and when, exactly, has Clinton been tested?

also, no commentary on Hillary's latest comments on McCain?  Quite convenient.

How does Hillary get 62% of the remaining pledged delegates?

She doesn't, Jerome.

I'm glad that you're content with trading temporary Hispanic support for permanent alienation within the vast majority of African Americans.

I want someone to explain how you're going to calm down the black electorate when the man they've overwhelmingly supported has won the pledged delegate lead, but still lose the nomination. Clinton's upset victory will go down in history as the Corrupt Bargain, party II.  

You basically nailed my frustration. It's been difficult to watch a lot of people in the netroots twist themselves into contortions to support a candidate who policies and positions bear so little resemblance to the strong stance they've been taking for years. People-powered politics, indeed.

Yes, she won Texas by -3 delegates.

Jerome how does Hillary win the nomination?  Super Delegates continue to go towards Obama, he is primed to win more Post March 4th states then her, and is nearly untouchable in the Pledged delgates.  How in the world do you see her winning?

Are you and Markos doing a good guy-bad guy routine?

Heh

I agree Jerome. Obama has shown big weaknesses in demographics. Also, looking at the polls, putting up a general election candidate that doesn't carry PA, NJ, FL and OH is a sure election loser.

I hate the smarmy attitude towards "reagan democrats." Darn it, we need those voters in the party and I don't think Obama can get them. McCain seems to have more appeal to them.

Jerome,

I wonder what you think of the new voters Barack may be bringing in.  I've been under the impression that  one of the big changes with Dean was the 50 state strategy, motivating those who felt marginalized to participate.  Shouldn't this weigh heavily in Barack's favor.  Anecdotal, I know, but my gf's mother, an evangelical who has never voted for a Democrat is seriously thinking about registering as a Dem to vote for Barack in the PA primary.  Even though he may not be using the rhetoric I favor, doesn't this help the Democratic Party in the long run; in a way Hillary could never do?  Isn't he breaking down the stereotypes and caricatures of what a Democrat is in a way that makes liberal policies not taboo?

Some of what you say Jerome is a little disturbing, because it seems to fly in the face of the hard lesson of 2004...that Democrats using electability as their lodestar is not a way to pick a president. So I have to disagree and say there is a fundamental difference between the Obama camp and Clinton camp. Now I'm not going to argue Obama is Dean 2.0 but I think there are three things which Dems have to reconcile.

1. The War. The fact is, both candidates have nakedly political reasons for their positions on the conflict. Even Obama supporters can't deny that the biggest recipient of ethanol subsidies is one of Illinois's most successful companies. Nevertheless, I think the Democrats can't run anyone who did vote for the war for national office. I think Clinton, Biden, etc...all the War Democrats are done politically. This is because the nexus between the current economic problems (where Dems do well) and Iraq can't be overstated by Clinton. McCain will say, "so you are voting against Iraq after you voted for it" and that will be the end.

2. The "mandate" issue. While it's been debated endlessly I think it reveals a little bit about why Obama has done so well in the West and Clinton has done well other states. Clinton has the mandate in her plan because she wants the big insurers (and Wall Street) on her side. (After all, if everyone has to buy health insurance that's a lot of money for those firms to play with on the Street). Obama isn't an angel, but I think he realizes that if the Fed's offer insurance but don't make it mandatory it's less likely to result in gouging. I also think there's a latent race issue which isn't being discussed.

3. Openess. The Clintons are an established political dynasty. They are bringing the same old people back to Washington, even if it's the third best people for the job. And this even assumes some of the old guys like McAuliffe come back at all. (I know everyone wants to see Rahm Emanuel as Speaker of the House). Obama on the other hand I think simply has a deeper bench to play with and offers more diversity (not just racially) in his team, but I could be wrong.

And truth be told Jerome, with so few states in play left there's nothing left to do but watch and let the superdelegates decide.

I don't find myself in love with a candidacy in this nomination fight.

I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome

but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination.

Look, if she was winning, then yes, play up the women and latino votes -- those would be the strongholds for the Democrats this election.  But the reality is that she's not, and therefore AAs and the newly energized independents and youth should be our focus.

I'll also note that you're ignoring the boost Obama could get from someone like Richardson joining him on the ticket.

You majored in miracles (not math) too, eh?

If you don't like the rules, change them for 2012.  You and Mark Penn and the Clintons can't keep moving the goalposts in the middle of the game.

I thought the 2003-2006 netroots was all about the 'fighting dems' that invigorated the Democratic Party with a strong sense of partisanship and Howard Dean's "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" candidacy.

Actually, 2003-2006 was about growing disgust with Democrats who have enabled the worst aspects of Bush's agenda; from bankruptcy, through NCLB, to Iraq, and beyond --  disgust with Democrats like Hillary Clinton.

Jerome, you ignore the obvious about GE math - a joint ticket that would combine the very different, but complimentary electoral strengths of Clinton and Obama.

