Wouldn't it be exciting if the nomination all came down to who could win Montana and South Dakota, the last two states in the primary calendar? There's just something special about every state getting to have a meaningful say about this nomination.

Here are the important numbers:

Obama    $32,000,000
Clinton  $ 8,500,000

In politics, money talks, bullshit walks.

If you were a super delegate up for re-election, who would you want coming for a visit in your state in October?

I just don't see how they can legitimately count Florida or Michigan. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan and there was no campaigning in Florida. Those were the rules and if Obama or Edwards or Clinton had known otherwise, then they would have tried to win in those states and there would have been a different result.

For these reasons, I have to believe this thing will favor Obama in the end if it comes down to Florida and Michigan. Either it will be revote or no delegates.

Trying to count Michigan and Florida will tear the party in part.  

If Clinton wins the majority of states and delegates tomorrow--which seems to be the mostly likely possibility--look for more and more Super Delegates to break her way.  There are a lot of Super Delegates who have been reluctant to take a position, but who will take the easy way out and go with the leader.  For example, Barbara Boxer has said she'll vote for whoever comes out ahead in California tomorrow.

If Hillary continues to pick up Super Delegates at a faster pace than Obama, or indeed, even at the same pace, that 55-45 margin that Obama would need to win will no longer be sufficient.  Soon, he'll need 60% or more, which will be pretty tough with proportionate voting.

Great stuff over at RCP that reflects my thinking and I guess many others when I saw Hillary cry again today. Take a look at it http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics /2008/02/what_the_tears_tell_us.html

The Clinton campaign has managed expectations perfectly since Iowa. Of course a large part of this has to do with the fact that the Obama campaign cna't really lower expectations and generate the sense that he is going to win at the same time.

It's amazing how many smears there are against Obama on this site that are condoned.  As a first time, 26 year old voter who is progressive, this whole site sickens me.

Like it or not, based on his popularity, fundraising, and grass roots activism, Barack Obama is going to be a central part of the future of the Democratic Party (even if he loses the nomination).

Ultimately-The Dems MUST--repeat -MUST seat the MI/Fla delegates

and would be STRONGLY advised to have both the O and H camps agree on a delegate  allocation BEFORE the Nominee is definite and before the Convention

The very LAST THING the DNC etc wants is a brokered convention and MI/Fla votes not to be counted in the decision--The Dems would be absolutely crucified-particulalry in Florida--in the General and the Dems know that they would very likely LOSE the Nov election if Fla/Mi votes in the primaries were not counted towards influencing who the Dem nomineee is.

I think Jeff Bower is right--there is going to be Enormous pressure on both H and O sides to come to some sort of equitable agreement on which camp gets how many delegates--eg maybe they split Fla per the vote there and argue whether O should get ALL the Undecided in MI (he shouldn't since some were Edwards supporters)

But at the end of the day, BEFORE the Convention and BEFORE the choice of a Nominee, I think both the HRC and Obama camps will agree on a split of MI/Fla and then both agree that the delagates be seated---and then take their chances This has to happen before Pennsylvania in April...and maybe something will veen happen shortly after F5

There seem to be a lot of dubious assumptions here about superdelegates.  It seems to me that if Obama wins the pledged delegates, the pressure on superdelegates to get behind him is massive and intense - it is highly unlikely that superdelegates are going to give a win to the candidate who has fewer pledged delegates, in that it looks really bad.  This applies pretty strongly to the superdelegates who haven't committed yet, since they're presumably not big Clinton supporters in the first place, or they'd have already endorsed.  But it also applies to Hillary superdelegates, particularly if Obama can get a majority of pledged delegates even with the Florida/Michigan delegations seated.  A lot of them endorsed Clinton a long time ago out of a sense of inevitability, and they're not going to let a choice they made ages ago lead to a fiasco for the party.

The only scenario where things get messy is if Obama has a majority of pledged delegates with Florida and Michigan excluded, but Clinton has a majority with them included.  In that case, superdelegates really will decide the thing.

But in either of the other situations - an Obama victory large enough to withstand seating pro-Clinton Michigan and Florida delegations, or a Clinton victory without them - you're going to see the superdelegates line up behind the pledged delegate victor.

If a year ago someone said that Sen. Ben Nelson and MoveOn.org would endorse the same candidate in the primary, how much would you have bet against it?

With the surprising number of high profile endorsements from across the spectrum for Obama, I think if things are not settled after the primaries there's a pretty good chance the Superdelegates will break toward Obama, not Clinton. Pledged or not, I think Clinton's supposed Superdelegate support may be rather shallow.

I understand the issue with taking away the voice of Fl. and Mich. voters, but this has got to be an issue taken up by these states citizens with the local authorities who knowingly moved the primary dates.  It is patently absurd that this discussion is even taking place, and that the media narrative seems to be falling in line, where Hillary Clinton could be awarded delegates from one state where Obama wasn't on the ballot and another where zero campaigning took place. Anyone who sees this as anything besides pure desperation, the once inevitable victor pleading for the delegates of these states after the fact, is wearing blinders. It's embarrassing for the party should she eventually wind up the nominee legitimately.

Again, I fully appreciate the frustration of the voters whose voice wasn't heard; but it reeks of strongarm tactics and reinforces the she'll-step-over-anyone meme.  It's also being reflected in her adviser's harping on superdelegate counts on the conference call today.  Old politics.

Hey Steve in Sacto-Hillary has the other Senator Nelson from Fla + Evan Bayh from Indiana then she's got liberals like Maxine waters from LA- she has just as broad of a crosssection of democrats as Obama. Also the move-on endorsement was a joke(only 10% of the membership voted and they gave their endorsement from that!!!!!  I had them take my name off the Move-On list a s protest and will never be involved with them again(and I am a liberal!!!!!!)

stinks. Like the Electoral College, it's an anachronistic hodgepodge that makes no sense, but we tolerate it because most of the time it delivers the "right" outcome. But when it screws up, it really screws up.

I think maybe college football's BCS was based on this?

Actually, Survey USA conducted TWO polls in CA today for some reason:

Poll 13302 of 853 likely and actual Demoratic voters, had Clinton leading 53-41.

Poll 13325 of 872 likely and actual Democratic voters, had Clinton leading 52-42.

Whatever their methodology is, it seems to produce consistent results.

I'm not sure what the big deal is.  You want to seat the delegates?  Well then split them evenly between Obama and Clinton.

They weren't up for grabs when the voting took place, so they shouldn't decide the outcome of the nominee.  Split them evenly and the effect is equal on both candidates.

End of story.

The last few days has been pretty telling in regards of Super Delegates.  

The score for the last 4 days is

Clinton 11 Super-Delegates

Obama 3 Super-Delegates

If this is a harbinger of things to come (no, the high-profile Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry aren't all there is to this Super-Delegate race) then the race could be close on pledged state delegates, but a blowout with Super Delegates.    

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/ superdelegate-list.html

The final Florida numbers are in:

Clinton 105, Obama 67, and Edwards 13.

Michigan and Florida....your state party let you down.  Knowing the rules full well you decided not to follow them and you have been penalized.  Disenfranchised? Oh for god sakes, it's an insult to people who really have that happen to them.

Jerome, as you and some of us have been saying for months, the FL & MI delegate will be seated.  The party will not disenfranchise 1,700,000 Democratic voters in Florida.

Taking FL & MI out of the equation, how do you get a 150 delegate lead for Clinton if she wins today by 100?  In terms of pledged delegates, a win by around 100 today would give her an overall edge of approximately 85 since Obama is currently leading in pledged delegates.  

If your 150 number includes super delegates, I don't really understand your point.  I anticipate that the remaining super delegares, who could play king maker, will look at who has won the most pleldged delegates as their cue.  Not to mention, neither candidate's super delegates are fixed in stone.

Obviously, an 80 delegate lead would be much easier to overcome than a 150 delegate lead.  In fact, given the schedule for the rest of February Obama could likely pull close to even by the end of the month if his deficit is around 80.

The polls are all over the place, particularly in California and Georgia today. But I'm heading out now to actually vote (in GA) like millions of my fellow citizens. And then I'm going to pick up my Republican mother to take her to vote in the democratic primary for the first time. We'll find out which polls were accurate tomorrow, but either way, the race will go on.

The Superdelegates (as they ALWAYS DO) will get behind whomever the plurality of delegates as awarded via comm vote select.  To think otherwise id just as much a fantasy as revoting  MI and FL. Come on, people... be reasonable.

No matter what happens: Whether its an unlikely Obama massive upswell, an equally unlikely Hillary blowout or the most likely split of some relatively tame split the fact is THIS:

HRC was supposed to have this thing WRAPPED UP a long time ago.  The fact the Obama has forced the issue to a possible convention decision is A HUGE WIN for Obama.  The ONLY scenario that doesn't lead to BO gaining HUGE momentum, is an unexpected HRC blowout.