Best front page diary of the month!

Can't respond to comments until tomorrow, but I'll be back later to get at em.

If Hillary's camp stops talking up McCain and stops spewing the Republican talking points.

Too bad elections aren't won by the popular vote.

Are you completely insane?  BTW, Obama said today that he will not accept VP slot.  You Clintonistas are totally unhinged.

while being paid by the candidates.

If the public were actually learning about the candidates' positions - McCain's vs. Hillary & Obama - a longer primary could be instructive.
But the media basically focuses on the horse race - and intentionally creates more conflict between H & O to rachet up ratings.

Ok I say a serious game or rock-paper-scissors, the winner is the top of the ticket! :)

All the HRC supporters don't care about that!

For them it is about the cult of HRC and demonization of BO. Clinton would lose in the fall by 50-75 electoral votes, but somehow all these supposedly progressive activists on this site can think about is trying to replicate Democratic mistakes of the last 16 years. Despite knowing somewhere deep down that trying to win 50%+1 is a terible idea, they want to run a campaign where Florida and Ohio decide the race by 1% again.

HRC in 2012!!!! HRC hopes to damage Obama enough that McCain wins in the fall, which is clearly HRC goal at this point, even if all the HRC supporters on this website don't realize it yet.

Wake up!

What the hell are you smoking?  Obama has won 28 out of 42 states; he has the most pledged delegates and popular vote so far.  There is no way the winner of IO,ME,CO,ND,KS,ID,AK,MN,NB,HA,WY,SC,DE,C T,MI,UT,LA,VA,DC,WS,AL,GA,IL,MD,VT, is stepping down, nor should he.  I understand he doesn't have a vagina, but rational people don't vote based on race or gender, they vote based on elect ability.  What the SUSA polls show us, Obama is the best bet.  With her negatives in the high 40's and independent and republicans who vehemently hate her, Obama has nothing to worry about.  

Clinton disgusts me when she said McCain is a better candidate than Obama.  This proves the woman is shameless and would rather risk destroying the party so she can fill her ego.  

Florida poll - Hillary 55 - Obama 39

>>>>Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Obama voters say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee......

while 20% (Clinton voters) say they are Not at All Likely to vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/florida/election_2008_flor ida_democratic_primary

But I still have yet, in the several months that I've posted on here, to see an explanation of how it is that Hillary is going to beat McCain among independents. No one wins the presidency by only winning his/her base.

One thing we know for sure is that Hillary as nominee will energize the GOP - McCain may not even have to veer completely to the right in order to get their votes.

Hillary/Obama 2008- not a snowball's chance in hell.

I don't know if this is pointed out earlier in the thread but not only has no candidate won after having the nomination go to the convention only twice has the party that locked up its nomination last been victorious (and in one of those cases it was only by 5 days.)

Not sure your table really says anything.  Dems have lost a lot of presidentials in the past forty years.  Only two times did the primary go to convention.  You could look at the fact that they went to convention as indicative of not having a strong candidate.  Dukakis was a weak candidate--Hart was favored until he had to drop out over an affair.  Carter got demolished by the media for over the hostage thing--for an incumbent to be chosen as nominee so late is striking.  I'm surprised I didn't remember that.  On the Republican side--Gerald Ford was a weak candidate.  He was associated with Nixon and hadn't been elected in the first place.  I'd say that the nomination going all the way to convention, if it happens, doesn't mean much one way or the other.  Both Democratic candidates are strong; McCain is pretty weak.

Something people keep forgetting is that the sooner one of the Democratic candidates wraps up the nomination, the sooner the Republican hit machine goes into full attack mode via MSNBC, Fox Noise, etc.  Right now they're unsure who to take aim at, and both candidates get relatively neutral coverage, relative to what they'll spew at the presumptive nominee.

I'm scheduling my vacation at the beach around watching the convention the last week so I can stay up all night if I have to. I'm hoping for an all-out food fight.

Obama to drop out now. (Just Joking)

Looking at your analysis the scary thing that jumps out at you is that races that go to the convention are  marked by a field of weak candidates.

Ford - Nixon pardon, thus doomed.

Carter - hobbled by inability to end Iran hostage crisis. Couldn't deal with stagflation.

Dukakis - couldn't show passion when asked what he would do if his wife was raped. Tank photo.

Neither of those candidates' problems were the result of strategic disadvantages from a late start. They were inherent weaknesses. Tragic flaws.

This makes me wonder what tragic flaws we are overlooking in our current candidates. The general election is an entirely different battlefield than the primary.

My problem with this logic is that I'm looking at the elections where the nominations went to the convention, and it seems like other factors resulted in both the deadlocked primaries and the election loss.  That is to say that they are correlated, but there's no causation.  Both primary deadlocks and election losses in '76, '80, and '88 were caused by the situation at the time.

In 1976, Gerald Ford was in a tough position because of the economy and the pardon.  That the race was so close is pretty surprising.  He closed something like a 30 point gap between the Republican Convention and the election, but didn't win.  The primary was contested (Ford was the incumbent) by Reagan probably at least partially because Ford was viewed as such a weak candidate.

In 1980, the same thing happened.  Carter had basically no chance because of the hostage crisis and because of the economy.  Again, Kennedy only ran because of Carter's 20% approval ratings, and his late wins were attributable to Carter's problems.  Carter was basically unelectable in 1980 (unless he brought the hostages home and the economy drastically improved).