With Clinton's resurgence and Obama's delegate lead, it certainly looks like that's where things are headed, even if Obama/ Clinton now looks more likely than Clinton/ Obama.

Given the difficulty of overruling the pledged delegate leader without pure chaos at the convention and lingering bad taste in the mouths of AAs and Obama voters, wouldn't Obama/Clinton be the most logical solution?

Stop me if I'm wrong, but this seems like the most sensible solution. I'd be curious to hear what you think about an Obama - Clinton ticket's chances in the fall.

I am not sure where this idea has come from, but it is funny.  And Jerome repeats it.  As if either Hillary OR Obama has ever done a damn thing for the working class.

The bottom line is that both of these people are centrists in liberal clothing.  John Edwards would be a vastly better candidate and president than either one of them.  Obama gives a nice speech, and Hillary is good in debates.  Who cares?      

Thank you Mr. Armstrong - wonderful post!

TX rules are unfair? Bill won twice under those rules, so it's too bad if Hillary can't close the deal.

I checked with friends in PA, and a republican friend is registering to vote for Hillary, then switching back later to vote against her in the general election. Even though this will require TWO trips to the courthouse, but being a trustfund Republican, he has time, when he's not complaining about lazy poor people.

I don't see much of a difference in substantive policy, nor in the people running their campaigns, and basically chose Clinton because I think she's got a better shot at winning than the gamble of going with the untested Obama.

Jerome...have you been a coma the last 6 years?  You do not see a difference in the people running their campaigns?  Howard freaking 'I never met a candidate i can't smear into the postion Wolfson?  Mark 'I never met an electorate I could not carve up to win an election without a majority' Penn?  If the goal is progressive change then the President needs a broad coalition to accomplish it.  The 50+1 strategy may win Presidential elections but does not effect any change save the Court.  Use Bush as the example.  He had the White House the Senate and the House yet he could not effect the signature change he sought of privatizing Social Security.  The reason...because he did not have a majority mandate only a Penn-Rove style victory of 50+1.  He vanquished better candidates within his own party because he controlled the message of his campaign, and may well re-write the narrative of his Presidency only because he can marginalize dissent with his Wolfson-Atwater style smear campaign tactics.

Hillary may well win the election but only by destroying the Democratic party and progressive politics in the process.  The fact that you and the other Clintonistas at this site cannot see that makes me grieve for the future of the party and the country.

Jerome, stop whining like a baby man. Rules mean something. Without the rule of law, there is no democracy. I don't care how unfair the rules are, but once you agree to play by the rules, don't even try to whine about it when you're losing. You can whine about the refs but complaining about rules which you had agreed with before the game started is just childish and ludicrous. If you don't agree with the rules, dispute it from the start and stop freaking whining about why a field goal is worth 3 points in the forth quarter because field goals are not fair and you're only down by two points. Stop this crap. If you don't like the rules, don't play the f*cking game. Go home! You whine like a freaking as*shole man! Stop it already.

And to claim a "win" based on a system like that is not people-powered politics.

...but the deeper problem for Obama is that the number of those Obamacan voters is not that enough to flip any of those red states either.

I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome...

"It's immensely under-appreciated," (white women and latino vote)

First lets be clear that the "women vote" is really older white women (because I know Black women are not really considered women, just black, and latino women aren't considered women, just Latino).

Second, the quote above would be true if it wasn't for the other under-appreciated voters: youth and black people.

I don't agree with a single thing you're saying on this thread (other than "the" and "of"), but you don't deserve to be troll-rated.

I don't have a problem with your diary except that like when the Obama folks it's only half true. You are right as far as you go, but then so are they as far as they go. The truth is complicated becaus eof the reality, and points to a unity ticket. Something partisans seem unable to comprehend.

I don't know know why you would be disturbed that people who had previously registered as Democrats would register as such to vote for a candidate they actually liked in the Democratic party and wanted to win.

It seems to me that that sort of thing demonstrates that Obama can and has expanded the Democratic party.  Or do only people who were in the party a few years ago have the right to choose the nominee?

When I was at the Maine caucus, I saw a couple I know who were registering as Democrats.  They had been independents.  One of them said to me, "Because of Obama, we are now Democrats."

Yet Jerome finds that sort of thing troubling.  Why?

History shows that you get big change in this country when new people flock to a political party.  If Obama can move people to want to register as Dems, bless him.

I have a friend in Pennsylvania who has switched his registrationn from R to D so that he can vote for Obama.  The office told him that they had been swamped people doing the same thing.  He has been working with his republican friends and he alone has convinced 40 to make the switch. They will support Obama over McCain if our candidate is Hillary.  As a life long Democrat, I will not vote for McCain, but I will never vote for Hillary, the queen of mean.

I have a friend in Pennsylvania who has switched his registrationn from R to D so that he can vote for Obama.  The office told him that they had been swamped people doing the same thing.  He has been working with his republican friends and he alone has convinced 40 to make the switch. They will support Obama over McCain if our candidate is Hillary.  As a life long Democrat, I will not vote for McCain, but I will never vote for Hillary, the queen of mean.

go from the current "Math"  to the nomination.

