Obama at the magic number she will be pressured to drop, the supers including may of her own top surrogates and aids have said no one wants to see this to the convention, this will end in June. When Obama hits the number she will be pressured to drop out, MI/FL aren't even being talked about again until May 30th. good stopping Obama from getting to 2,024 by then.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

So has the DNC apparently.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-01 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

that's the DNC's decision, not Ambinder's.  The fact that you refuse to recognize that decision means nothing, because the opinion of an anonymous poster on a message board is not determinative of what happens anywhere.  The rules are.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-05-01 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

In this game the lower number (0) wins.

To quote Rev. Wright: It is better to be quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

by souvarine 2008-05-01 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Just a question to Clinton supporters.  

If you switched the name Clinton with Obama in this story, would you have the same position?

Something tells me you'd be kicking and screaming for Obama to get behind Clinton as the nominee for the good of the party.  

And I wouldn't blame you.

by bradical 2008-05-01 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Of course they would have.

They would have forced Obama out after Wisconsin (the 11th win in a row)

by bawbie 2008-05-01 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Agreed.

by fogiv 2008-05-01 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Well let's not count out her amazing comeback since that streak. There have been 573 total delegates available since then and she has netted a total of +5 delegates on Obama. At this rate, it should only take her about 5 more primary seasons to catch Obama in pledged delegates.

by matchles 2008-05-01 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

I guess this is the new talk from the Obama campaign. Anything is better than talking about Wright or his collapsing poll numbers. Whatever.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-01 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

What's new here?  The Obama campaign has consistently stated that they're working to win the nomination, which is determined by who gets a majority of the delegates.  As they're getting closer and closer to that mark, it's no surprise to count down to the number.

by deminva 2008-05-01 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

It just looks like spin because they are deliberately not counting MI and FL. And neither Clinton or Obama will be seen as legitimate unless they are counted.

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-01 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

So the implication is that Michigan can choose to flout the DNC's rules, be warned, ignore the warnings, be penalized -- and render the outcome illegitimate.  Similarly, Democrats can share laughs with the Republicans over the decision to ignore the DNC's rules, and ignore as well the DNC's offer to pay for a caucus -- and render the outcome illegitimate.

Interesting.

by deminva 2008-05-01 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

IIRC, the DNC didn't want the caucus, it was the Obama campaign that wanted a caucus because it excludes voters. He turned down a revote time and again.

Give McCain a club to beat the Dem nominee over the head with then. He can talk about how important the state is while the Dem nominee can meander on about the "roolz".

by Ga6thDem 2008-05-01 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

You remember wrongly.  Google "Florida DNC caucus" and you'll see a flood of stories correcting you.  Meanwhile, there's Youtube footage of a Democratic state rep laughing out loud in the Florida legislature as he formally "protests" the DNC's promised penalty for moving up their primary.  

As for the spin out how "undemocratic" caucuses are, they are the modern embodiment of the New England Town Hall -- concerned citizens coming out, stating their votes, and casting their votes.  You may also remember that it was the Clinton campaign up in arms about Nevada's intention to set up caucus sites on the Vegas strip to accommodate workers.

by deminva 2008-05-02 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

In a race this close, it would be unrealistic and spineless for either candidate to quit. It would be like not playing out the seventh game of the World Series. Either you're in it to win it or don't play the game in the first damn place. Were I a candidate and I'm spending close to $200 million dollars of other people's money, I'd better win or die trying. We Democrats have too much quit and lay down in us already and it shows when we expect a candidate to quit. If they quit now, they'll never stop quitting.

by vision63 2008-05-01 09:22AM | 0 recs
Not exactly

It's actually a lot more like one team is up 3-1 and only needs to win one more game.  The other team has to win 3 in a row.  That's definitely possible, but highly unlikely.  But if the losing team just gave up, it still wouldn't make much sense, so they have to play out the string and see what happens.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-01 09:40AM | 0 recs
Bad Breath

Of course, I am a Democrat. Been voting straight Democratic since Dukakis.

All the spin going around are just that, spin. Obama and his gang have been asking Hillary to bow out since practically after Super Tuesday. Obama has not been vetted as of that day. Yes, he was brand new, a breath of fresh air. It turned out, he got bad breath. (sorry for the pun.) Wright, poor judgment, weak, 20 years nodding in the pews, perhaps even jumping up and down, etc.).