In short, I think you're drawing a conclusion that's not really supported by the evidence.  In two of the cited elections, it was an unpopular incumbent who was challenged in the primaries because of his weaknesses.  If Ford and Carter had been stronger Presidents and candidates, they wouldn't have faced serious primary challenges, and would have won their re-elections.  An analogous situation would be Dubya running for a third term.  He'd face a primary opponent, narrowly defeat him, and get rocked in the general election*.

The only election you mention that didn't feature a weak incumbent was the 1988 one.  In that one, George HW Bush (41) rode Reagan's endorsement and a very effective negative campaign to victory over Dukakis (who had a primary fight).  The difference here is that Dubya is no Reagan, and Obama and Clinton are in better shape to combat negative campaigns.

* = barring catching Bin Laden or an attack in mid-October.

While it's good to see all this data put together, J Ro's diary is an illustration why you don't want to conclude too much from too little data.

The counter example is 1976, where the big story isn't that Carter won -- it's that he came very close to losing.

After Watergate, after Nixon's resignation, and after Ford's pardon, and Ford almost won.  Might have won if the trend went just a little more his way.  And this after a primary campaign that was a hell of a lot more nasty than the current dust up between Hillary and Barack.

I don't see the behavior of the media as all that important -- they are generally unhelpful, and I don't think that there are enough people who are that wound up about which of B or H prevails -- most of us will be fine with either.  But instead, we will be organized down to the precinct level in most of the country.

A small number of folks on sites like this one are getting off on pissing matches among themselves.  It bores the rest of us to tears.  But at least, it is not going to make too much of a difference in November, one way or the other.

If this problem is that bad, I suggest that the Clintons drop out immediately.

if he has someone like Webb as his running mate.

Webb will really attract Reagan Democrats.

I can see how we could go to the convention and win, but not with the slash-and-burn campaign Clinton is running.

Obama is running a positive campaign. His discipline in this is impressive. Powers went off-message, and she's gone. He lost in Ohio, but he's sticking to his message.

You don't have to admire him for this. Honestly, I think it has a lot to do with the simple fact that America won't vote for an angry black man. Period. Ask any African American man you know how white people respond to him when he's pissed off, you matter how justified he is.

There has been a lot of talk about how her gender constrains Clinton, but little talk about how his race constrains Obama. But it does. He's a better politician than she is, is all. You don't see the wires.

But whatever the reason, only one campaign is wallowing in negative attacks, spreading rumors and praising the Republican against which they hope to compete in the GE. But one is enough. We could take 5 months of an above-the-belt fight.  But the party, including the SDs, will not tolerate much more of the brawling. And if they jump, they will jump to the delegate leader.

I understand why Clinton is doing what she's doing. "Going positive" on Obama, and winning, is a daunting prospect. But, paradoxically, her efforts to nasty up the race may hasten her exit from it.

Going to the convention isn't necessarily the problem; it's the fallout if one group of supporters believes that the other candidate "stole" the nomination that would be the real problem.  The nominee would have 2 1/2 months to repair that rift and appeal to independents, all while getting hammered by the other side.  It would be a very difficult task.

Well, more precisely, and most likely, Obama will be the de facto nominee by mid-June. The superdelegates will make known they're pushing him over the top by then, because there's no point to wait until the Convention to announce their intentions. This is especially true if either Michigan/Florida don't matter -- the pledged delegate gap is too wide -- or if they hold sanctioned events and still don't matter. There will be extreme pressure to close ranks and support the presumptive nominee. That would give Obama four solid months to do battle against McCain.

There's one possible exception that could mean an earlier end: if Obama beats Clinton in Pennsylvania. That's not something Team Obama forecasts, and I don't think it'll happen either, but it just might get the job done and end the nomination contest in late April.

The only way Clinton gets the nomination is if the Obama campaign has a "catastrophic breakdown" (e.g. candidate, video camera, horse, intimacy). That's not going to happen.

The superdelegates will not overrule the pledged delegates. It's unthinkable.

if, after June 7th, neither candidate drops out, it is possible that going to the convention could work, if a number of conditions were upheld.  

first of all, NEITHER candidate could go negative on the other.  as there wouldn't be any more primaries it wouldn't make sense to go negative unless one was trying to sabotage the other.  

second, announce that there would be a joint ticket, and that they would let Denver decide.  

third, criss-cross the country talking about the same ideas, a basic joint platform talk up a democratic presidency, not the presidency of a specific person.  

fourth, attack john McCain on all fronts with the two of them raising between 30-70 million a month between the two of them (hopefully) it will be hard for him to defend himself and attack two moving targets.  

fifth, go where your strengths take you.  Obama red-states and small to medium ones, Clinton big states.  

sixth, and this is the most important, have a bunch of joint rallies where the two of them are all happy-happy kissy-kissy.  they'll probably each deserve an Oscar by the end, but seeing the two of them happy by each other so much will help dissolve some of the animosity.  every time it goes to the convention, the winner never chooses the runner-up.  had ford chosen Reagan, carter, Kennedy, Mondale, hart it might have worked better than choosing someone else entirely.

when the convention comes up, hopefully one candidate will have the most delegates, the popular vote, the most super delegates, and will be leading McCain by more than his opponent.  then the choice will be easy, and without much complication.  otherwise it will obviously be chaos, unless both are losing to McCain by a lot, in which case, we hail Mary it, and throw in Gore.