She has to win the narrative.  If she does, the Math will change...fast.

It is not impossible to see how this can happen... BO campaigns seems to be cooperating with her on that recently.

I don't know how to embed images, but pollster now has charts of general election match ups. Take a look

Clinton vs McCain
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-Mv C.php

Obama vs McCain
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

This is the last one - I promise.
Any one figure out what Hillary must to do win.
Yes you've got it
DESTROY THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE let MCAIN WIN.

Thats right do as Limbaugh says.

Jerome,

You brought a tear to my eye with that 'people-powered' stuff, but given the delegate totals at the moment, the reality is that there is only one path to the nomination for Hillary Clinton;  the superdelegates have to hand it to her.

That is the ultimate in 'un-democracy.'  Obama went out and accumulated his delegates the hard way, state by state.  He has built a significant lead in earned delegates, thus Hillary can only take the prize by somehow convincing the SD's to give it to her.  And that is a recipe for disaster in our Party.

She can make up all the bullshit rationales in the world about how she won the big states, blah, blah...    Do you really think the SD's are stupid enough to diss the huge number of states that Obama is winning and take us right back to the old DLC model of winning a few core states?  That mindset is precisely what Howard Dean and most of us progressives have been trying to overturn.  In this campaign, Hillary didn't even bother with many of the 50 states; is that the kind of President you want?

How in the world is Hillary going to sell the SD's on the 'electability' argument when every poll indicates that Obama polls much stronger against McCain in November?  How is she going to peddle the electability argument when everyone knows she is the ultimate object of hate for the Right?  She'll be the lightning rod for them to rally their battered party and fundraise like crazy.  And further, it is Obama who has energized and expanded key constituencies (youth, African-Americans, Independents.)  The turnout that he generates will serve us very well in all the down-ticket races for Congress, Governorships, state and municipal offices, etc.

Take a look at his fundraising model as well-   huge amounts of money raised from small donors.  What could be more expressive of a populist, people-powered movement than that?

I haven't read the book you wrote with Markos, but am I correct in thinking that you subscribe to Dean's 50-state strategy?  Hillary has utterly ignored the concept, and the results speak for themselves.  And don't you regard Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe and the rest of Hillary's staff as exactly the sort of people we need to get out of leadership positions in the Party?

WTF?

I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination.

You better hope so. Your credibility is riding on her winning the nomination. For someone who was a strong advocate of the 50 State Strategy, you've fallen a long way. A long, long way. Say hello to a general election campaign centered in Florida and Ohio - where it won't take much energy or effort for the Republicans to wrest the election away again.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, if she does, she's going to do it ugly. And many of us red state Democrats who have been insulted by her campaign and the African-American voters who have been taken for granted by her campaign will not show up in the numbers she needs to win.

Generally the idea of a Democrat who's a fighter is not a Democrat who fights against other Democrats while praising the Republican nominee.

The latest being that Obama "won" Texas (you know, like Bush "won" Florida). Clinton won the state 51-47, by over 100,000 votes, and yet, Obama, his campaign, and all his supporters now say they won Texas. Why? Because of the undemocratic proportional allocation of caucus delegates, such as an urban areas that voted Obama being worth more delegates than a Latino stronghold for Clinton in another part of the state, because of a previous election. That's not a Democratic system-- its a relic of machine-age politics. And to claim a "win" based on a system like that is not people-powered politics.

Obama won the most delegates. Since no one defines what "winning" is, I think any reasonable definition is fair and both have a claim to winning.

Listen, this isn't a contest for votes; it's a contest for delegates. Since delegates are the metric for "winning" the nomination, why does it not make sense for delegates to be the metric for winning a state?

As for hitting the "undemocratic" primary because of delegate distribution... isn't the entire nationally primary the exact same thing? Some states get more votes because there are more dems there, right? And if 2 states have the same population and the same delegates, but one state turns out twice as many people, each of those people is effectively being disenfranchised of half their vote.

Women and Latinos were the deciding vote in 2004 and the 2006 midterm elections. They will be the deciding vote in 2008 if Clinton is the nominee. Why does the blogosphere continuously ignore these groups? From Clinton's website:

Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.

* The two groups that fueled President Bush's victory in `04 were women and Hispanics, and they are among Hillary Clinton's strongest supporters. From 2000 to 2004, Bush's support among Hispanics rose from 35% to 44%. And Bush's support among women rose from 43% to 48%. That five point gain among women and nine point gain among Latinos gave Bush his victory in 2004.

* Women reached an all-time presidential election high of 54% of voters in '04. As a factual matter, an outpouring of women for the first woman president alone can win the election. Hillary leads all candidates among women.

* These political and demographic trends project positively into the general election and strongly favor Hillary.

Democrats, long suffering, long loyal, voting Democrats are coming to need a rescue from a kind of electoral Jim Crow.

For myself, having been a liberal and progressive activist and organizer (there are differences between those two roles) and having been a self-identified and registered Democrat, I can't but see what's happened this primary cycle as a kind of hijack of the party.

Long time Democrats who are invested in the party, who care about the party and it's reputation have no wish to see the party hijacked.  People who cross-over, who are new voters, just waking to the fact that elections happen and might matter, that aren't invested in the Democratic party don't care about the Democratic party or it's reputation.  Those kind of voters see the Democratic party as a vessel to "send a message" to the political establishment.  The Democratic base doesn't see the Democratic party as something that trivial or disposable.  The Democratic base isn't looking merely to "send a message"; the Democratic base is looking to get a worthy Democrat elected President.

Being a Democrat isn't a hook-up, it's a marriage.  Too many online "progressives" are treating it like some meaningless, self-gratifying hook-up.  

FACT #1:

If Hillary was better at caucuses and actually won one every now and then, she and her shills would probably think they were much more 'democratic' than they currently do.

Complaining during televised debates about how unfair they are (the world isn't fair honey, that's something a president needs to know), trying to change the rules of the election at every turn, dismissing the value of entire states and demographics of Democrats simply because they didn't vote for her, praising the Republican candidate while tearing down a fellow Democrat...

Hillary is a model of what a Democratic candidate SHOULD NOT BE. She is the anti-candidate.

FACT #2: If Obama was in Hillary's position right now, with virtually no way to win the nomination without tearing the party apart, he would concede.

People talk about how Obama is self-centered and vain, but Clinton is the real egomaniac. Victory at any cost, even the destruction of the party. I have lost all respect I ever had for her.

Can someone point me to where Obama or his campaign is claiming to have won texas because if you look at his counts of states he has it as a split verdict.

Jerome, please provide a link or some other for of source for the assertion.
thanks

When are you guys going to understand that the math for your proposed Pyrrhic victory doesn't exist in a democratic manner and that barring a complete collapse of the Obama campaign this race is basically over already?   When?  Clinton shot her campaign in the foot irretrievably with the red phone ad and yesterday's alliance with McCain. Wonder how long this post will last.  

SD`s defined by the creator of them.

"Got a Problem? Ask the Super"  By GERALDINE A. FERRARO
Published: February 25, 2008 in the NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinio n/25ferraro.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year's primaries -- clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party's membership -- but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated."

Jerome,

Another thing.  There is widespread disgust with Hillary Clinton's transparently self-serving cry for seating the Michigan and Florida delegates.  The 'primary' in Michigan was a bogus event that confers no legitimacy whatsoever.  Florida wasn't much better.  And she only managed to take 55% of the vote in MI while running unopposed.  If she was so deeply concerned and sincere about the 'disenfranchisement' of the voters in MI, she would have advocated for a full primary or caucus that would afford everyone the opportunity to participate.  She wasn't even politically astute and decent enough to realize that our Party risked the alienation of a huge number of African-American voters in that important state if we accepted the results of that 'primary.'  They didn't show up to vote because they were told by the Party that the results would be meaningless.  Hillary Clinton's cheezy attempt to claim the delegates in MI should have set off alarm bells throughout the Party about what sort of person she is.

IMHO, the moment she took that cowardly and devious stance on Michigan, she lost a lot of respect.  Until that time I was open-minded and neutral and enjoying the fact that our Party had two attractive candidates who could capably represent us in November.  But Michigan gave us a window into her soul and her character, and it's ugly in there.

Why don't Wyoming democrats like Hillary? What's wrong with them?

Lately all of Jerome's posts, and the Clinton campaign itself, have been reminding me a great deal of President Bush, in they all refuse to exist in a fact-based reality.

"I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination."

Don't you realize how stupid you sound? I'll give you a hint: think Bush.

Your posts goes right to the heart of the race right now. The race has turned to Hillary's advantage. Unless an upset in Pennsylvania or Florida, the Supper will vote for her. Their role, if my memory serves me correctly, as defined in the 80's was to pick the best candidate capable of winning the general election. And that means winning in places like Ohio and Florida.

As an aside, I remember, when Bill said if Hillary wins in Ohio and Texas she wins the election, if not she cant. I think he was right. My strong feeling is that Hillary will be our nominee.

From that Geraldine Ferraro article in the NYT--

"But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party."

-----------------------------------

Nice job pimping for Hillary there Geraldine, but I ain't buying it.  If you are so deeply concerned about the voters of FL and MI, then you ought to be advocating for a real primary, not one where the voters are led to believe that the results won't be counted.  This is precisely the kind of chickenshit tactic that have some of us loathing Hillary Clinton.  She "won" in those two states (FL and MI) in deeply flawed and bogus elections, and would like to have those delegates chalked up in her column.  No fucking way.  

It's a shame and embarrassment to all Democrats that people like this occupy positions of prominence in our Party.  Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and imagine that Obama had come out ahead in those silly FL and MI 'primaries.'  Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro would be pushing hard to include those states in the delegate total?

If you can answer 'Yes" to that one with a straight face, I'll buy you a premium imported beer at the venue of your choice.

Hillary will win over the superdelegates and be our nominee, and here's why.

1. When ALL the votes are counted, she will have gotten the most.

Look, when more people vote for you, and yet you "lose" the state on delegates, thats just undemocratic. The superdelegates will know its not right. I am speaking specifically about Nevada here, as an example, but the fact is....the pledged delegates are important, but so is the will of the electorate. They will not vote for someone who got less votes to be the nominee. It would be THE END!

You need another reason?

OK, she won the big states that democrats have to win in order to get to 270 electoral votes.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

"...Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead."

15 more "dramatic turns" like Tuesday.

Hillary got some amazing press out of the Tuesday primaries.  She had huge leads in both OH and TX just four weeks ago, yet Obama managed to battle her to a draw in TX, and he lost by just a handful of delegates in OH.  In Texas, Clinton won the popular vote by a slim margin of 3%, but managed to turn that into a public relations triumph that would have us believing that somehow her floundering campaign is revitalized.  

So she squandered a big lead in TX, hung on by her fingernails to win the popular vote, and lost in the caucus.  Yet somehow our media define this as a 'huge day' for HRC.  I guess the bar of expectations has been set even lower for her.

The next day California finalized and certified the results from its primary, and Obama came out with a net 8-point gain.  And the same day 3 more superdelegates came on board with Obama. Bottom line, Hillary is no better off now than she was going into Tuesday, but through the remarkable use of smoke and mirrors her campaign and the MSM have managed to create the impression that her campaign is on a roll and enjoys unstoppable momentum.  To really get some perspective on this, just think back a month or two.  She was the presumed nominee, and had all sorts of structural advantages.  Obama has managed to turn the whole thing around, and now Hillary is the 'scrappy challenger.'  Quite a role reversal.

To reiterate a sentiment I expressed earlier:

This comment can be summed up in two words, SOUR GRAPES.

If Hillary was ahead right now you would be singing a different tune. Instead all we hear is:

"Wahh! Caucuses are SO undemocratic! Instead, let's let a group of 800 party insiders overturn the results of months of primaries. Now THAT would be democratic."

And please keep your pants on; Obama is WINNING the overall popular vote right now, and there is no indication that he will lose it, just as there is no indication that Hillary will magically gain the support of massive amounts of super delegates out of the blue.

The fact remains that the rules of this election are the rules of this election are the rules of this election are the rules of this election. Everybody agreed to them, and now Clinton is getting to show everybody in the world just how poor a loser she is.

Pretty Boy Floyd,

Why don't Hillary's supporters show up for caucuses?  Are they lacking in inspiration, or what?  Would they rather not been seen in public supporting Hillary?

By this time I would think the Clinton campaign would have made it clear to her loyalists that she needs them to attend the caucuses.  Her supporters tend to be long-time Democrats, familiar with the process.  But they aren't showing up.  Why?

To call Obama's following the rules and getting more delegates in TX "gaming" is not honest.  As it is not honest to equate Obama's TX delegate win to Bush's coup in 2000.

yes.  We may wonder about who is the more electable, but I am sure that Karl Rove and GOP have run the numbers few times now.   And I think the person more electable is the one who brings huge numbers of new voters (single women and latinos), quite possibly gets crossover votes from Republican women, and puts AR, TN, OK, and even Texas in play.   Not to mention OHIO, which Bill Clinton won, and by the same math (strength in the same areas of the state) she would win.  

Note all the states she does well. It's the states Bill Clinton carried.  There are lots and lots of goodwill there.

Unfortunatly, backseat drivers at blogs think they know better, or they are so enamored with their own new-found power that they don't see what they are doing.   Don't get me wrong, I am all for passion, intensity and different opinions and of course, supporting different candidates. That's democracy.  But the big so-called lefty blogsphere (we know who they are) has become a parody of rightwing radio.  Maybe they can officially start a bash-Clinton coalition and leave the sane people alone.

Hey Jerome--I think there is a lot of sense to your post...and I personally agree with your conclusion.  But I did want to raise an issue with one portion of your post that some of us here in Central PA are a little uncertain of.  You note:

"The other day, when he turned his attention to how he could help Obama win Pennsylvania, Bowers wrote:

My initial take of Pennsylvania is that Obama will do very well in Philadelphia (at least 60% of the vote, and possibly 70%) and the "T" (mainly Central PA, sometimes dismissively referred to as "Pennsyltucky"), in concert with his coalition of the extremes (grassroots progressives and grassroots red state Democrats). Clinton will do well in Western PA (including the Pittsburgh metro area), Northeastern PA (Scranton / Wilkes-Barre / Hazelton and "The Office" country), and the Bethlehem / Allentown metro area. The decisive swing vote will come in the Philadelphia suburbs, which is just about the only growing area of the state. It is also a region trending blue very quickly, and has a lot of independents and Republicans who are voting for Democrats in general elections, but who can't vote in the primary unless they register as Democrats by March 24th. This three-week registration period could decide the election, since these "new" Democrats will favor Obama, while the currently registered Democrats probably favor Clinton."

I'm not so sure about Barack's presumed strength in Philadelphia nor the "T" (funny that I've never heard our region referred to as that before?).  And I think the main key might be our Governor.  While he's not necessarily that popular here in Central PA, he's a Philadelphia politician who remains extremely popular and continues to be very highly regarded in Philly, not only for his politics but his very present involvement with major Philly sports teams, which might have some appeal to younger voters--and he's a staunch supporter of Clinton's.  So if Clinton does have an area of weakness in PA, Philly would be it--but Rendell's support is a wild card that we're not quite sure how to read here. Even if Barack would score more in the Philly area, most of us aren't believing it will be by huge margins (unless it is in fact due to Dems for a Day).  

And outside of Philly, it truly seems that Hillary has the much stronger support.  I guess only time will tell...but I'm very much looking forward to seeing how it plays out.  

I am done with this website. The community's tolerance of not one, two, but dozens of obviously fallacious attacks by Armstrong on Obama is disappointing. From the "present" votes to "Obama has an electability problem in Ohio because he lost to a Democrat yet leads in GE matchups" to this current ill-conceived jeremiad, Armstrong has demonstrated an incapacity or an unwillingness to follow even the basic principles of good faith discussion. This post is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

I have visited this site at least once each day I had internet access since before the 2006 elections, and it pains me to say that this place, as a community, has simply imploded.

I was one of the people who believed in the power of the "netroots" to change the way politics was funded and conceived. Yet, I now see that some members of the blogosphere are uninterested in any real reform but rather simply want a place at the table. I no longer hold hope for the blogosphere, which has become as petty and narrowly driven by short-term interests as any other aspect of progressive politics.

I wish you all good night and good luck.

"Super delegates" were invented and given considerable power in order to calm the runaway enthusiasm of temporary, extreme, callow primary voters who might elevate an unelectable general election candidate.

I actually kind of like states with both the Primary and the Caucus, because it allows you to gauge both the breadth and depth of the support for each candidate.  Primaries favor breadth, and caucuses favor depth.

My family are consistent democratic voted (nearly 100%!) Obama doesn't seem troubled to leave me behind! The injustice!

If elections are a numbers game, than Jerome is right. I think we would all agree that the systematic support of Democrats by AA is critical for our identity of the party. I think women are equally important for this reason, AND they are a much larger proportion of voters.

Which superdelegate wants to be Solomon?

jerome, thank you so much for keeping this blog sane.  i saw the trey rentz post earlier and worried with a sinking feeling that this had become another obamablog (like we need any more of those), but was relieved to see this.  thank you for all you do!!!

Just by way of reminder (I know you know this), Obama is winning the popular vote nationwide 13 million to 12.4 million.

Texas has an unusual set of rules.  They are not the rules that I would have written, but they are the rules that both campaigns  knew about.  Bill Clinton ran twice on these rules.

Under the rules, Obama earned more delegates than Clinton.  He is supposed to apologize for that?  He is supposed to listen to charges that he stole the election?  He is supposed to be compared to Bush's campaign in Florida of 2000?

Obama has not spent much time whining about rules or procedures.  He has just been out inspiring a new generation of voters who could be active Democrats for the rest of their lives.  Or, maybe the cynicism of the Clinton campaign will prevail and we will go back to the same old warfare that we've been stuck in for decades.

Can we possibly say yes to the most inspiring leader that the Democratic Party has had since Kennedy?  Yes We Can.

i'd really like to see the Democratic Party aggressively court Asian Americans.

As a Democrat I will never vote for a elogan and neither will millions of others. Watch the Dems lose in November AGAIN if OPanzy is nominated.

HILLARY = PAST
OBAMA = FUTURE

Just look at where the votes where at. Aside from certain Hispanic heavy areas in Texas that traditionally had been under participating almost the entire Clinton "coalition" has been made up with vote groups that represent the past both in age and in dynamic. While Hillary would certainly gin up those voters a bit more in the GE, it is likely most of those votes will go Dem anyways.

Obama, while new, has energized a whole new group of voters from young to independents to disaffected Republicans. An Obama - McCain race will feature perhaps the widest disparity in ages of candidates that a Presidential race has ever seen and youth on Democratic's side. Surveys indicate he breaks open whole new states to Democratic effort as well as provides a lot of cover to down ballot candidates.

The bottom line is most of Hillary's Dems will come home to Dems in November while Obama has potential to add to coalition. Clinton still faces an "anti" fatigue rightly or wrongly still exists and not because she is simply a woman.

While Bush & GOP was in better shape in 2004, we learned a lesson in turnout politics in that race, one that the Republicans won. This time around the GOP is demoralized and we have opportunity to win based on momentum rather than facing off of troop strength. Sure fire way to gin up the GOP vote is put Hillary on the ticket. The GOP cannot give voters a reason to vote FOR them but put Hillary on ticket and give them a reason to vote AGAINST Dems.

Yes the difference between Obama and Hillary in reality on paper isn't much. But it is the style that counts. I myself was originally an Edwards supporter, coming from North Carolina it is naturally understandable, but in choosing between Clinton and Obama it came down to this. Clinton has the potential of possibly winning the GE in a squeaker by keeping as much of the old Democratic coalition together as she can. Obama has the potential of mixing up the race in ways we have yet to see and prove useful for Dems now and in the future.

Jerome's post is very poor.

1) The name of the game is delegates.  Much like the electoral college, it sucks, but were stuck with it until it is changed.

2.  We can try to make lemonade out of lemons by at least requesting the super-delegates respect the will of the people.  The leader of the delegate count gets the super-delegates (or some other representational system).
   
3.  Barring a catastrophe on Obama's part, Hillary cannot win the delegate count unless she does some funny business that violates the rules or the will of the people.
   
4.  I was a mild Obama supporter, but Hillary's repeat attempts at tearing Obama down by bolstering McCain have crossed the line.  I have gone from mild to strong support of Obama.  Hillary be damned.  
   

I've written my representative super-delegates asking them to respect the will of the people of their state (WA) and support Obama.  I plan on donating to Obama and volunteering when I can.

I feel strongly about the party, and when idiots such as Hillary and Lieberman start hurting the party for self-glorification, I draw the line!

obama is crashing the gates AND he has money; YOUR girl is going down, JEROME

You have never been to Pittsburgh have you? Obama wont stomp anyone - especially not in Philly or in PA. At least do a little research to educate yourself. I've lived in both Pittsburgh and Philly. I lived minutes away from the University of Pittsburgh, That IS Clinton Country.

Why is it that Clinton's Hispanic voters who were Republicans the last round in Texas are good voters to attract, while the "Reagan democrats" Obama is said to attract are not?

Jerome, I find your post to be insightful if misguided... I agree with you that the Texas Caucuses (and in fact Caucuses in general) are a relatively undemocratic way of choosing the nominee.

However, Obama did not make the rules and it seems unreasonable to bash him for playing the game as it was laid out. I do believe that we should look into all of these things and make huge changes before 2012.

But bashing Obama's campaign for developing a strategy that took advantage of the rules as they were written makes no sense to me. First of all, it only makes sense if they had something to do with making the rules; it does not seem to me that they did. Secondly, it assumes that they would not have developed a different winning strategy if the rules were different and quite frankly considering Obama's intelligence and the intelligence of his campaign staff I find that to be a difficult assumption to buy into.

I have several Republican friends and relatives who will genuinely vote for Obama, primarily because the hate McCain, they hate Hillary, and the see the economic train wreck we are headed towards.

They are not trying to game the primary; they like Bo best.

Hillary is divisive.  If she wins the Dem nomination, we will lose these voters, guaranteed.

"I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination."

It's official: Clinton supporters are the new faith-based community. Math-shmath!

Didn't have anything else to do this A.M. so read all this and have come to the conclusion that Hillary supporters will probably not vote for Obama, and Obama supporters will not vote for Clinton.  Seems to me the "party" everyone keeps taking about is already torn apart, not by Clinton or Obama but by the supporters who keep lamenting that the other guy is awful, etc.etc.etc.

Seems that Obama supporters have to tear Hillary down to feel that Obama is up, and Clinton supporters find Obama unacceptable and the Hillary bashing to be over the line.

When you actually look at the demographics, Obama's support comes from kids, not a very strong voting block, latte types, who don't have as much to worry about because unlike the rest of the democrats they do have health insurance, jobs, and are much better off generally, and the "progressive" who wants to change the system and thinks Obama is that change agent, which is debatable but they think so, and those who hated Clinton for whatever perceived reasons they can come up with, and the AA community who supports Obama because he is the same skin color.

Hillary supporters are older democrats who have been around and know what faces this country at this time, poorer people who actually do need health insurance, are losing their homes, or jobs, women who have more struggles than men ever give them credit for, and those who recognize the foreign policy deficit of Obama, and Latinos, who are the group that is expanding in this country by leap and bounds, whereas the black community is contracting, for various reasons that don't need to be discussed here.

It would be hard for either candidate to appeal to the other candidate's supporters in the best of circumstances but with the basically equal split, even with the math contortions people talk about this race is evenly divided, not withstanding claims by both sides that their candidate is winning.  It seems to me that neither candidate is actually winning but both have strong suits, and downsides.

What can be made of this?  If the Obama supporters keep trashing Hillary as vehemently as they do, and the Hillary supporters find the Obama supporters to be trollish, which they seem to be given any opportunity, how can this "party" come together?  Well it can't and it never did.  In the long history of parties, the groups of voters supporting either democrats or republicans have always had these divisions.  But can we assume that voters from one voting subgroup could vote for the other guy or visa versa?  No there can be no assumption based on past as prologue.  That is where the term Reagan democrats comes from.  

So, what determines the GE race?  Is it party affiliation that is the general measure?  No.  Is it personality?  No but sometimes a great personality like Reagan can overcome the policy decisions of a voter, however, when time are tough  in the country, as now, people vote based on two, count them, only two issues.  People vote their pocket books, and they vote on security.  These are the two overriding issues that determine who will be the President.  Most people don't really care about all this other stuff.  I know its great to argue about, but these people who vote, don't have cable, can't afford it, or if they do, they watch something other than politics, sorry to burst anyones bubble, but most people don't care all that much about politics until it affects their own pocketbooks, then they pay attention.  When time are basically O.K. in peoples lives, they vote on marginal issues like values, gay marriage or abortion have driven voters in the past, or during times of war they vote for the person who can keep them safe, or who can make them feel safe, which is a different thing than actually being safe.   Voters aren't driven to vote because they just love the person as much as those who are so fired up and ready to go in the Obama camp, and don't vote for someone in the general election just because they are inspired.  Inspiration is fine, but not if you are worried about your own economic situation or if you feel insecure.  The AA community is voting in a block for Obama for one reason, because they see a pride of race in his candidacy.  Voters in the Latino community see danger in his candidacy for their community and won't vote for him for the same reason.  They see what is happening and much of Hillary's support there is based on their not wanting Obama.  If Obama is the GE candidate, they may well vote for McCain.  This is just a fact.  It could also be true that if HC is the nominee, AAs will either vote for McCain out of some feeling that he "deserved" it, which he of course does not "deserve" the nomination just because they vote in mass for him, or they could see their own economic situation and vote for her.  Who knows until we actually have a nominee?  But to threaten the party with the better support Obama or the AAs will riot seems to be a thin reason to me.  Where do those voters go if its HC or MC?  Maybe they just don't vote, but then they get MC, so what do they do then?  The Latinos could actually vote for Mc before Obama, and that would not be surprising at all.

When you dispassionately look at Obama and Clinton and think about what they bring to the table on the two most important issues, economy and security, the problem with the Obama support is that even though it is passionate it is not wide.  It is deeply felt by those who support him, but he is weak in the real issues department.  He is not a known element and people who are worried cannot get past that worry to support inspiration.  He also has not demonstrated any foreign policy experience and even if Hillary were not pointing that out, the voters already know that.  No amount or ranting or raving can erase that deficit of the candidate because he has not invested the time and trouble to acquire that knowledge.  In short, his qualifications are not strong.  So there must be a reason to vote for him besides his qualifications.  When people are worried or hurting they want someone who will take on the responsibility of helping them, however so far Obama does not make people feel that he will help them.  He inspires them but help them?  Yes he talks about hope and change, but how to get there?  Whereas Hillary seems to be the safer bet.  The reason is pretty clear.  During the Clinton administration household incomes went up.  That sums it pretty well, people think she will be able to get our broken economy back on track like Bill did then.  Whether that is so, people feel like it is, this is why her support is so wide, as in winning the big democratic strongholds.  They see her as helping them get ahead, get health care etc.etc.etc.  Then there is the national security issue.  I know that Obama is a wild card here.  His positions are out of the mainstream of the country in this regard and will be exploited by republicans if he is the nominee.  It can be no surprise to those who just hate the Iraq war that we are already in Iraq.  Not as supposition but as fact.  So the argument often made about the vote in 2002 is pointless on its face.  Clinton didn't take us into Iraq, GWB did.  I realize the O supporters are just livid about her vote, but frankly its a moot issue, we are there.  Her vote one way or the other wouldn't have even mattered in the least.  The reason it does matter is because in the GE unlike the primary, people don't want a pacifist.  People want someone who is strong on national security, not a wimp.  Even though some are mad about her vote, it does stand up well for the GE.  If she had voted against, she would be no good for the GE, thank your stars Obama didn't have to vote because just his position on this issue is a loser for the fall when the rest of the country and not just the left wing get a say on who will be president.  Obama's position on the war is fairly unacceptable to a vast right and middle of our country even if you don't agree, no one who is a weakling will ever be president.  No one who basically says America is wrong will ever be president.  So if we have Obama as the nominee, you can figure that even with the support he has now, he will lose the GE.  There is just no way around that.  He will have to modify his position to even stand a chance.  As stated above, strong and wrong beats weak and right every time.  I know this country having seen many elections and I can tell you that Obama doesn't stand a chance in the GE.  And not because of all these trash talking excuses either.  Because of his experience and his positions.  Clinton might win, but Obama will lose.  That is unfortunate because we need a democrat in the WH and his supporter just demand that it be him, but it won't be.  This country is not so far left and won't vote for someone without at least some experience which Obama does not have.  In the GE the age of the voter is 40+ not youth but the older voters are the people who elect a President.  They want experience and all the side show is just that a side show.  Keeps you busy but doesn't put food on the table, get you insurance, help you keep your home, or stop an unjust war.  You may not like HC but she is really the stronger candidate for the GE.  Obama needs more on his resume especially at this time of trouble. He could never get elected to the Oval Office.  Just saying.