I think, a significant portion of us Hillary supporters will, unfortunately, vote for John M. should Obama become the nominee. Obama is toast. I  cannot see anything in his resume that will make me confidant he will be an effective President. I've been offered to buy the blue sky by Obama - I am not going to buy it.

by pleaseno 2008-05-01 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

well the issues were never important to you in the first place. and then thats fine, we believe that enough people in this country want an end to the war in Iraq, want the bush tax cuts repealed, wants more affordable healthcare, wants more sensible supreme court choices, wants women to have the right to choose and equal pay, and wants better for our troops in the form of the GI Bill,

yeah no enough people want those things, that Obama will get elected.

those who like McCain, or will vote for McCain better like his stance on these issues when compared to Obama. thats fine Obama won't appeal to McCain voters on the issues, He's for things like ending NO Child Left Behind, McCain is not. so the people who also agree with this vote McCain.

I hope no one flames you for your choice, but it is a democratic blog so you gotta give em a pass, they care about the issues.

by TruthMatters 2008-05-01 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

How did you know that issues don't matter? Are you trying to belittle my intelligence. Obviously, of coure, you are an Obama supporter.

The issues you mentioned:

Iraq - Doesn't Hillary want to bring our troops home?
Bush tax cuts repeal - We'll, as a related matter, did you notice how Obama is changing his poistion on the capital gains tax? 28%, but now it's 20%. He is taking Hillary's lead on this.

Affordable health care - give me a break! When Obama was still voting "present" in Illinois, Hillary has been fighting for universal health care.

Sensible supreme court - obviously, Hillary will not disappoint me on this.

Women's rights - come on, do you doubt Hillary's stand on this? She owns this issue.

Please don't respond in a threatening manner. If you want issues, speak issues.

by pleaseno 2008-05-01 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

you said if Hillary dropped out you are voting for McCain

that means you support his stance on the issues. I said those who supported Obama's stance on the issues will stay (if Hillary is out) and vote for Obama.

no Hillary supporter who rates the issues as #1 will vote ever for McCain in fall no matter who the nominee is. Obama vs. McCain, they choose Obama.  

by TruthMatters 2008-05-01 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

If Obama loses this election, then what?

by pleaseno 2008-05-01 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

I think our discussion re: McCain is now irrelevant. See Jerome's great postings above. Polls are confirming Obama slide. Hillary is on the move!

Good luck.

by pleaseno 2008-05-01 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

So you think Obama is unelectable, and you plan on proving it by voting for McCain?  Sorry then, I don't believe you when you say you are a Democrat.  I can respect your oppinion when you say Clinton is a better candidate than Obama (I disagree, but I respect it)... but McCain!?  I have a friend in Iraq that would take serious issue with that thinking.  We don't usually talk politics, but on the one occasion when we did, he threatened to totally kick the ass of anyone he met who voted for McCain and his '100 more years'.

by protothad 2008-05-01 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

Pleaseno:

You amaze me. You really would vote for Mccain if Obama gets the nod here?  What a sad little mind you must have.  " If I don't win I'll take my toys and go home!  Waaaaa"

If we have that many people in this country that vote and think like you then maybe we deserve to see this country go down the tank.

Focus people, this isn't about your candidate and you.  Its about kicking to the curb the worst people that have ever run this country in our history.  It's about the damage to our constitution and the rule of law. It is about living in a country we can be proud of again.

Eric in Austin

by ericl 2008-05-01 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Bad Breath

you wrote: "If we have that many people in this country that vote and think like you then maybe we deserve to see this country go down the tank."

Well, how about electability of Obama? Do you think we will win with him? A strong body of evidence is now showing that he will have a lot of problems to deal with. Hillry has some problems, but these have been vetted over and over again.

Obama is not a proven entity. Sorry, but that looks like the case. Just on this Wright issue alone, his polls are sinking, I watched the movie Titanic, and what I saw was a dramatic sinking.

by pleaseno 2008-05-01 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Clinton's magic number:  50 states

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-01 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Everyone's magic number is 50 states. After all 50 have voted Obama will have more than 2024 delegates and will be the nominee.

by wasder 2008-05-01 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Clinton's magic number:  disregarding the rules.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-01 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

We should call that her unicorn number because it doesn't exist.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-01 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Jerome:

What do you think of Senator Clinton's having said that everyone knows Michigan isn't going to count?  Back in October, it was her explanation for why it didn't matter that she was keeping her name on the ballot.  Now, lots of kooky folks are using her Michigan results in popular vote arguments.

by deminva 2008-05-01 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

How unfortunate for her, then, that most of those states don't count.

by Mullibok 2008-05-01 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

I wish this Wright stuff would have came out last year.  Then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.  Honestly, IMO there is NO way I think he can win the general.  Looking at the Electoral Map, not unless things get worse (economically and in Iraq) how does Obama carry Missouri, Ohio, or Florida?  These 3 states will decide the election.  Enough of this Colorado, New Mexico, Virgina, fantasies... Please VA is going to the GOP and CO and NM do not have the electoral Swagger that the other states carry.  So while Jonathon speaks about 283 those numbers are truly and honestly not a replica of the real electoral disadvantage Obama is facing.  The ONLY way out of this would be to nominate HRC.  

by nzubechukwu 2008-05-01 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

SHAME ON YOU!  Either candidate will win against McSame.  Stop fueling the M$M and Repub talking points.  Support your candidate, then when the nominee is decided, throw your support her or his way.  Stop the "sky is falling" stuff because THAT does hurt our chances.  The mantra should be: The Dems (whoever is the nominee) will win the W.H. because we are FAR SUPERIOR to MCSAME (4 more years of Bush).  We can win with either candidate, NOW start thinking like that!

by citizensane 2008-05-01 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

Why think that way when its clear as day what the reality is?

You nominate Obama you get President McCain simple as that, McCain wins the entire South, FL/OH, wins Hispanic votes in the Southwest etc he wins the 270 EV's needed, end of story. Blacks and young people cannot elect a President without older white voters and thanks to Wright, Obama is dead to them!

by rossinatl 2008-05-01 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

I'm a Hillary supporter (50 yr old White Woman). But guess what?  If Obama is the nominee, I'll support him--I'll send money, I'll do phone banks, etc.  Why?  Because he is far better than McSame.  Are you gonna tell me, you'll vote for McSame, if Obama is the nominee?  NO, you won't.  So, it is time for our party to start healing. Repeating the M$M and Repub talking points is NOT the way to start that process Support your candidate, but watch "the sky is falling" mentality.  Reality is not reality until the day after the General Election.  Lots can (and will) happen to change the dynamic of this election.   Just 6 months ago, no one knew Obama.  6 months from now OUR nominee will be planning her/his cabinet! Now, that is a happy thought!

by citizensane 2008-05-01 10:10AM | 0 recs
Needed to win: 2208

Needed to win: 2208

Obama will have only gotten over half of the delgates for 48 states.

Strategically, that should be Clinton's response.

by Michael Begala 2008-05-01 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Needed to win: 2208

Except two states didn't have legit elections. Sorry bout those damn facts, always interfering with the Clintonista fantasies.

by jbill 2008-05-01 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Needed to win: 2208

Except most party leaders, including Howard Dean, state that FL and MI will be seated.

The Rules and Bylaws Committee meets on May 31.  They could decide to remove any penalty, leave it stand as is, or adopt a compromise weighting to their delegate votes.  Their decision could affect both pledged and superdelegates from those states.

In the meantime, about half a dozen states and territories are going to vote their preference.

by Makarov 2008-05-01 12:00PM | 0 recs
magic number for defeat

I'm amazed by the suicidal tendencies of the Democratic party.  What should be a realigning election for us is going to wind up as another defeat.

by mikelow1885 2008-05-01 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's Magic Number: 283

i've seen reported that MD's add on supers will be announced today as well. Should give Obama a nice overall pick-up for today.

tick. tock. tick. tock...

by alex100 2008-05-01 10:16AM | 0 recs
Obama needs 283 if you exclude FL &amp; MI

He will have a hard time getting the 283 now that the tires have come off his campaign.

by mmorang 2008-05-01 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama needs 283 if you exclude FL &amp;amp; MI

yeah, I mean look at all the supers that have jumped ship. Oh wait, he's still gaining them at a faster rate than she is.

by matchles 2008-05-01 11:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads