Do you participate in conference calls for Senator Obama too? I appreciate the update on the daily Clinton campaign talking points but as this site was established to elect Democrats shouldn't we also have the information from the Obama campaign?  Just asking.

Thanks for your assessment Jerome.

Only Obama's position on guns is a problem, eh?  Also, the GOP won't argue that Senator Clinton supports tax increases?  Just asking.  Personally, I don't think either argument works in today's political environment.

Also, you've once again chosen not to list any of the swing states where Obama outperforms Clinton.  States that are every bit as important as Ohio or Florida.  Iowa, Wisconsin, and MN are all states where Obama is stronger than Clinton.  So are Washington and Oregon.  The last I checked, they still matter and McCain plans on contesting them all vigorously.  

Personally, I can't wait till we can stop having these pointless electability arguments.  There's enough data out there to argue the point either way.  I wish you would at least admit as much, instead of pretending that the only rational view is that Clinton is stronger.

again? this EV argument continues to make me laugh, because it completely ignores whole parts of the country that you write off because you want to. Obama is polling strong in VA, NC, and SC. He's also ahead in part of NE. He's not far behind in TX or ND. And he's only single digits behind in AK.

But its more convenient for your case to ignore all this and focus on the battleground states of 2004. So much for a 50 state strategy. In Clinton's world, only states that were close last time count this time.

November.

I'd also say that even if you're right about Hillary having a better chance in the general, which nobody concedes, who will have a better chance to actually govern once elected?  I'd suggest with Hillary back in office we'd lose the Congress again just like in the 90's and we'd be back to one scandal after another.

As an Obama supporter, here's what I think about those three points:

1) This argument reduces her legitimacy because it's so clearly immoral to most people.  Yes, of course MI votes should be counted.  But the will of the people is the gold standard, and to count Clinton's votes without giving Obama any credit clearly does not reflect the will of the people and can therefore be considered disenfranchisement of the voters who came out to support Obama.

2) Sure, count the delegates.  I think most people would consider a full seating, without any penalty, to be unfair and foolish.  But at least there's a fair (ostensibly) process whereby to determine this.

3) This is a completely fair argument to make to the supers.  Supers can decide for themselves if the argument is strong enough to epically piss off Obama supporters.  I know where I stand on the matter, but that doesn't mean it isn't a fair argument to make.

Popular vote might be an interesting metric if all states held primaries and Obama was on the ballot in every state.  Otherwise, the number is just nonsense.

Here was her message, and my extrapolation, in the call:

1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count...

While I appreciate that this was "her message", how could you, as a thinking human being, not laugh out loud when this was said during the call?  

For one, she's only ahead if you don't count any votes for Obama in MI and you exclude several caucus states.  By default that proves the lie that this is not a moral argument as they try to claim; it's pure spin.

Secondly, Obama didn't run a campaign based on accumulating popular vote totals because those weren't the rules of the contest.

So again, how could you not have busted out laughing on that call when this was mentioned?

Does Clinton's weakness in the Great Lake states make her a better candidate in the GE? Or is it her weakness in the West and Pacific Coast?

Let's face it - a Clinton GE strategy will rely entirely on Florida, and I for one would rather compete in red states that have been trending blue, not one big blue state that is trending red.

Obama puts McCain on the defensive by making him spend time and money in the West, parts of the South  AND the traditional swing states. Clinton doesn't have that kind of broad appeal - she will be on the defensive against McCain trying desperately to eek out 2 and 3 point wins in the same states we relied on in 2000 and 2004.

Who the hell cares about the popular vote?  As Charlie Cook is fond of saying, "I doubt Al Gore takes much solace in winning the popular vote in 2000.  Many times a football team gains more yards than its opponent, yet loses on an important technicality called points scored."

If yards gained were the metric used to determine the winner of a football game, then obviously a football team would think differently about what to do on fourth down (and the other downs).  Similarly, if total votes were used to determine the winner of a primary, the candidates would have spent more time in more populous states such as CA, NY, IL, etc.

But more important, as luckymortal points out, we use delegates to determine our nominee for a reason.  Some states choose to have open primaries.  Some states choose to exclude only Republicans.  Some choose to include solely Democrats.  Some choose to have caucuses.  Adding these unlike terms requires a common denominator or common currency. In our pre-agreed to election system, that's the seated delegates.

The GOP is bleeding support. Couple that with third party runs by Bob Barr, and Ron Paul and you see that the Dem primary is the General Election.

What we are seeing  in this last ditch effort by Clinton is an awareness that whoever the Dem nominee is, will be President.

Clinton supporters need to be comforted as the baton passes to a new generation of Democrats.

"1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. This isn't a procedural argument, but a moral one. Yes, they voted in FL and MI, that was their only chance at voted. It may not be what is used for distributing delegates, but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count..."

This one is getting silly.....YES she's ahead in the popular vote BUT ONLY IF you award Obama zero votes for Michigan and don't count the caucus states.....

So she is basically arguing the same exact things she has been arguing for months.  It is hard to understand why she expects these same tired arguments are going to change the minds of anyone, especially the Supers.  It is over Hillary.  Leave the damn race already.

Considering the campaign continues, it's a bit strange that Hillary's campaign is SACKING staffers. A couple I've heard of, who were told they would work until the GE, have now been told they will finish Tuesday

Since when did this site become a spin system for ONE campaign.

Lot of on egg on face here when the campaign IS suspended, perhaps next week, definitely June

Another thing:  the DNC will simply not seat the full delegations as scofflaw FL and MI voted in January.  If the DNC does, every jurisdiction -- knowing full well there are no consequences for violating DNC rules -- will move up its primary in 2012 in order to gain influence, and we'll be lucky if the first primary is after Haloween in 2011.

Clinton's claim that she's ahead in the popular vote doesn't hold water.  That claim only holds if you count Florida and Michigan as-is (however much the Michigan vote resembled a banana republic) and if you don't count a bunch of caucus states.  Not just the four we usually hear about (Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington)--the ABC count also does not include the Texas caucus or the Washington primary.

RealClearPolitics--since it's frequently cited on this site--has a better rundown of the various popular vote scenarios.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

If she earnestly makes this argument to the superdelegates, she's tilting at windmills.  They're not buying.

also the turnout in caucus states is worse than pathetic. The caucus with the biggest turnout was Iowa -- and with all the on-the-ground campaigning and media attention, Iowa's turnout was a pathetic 16% (broke a record at 16%!).  Florida's primary turnout was 42%.  Some primary states had over 50%.  Obviously primaries are much more conducive to democracy!! A really good comparative example would be the neighboring states New Hampshire and Maine.  Primary state NH had over 50% turnout; next door neighbor Maine (caucus) a pathetic 4.8%.

We need to go back to traditional primaries country-wide to have a more authentically democratic process.

"I believe I will win. I think my opponent could win".
I guess Iraq was not the only issue on which her judgement is a little screwed up.

Smarter commenters have already pointed out what was wrong with 1) 2) and 3).

I am very happy about your last paragraphs, Jerome. This is the Jerome we missed. Jerome whose conclusions I disagree with but who is making points rather than ... well ... you know what I am talking about.
I don't think Obama has the problems with Latinos you think he has. Once again the fact he is second choice to Hillary among them does not make him less electable against McBush. And if Obama had such a problem with Latinos, he would not be polling so much better in the West.
But I hear your concern. If you can hold on to that "I am skeptical of his chances but I will be behind him as our nominee" stance, you will do a lot to earn back the respect of those who were disappointed by your behavior of the past few months. Too often, you have written posts that attacked Obama as a person rather than express concern about his chances.
Being skeptical of his electability ? As you please. Saying he reminds you of Bush ? Not cool.

been a collect call given the state of her finances.

Did Hillary mention her inability to raise enough money to run her campaign as a reason she is more electable?  I hear the supers love candidates that can't raise enough money to pay their bills.   How do you explain that fact in your "she is more electable" scenario?  

I have to laugh at all the posters decrying Hillary winning the popular vote and having a better looking EV map saying Obama is winning the primary because he played by the rules, he's winning in delegates and that's all that should count.  The rules are the rules!  

The purpose of a primary is to chose a candidate to run in the national election.  Which candidate is going to win the presidency in November is all that matters.  Winning the primary is a hollow victory if the candidate goes on to lose the election.  In the end,  EV's count, delegates, not so much.

not a moral one as to get ahead in the pop vote she has to discount the will of certain voters while claiming that the will of the voters is important. The supers aren't rubes.

As far as polling in May. No one thinks that's determinative of anything as just a few weeks ago Clinton was losing to McSame on those same silly charts but that didn't mean she couldn't beat him.

Again. The supers are rubes.

Jerome -

I hope that we can all share your sentiment and come together to fight for our candidate when this is all over.

We should all continue to work and fight for our candidates until someone reaches the magic number, fairness requires that the process see itself through.  Afterwards, coming together for the good of our futures should be a nonnegotiable at the end.

We have all voted for someone other than our ideal candidate in the past.  Kerry was likely not the first choice for most of us and our lack of enthusiasm at the polls showed this.  Look at what's happened as a result of 4 more years of stupid?  Look at what the rest of the world subsequently thought of our validating such mindless and reckless leadership?

Just about every other country that had aligned itself with the Bush Administration has managed to purge itself of its leadership, except of course, us.  It is high time for America to lead and a Rethug Administration with a Democrat controlled Congress is NOT the way to do that this time.

To start, to grant Obama the states of Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin (only two of which Obama is leading in today) gets Obama to 255 EV's, according to Maslin.

For the last 15, Maslin includes Ohio & New Hampshire as toss-ups, which they don't seem to be at the moment. Ohio demographics make an uphill climb for Obama, and NH just marginally as McCain has some strong pull in the state historically; in my view, both are leaning McCain states.

So Obama is left with going out west, taking Colorado (9); Nevada (5); New Mexico (5); for a total of 274 EV's. Yes, Obama 'could' win, but lets not pretend that he's not a battleground candidate-- he's just changed the battleground states, given his weakness in Ohio/WV and in Florida.

Obama will win Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. There is no doubt about it. His path to victory is to get NH, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico to add to the Kerry/Gore States. He will win those States and that puts him at 273.

Obama also puts Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Indiana and some Mountain West States into play.

The Obama map is simple, and he will win big.

I also think Hillary would win, and am not opposed to her getting the VP spot. But you make it seem like she is so much stronger, which just is not true. Obama puts a lot more States into play while getting past 270.

SHE DOESN'T LEAD IN THE POPULAR VOTE!  Because the ONLY way to make that claim is to exclude the Caucus state.  And if counting Mi and Fl is a moral choice, then you betting freaking believe counting the Caucus states is a moral choice.  Obama has the popular vote lead in EVERY way its counted, UNLESS you start leaving states out of the process.  

And the MyDD EV map is NOT an accurate picture of the GE.  Many of the polls are weeks old including the Wisc one you point out.  AS many many MANY MANY MANY of us have repeatedly pointed out, the Polling averages give the best viewpoint of the current election state.

You can do your EV map anyway you want... but to use that BS map as a GE electability argument is just ridiculous.

Its time for Obama supporters to cool their rhetoric.  In fact, be overly gracious.  Obama is the nominee so just let the rest of the contests play out.  

In terms of the general election, I was very heartened by the united response to Bush's absurd comments in Israel.  There is truly strength in numbers.  I also think Obama must tap Biden as his foreign policy surrogate.  He was great.

This week also showed that McCain is vulnerable on foreign policy.  The media and voters are receptive to Obama's broad diplomacy initiatives, which differ sharply from the Bush-McCain bomb first mentality.  The Obama campaign would be wise to run ads showing Reagan and Gorbachev, Kennedy and Kruschev, and Nixon and Mao with a voice stating "Strong American Presidents have always been confident enough to meet with those who hate us in search of peace."  

We have the message, the messenger and even the money.  Let's not let sibling rivalries ruin it for the entire family.

"but no one can deny that there was a vote taken, those people count..."

Umm, yeah, that's pretty easy to deny actually.

Lots of votes can be taken.  I could ask the people in my building to vote for who they like better.  Nickelodeon could have one of their "Kids Votes" thingies like I remember back when I supported Dukakis as a little tyke.

But those votes don't count, because they weren't recognized contests. And neither were Michigan and Florida.

Jerome, seriously, take a deep breath and let it go.

I voted for Sen. Clinton but, personally, I with she would stop with all of this.  She was fine with MI and FL not counting before she was against it, she was for winner by pledged delegates before she was against it and she was for caucuses before she was against them.  

Jerome, don't you think her "variety of stances" hurts her cause in trying to eek out a nomination here?

As I have said for weeks, she lost the nomination because of bad strategy, and this whole conference call is further proof.

She could have won because she was a better candidate but instead she is trying to win by altering the rules.

They are a moral argument, so morally:

- Obama has ZERO popular support in MI

• There is nothing immoral about telling people their votes won't count, and then counting only the voters who ignored this detail
  
• There is nothing immoral about agreeing to a set of rules, then arguing they shouldn't apply when they don't suit you

I'm not aiming this at Jerome, but at Hillary, who continues to prove she will say just about anything.

Good luck with her convincing the supers of this.

Jerome,

What is the point of pushing the "popular vote" spin?  The SD's aren't buying it.  It isn't going to sway any voters in the remaining contests.  It isn't going to make the primary last longer.

Why push such an obviously false line of spin that has no benefit?  

The only thing that can come of it is that some Clinton partisans will have a (false) reason to feel the nomination was stolen from them.  Are you trying to create division?

I think it's important to let Clinton supporters like Jerome go through their natural stages at this point without contradicting their points and fighting with them.  The fact is that Barack Obama is the nominee, and this will become official very shortly.  It's not going to matter what they argue, so it would probably be most productive to just let them go through their stages without any interference at this point.  Many are at acceptance, but let's just accept the fact that some are not at that point yet.  Once Hillary officially concedes around June 4th, we can help these people focus exclusively on destroying the elderly fool, John McSame.

I am amazed that the Clinton campaign doesn't see that this popular vote argument, in which they can tell each other until they are blue in the face that they won the popular vote and that Obama should get zero votes in Michigan, is having zero effect on the only relevant audience -- the superdelegates.  

The superdelegates as a group actually have some understanding of votes and of history.  Thus, none of them are falling for the argument that Jerome continues to repeat, about how the votes of Michigan and Florida should count in full regardless of what the DNC made absolutely clear to them would happen if they broke the rules.

Just look at how many superdelegates have come to Hilary in the last couple months.  Other than add-ons, she has a net gain of just about zero.  

The spin isn't working, Jerome.  Zero effect, whatsoever, with the audience that really matters now.  They're a whole lot smarter than you are giving them credit for.

The one thing that I was going to ask of Clinton, but didn't get my question in, was to ask that she push for reform of the primary process.

It would be nice if she did that, as I share your feelings about the process, but it's not going to happen.

She's doing what is politically expedient for her (as both candidates are doing--this is not an attack on her).  She was fine with Michigan not counting before she won it.  The time to voice an opinion about the unfairness of the process and the "disenfranchisement" of voters regarding this issue has long since passed.  There was no mention of "48 states" until she won two that wouldn't count.

The voters in MI and FL deserve to have their voices heard, but there weren't fair elections in either state.  I certainly hope the voters keep this in mind when the people who agreed to move their primary dates up come up for re-election.

There is no doubt the process needs a huge overhaul, but don't look to the candidates to start the movement.

"I believe I will win; I believe my opponent could win...
That was the gist of the argument, which I'm sure she's telling the SD's too"

But if the SDs buy the argument that Senator Clinton is more likely to win presidency, on the turkeys voting for Christmas principle, it may not be a good reason to vote for her.

A previous Clinton presidency saw the Democratic Party lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades.

When it comes to their own seats it is possible that some SDs would be more worried about disaffected Obama supporters staying at home than disaffected Clinton supporters.

I completely agree, especially on caucus states and the allocation of actual delegates.  Since the general is winner take all, unless that is modified and it really should be there also, the primary should reflect the general as close as possible.  Frankly this "who is first" game they play in the primary schedule to the point of disenfranchising voters has to be the biggest embarrassment and also invalidates the entire 2000 experience.  

I think the DNC, if they don't count, as is, FL and MI, and let the supers fall where they may in counteracting that....well, I think by that act alone they will win or lose the general.

I cannot believe how many people sign onto ignoring two entire states in a neck and neck primary.  It's despicable and truly so Karl Rove, the DNC has been.  And I didn't just recently think that, I've been saying it since I first heard about this.

Then on Clinton.  I didn't like any candidates at all, none were either viable or putting forth policies that this country really needs.

Over time, I am watching her policy positions and campaign and I must say, she has become an exceptional campaigner and clearly she is listening and addressing the needs of the American people and has changed or expanded many of her policy statements.

So, while all three candidates will sell out profesional workers on a dime, frankly Clinton sounds better and better over time and right now she is most assuredly more Progressive/Populist than Obama on economic issues.

I believe that's the key to winning an election, same as it was in '06.  There are certain areas, across the political spectrum where people agree and that's on strategic/fair trade, budget deficits, too much corporate corruption and frankly on health care of some sort.  Iraq obviously from the polls as well.

Hillary has been hitting those critical policy notes and it's been a breath of fresh air frankly and boy they should give her the nomination.  Sorry, I think she's hands down at this point the better candidate.

and I was impressed with the clear strategy and message Hillary has.  She makes a strong case for continuing her candidacy.  She also showed a tremendous amount of gratitude for people who blog for her (including one who blogs right at this site, which was especially cool).  She is a good woman.

I think the EV maps are interesting, but I don't buy for a minute that McCain pulls Wisconsin and Michigan against either democrat.  

Karl Rove of all people, pointed out that the caucuses had more delegates allocated in comparison to the actual electoral map count in the D primaries.  

I think that's a very strong argument for Clinton that the pledged delegate count is not distributed correctly and thus gives a skewed representation.

The D pledge delegates should map onto the electoral map, the general election chances.  

In a way they are already arguing that but I hate to say this, until Rove mentioned it briefly I did not realize how disproportionate the D pledged delegate amounts are in comparison to the actual general election.

So we can count two states that broke the rules, but exclude four states that obeyed them?

Jerome, I demand to know what makes that acceptable to you?  Do you have any intellectual honesty?  Will you answer this point?  I am about the twentieth person to make it.

I did a search looking for stories mentioning Obama conference calls and the results were 0.  I think it is a legitimate question for a site that claims to work to elect Democrats to ask why no one from mydd is participating in the Obama calls.  I would like to have the information from both campaigns, and would even welcome whatever spin this site decides to use, but to never participate and to only report on Clinton seems to negate the very reason this site exists. I may just have missed finding this information, or it is not there.  Anyone?

1) While Sen. Clinton has every right to stay in the race until the end - as does everyone else and many do although no one pays attention - the realities of the situation remain. Few primary races in the past have ended this late in the game and most were theoretically ended before even half of the delegates were selected. Remember Kerry 'locked up' the nomination in 2004 in theory before he ever did on paper. The argument to let this thing 'play itself out' can be legitimate but is hardly used in reality. POINT BEING: There is nothing wrong with facing reality before it happens.

2) All of Sen. Clinton's points about reforming the primary system are valid - I am certainly one who would support doing things differently. It has been a boon to the Democratic party that we have had this enlightened interest and my hope is that the loser (whomever it may be) will have enough respect for the process party and American public to no play sore loser. It is often the case when competition in anything is high that involve a lot of emotion but it is a better person to know when they lost and work for the betterment of all instead of taking their ball and go home. POINT BEING: While Clinton's arguments are valid they are not a valid explanation for why she will not be the Democratic nominee for President.

The whole notion that somehow the process was stacked against her or unfair to her big state politics game is inherently flawed. States have a right to decide their own method of selecting delegates (within the bounds of national party rules) and the candidates act accordingly. Yes it would seem inappropriate for a large state like California to hold caucuses instead of a regular primary but if they decided to do that - so be it. Thems the rules. Its not anyone's problem but Sen. Clinton's own that she chose to largely ignore the caucus states or generate a logical plan to deal with life after Feb 5.

3) I for one would support a primary process and a presidential process entirely based on popular vote. This way everyone's vote counts no matter what and no procedural games can be played. But until then we work with what we have. POINT BEING: As everyone know Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but who is sitting in the White House??

4) As far as FL & MI are concerned. I for one am someone who supports seating those states in some fashion at the convention. While in all due respects rules are rules and technically those states should receive nothing - but the sense of fairness and inclusion that we have as Democrats dictate that we pander to that sort of rule bending. But the facts remain that at the start of this process ALL candidates agreed to no campaign in those states (of course under the idea that no one believed that it would have become such a pivotal issue) - while everyone appeared on the ballot in FL and only Sen. Clinton in MI and yes votes were cast. Only a creative lawyer can argue with a straight face that such a farce constitutes a properly contested election. Had they been properly contested it is highly doubtful that Sen. Clinton would enjoy the same level of 'support' as she does now on paper. POINT BEING: FL & MI will be seated but not in such a way that has bearing on who wins the nomination. As it should be - FL & MI can go to the convention but will no play spoiler. That is the price for apostasy.

5) As far as Sen. Clinton being the better candidate in the fall. If we made decisions based on wetting on finger and sticking it up in the air Sen. Clinton would have had the nomination already on 21st of January 2005. Few people thought seriously that she wouldn't until the fall and many people still thought she could up until after Super Tuesday. But the reality remains, as is often the case in politics, that to assume is to accept the risk of being burnt. Things change times change and so do the states. Once was is not now. And the map in Nov 2008 will not be the same as it was in any other previous election. Many in Sen. Clinton's camp make their arguments under the veil that the world revolves around 2000/2004. While there is certainly arguments of strength (even I will not argue that we can carry Idaho but who knows in my lifetime I saw it happen once before...) the whole notion that the world revolves around 4 Great Lakes states is disingenuous at best. Sen. Clinton's plays an old politics game - the John Kerry map + one (Ohio) and thats it. Truly important elections are game changers - like 1992 (when Bill Clinton solidified states like California for the Dems) - 1980 (when Reagan solidified the south and west for the GOP) - 1964 (when despite winning virtually everywhere Goldwater cracked the nut that was the Solid Democratic South). If Obama or Clinton or whomever is decided truly is going to move this country beyond Bush they need to expand the map. POINT BEING: We need to think outside of the box on this one. Sen. Clinton does well in old-style Democratic constituencies but the future of the party is not necessarily going to be with these people. Anyone notice that NY, PA, OH, MI, WV, IL, LOSE electoral votes each and every census?

6) Latinos for Clinton. It is wonderful that we have a Democratic candidate that can spark such interest in an important voting bloc. But to assume that we should pick Clinton because it is important to have a candidate that only attracts Latino interests is as flawed as voting for McCain because he attracts white interests. As a white male person I vote not for what I see in the mirror but what I see is best for everyone I see outside. African-Americans have become solidly behind Obama not surprisingly and are just as important a constituency as ANY constituency in the party. If Sen. Clinton would lose the nomination - she would be a better person to then say "to my Latino friends vote Democratic in November for your future" as I would say the same to Sen. Obama to A-As. POINT BEING: Wouldn't it be a beautiful thing if we had record turnout of both Latino AND A-A voters and they both went Democratic?

7) I for one think that McCain is a weak candidate. Perhaps marginally stronger in some states than other candidates - but like Sen. Clinton for the Democrats - already a known quanitity. While the other GOP candidates like Romney have various issues (Romney's Mormonism is a sad reality that would have been endlessly discussed) at least would have presented a fresher face. Against Obama - McCain appears old feeble and old-school. While many would gravitate to such a candidate naturally - we can only look to 1992/1996/1960 with such disparities in ages and except for Ronald Reagan in 1980 it was the younger candidate that won. This is not an argument of young vs. old. POINT BEING: 2008 is a change year and voters are looking away from George Bush and his 28% approval rating and 7 years of pure hell. Voters will gravitate towards the candidates that offers the most change. Permanent residents of Washington DO NOT APPLY.

FINAL POINT: Perhaps at no time in history save 1932 has one party been such on the ropes as the GOP right now. Their whole philosophy of governing has been thrown right out the door. You can see it in the reaction to three straight special election losses to Bush's 28% approval rating, worldwide detest of US, and most strikingly recent GOP talking points for the fall that underscore practical elements "Change The You Deserve?" When someone wants change its out with the old and in with the new. The Democrats have a chance to win in such a way that hasn't been done in 2 generations. Full majority of popular and electoral votes, control of Congress, and most importantly the ability to change the dynamic of how elections are run won and how politics gets done in Washington.

- Fmr. Edwards supporter.

reason to believe she could win the GE. I've seen the way Obama has been handling Bush and McCain over the past days and am very impressed. Everybody knows the popular vote angle is a joke -- it disenfranchises many of the caucus states. What about all of the MI and FL voters who stayed home because they were told their votes weren't going to count? This maneuvering is ridiculous, pathetic and if anybody thinks this isn't damaging not only to the party but to democracy, they are delusional. Clinton is seeding the notion that Obama's nomination is not the will of the people -- which is false. SHE IS DAMAGING THE NOMINEE.

one obvious fact?

If Obama does indeed win, it won't be due to anything he brings to the table, because for everything potentially he might contribute positively (higher AA turnout, some greater appeal in the West), there is a more than countervailing weakness elsewhere (his dramatic and resounding rejection by white working class voters across a wide swath East of the Mississippi).

In short, if Obama does win the general, it won't be because of anything he has, on balance, contributed. It will be because he has been able to ride the Democratic brand -- now in ascendancy -- to the Presidency. More precisely, of course, what he'd really be riding is the rejection of the Republican brand -- which is the real factor behind the rise of the Democratic brand.

Now the fact is that such movements in brand strength have their limited durations. Someday, after Democrats have been in governance for some period of time, public opinion will turn far more sceptical, just as it did with Jimmy Carter, who likewise caught an anti-Republican wave into the WH.

Then, the very weaknesses that Obama now possesses with working class voters will haunt him once again. Such perceptions simply don't go away, most especially when they are based on character and personality traits in the politician. Just as the rising tide of 9/11 sentiment masked Bush's clear defects for many years, but, when it subsided, exposed them once again, so also will it be with Obama, should he win on a rising tide against the Republicans.

I'm not sure that I've ever encountered in my life a politician with less of the "common touch" than Obama -- that, I'm sure, is the most basic reason he is rejected so roundly by working class voters. And that incapacity -- the fundamental coldness most working class voters sense toward them and their concerns -- is just not going to go away, and will be built on by the Republicans to make a case against his Presidency, should he become President.

I've always felt that the worst thing that could happen in 2008 would not be that a Democrat would not be elected -- because, early on, I took to be a foregone conclusion that a Democrat would be elected in this seemingly so propitious a cycle. The worst thing would be instead that we would elect a figure who would become widely unpopular, would be thrown out of office in 2012, and would serve as an albatross around the neck of the Democrats for many cycles to come.

In short, I was worried that our next President would be a Democrat in the mold of Jimmy Carter.

And that is what I see in the person of Barack Obama, who has only confirmed my worst fears about what sort of candidate he has turned out to be: perceived as an elitist, and rejected by hordes of ordinary voters. I expected that such a perception might not come about clearly until after he was elected. It is disturbing in the extreme that the perception has both arisen and hardened well before he might become the Democratic nominee.

All of which makes me wonder if it isn't better to hope that Obama loses, and wreaks minimal long term damage, rather than wins, doing some positive good for a short time until he reaches what I expect to be a high level of ineffectuality (as, again, happened to Jimmy Carter), and then becomes an embarrassment and albatross to the Democratic Party.

Whatever may be said about the effect of McGovern's disastrous loss, at least it could be said that it wasn't so very damaging to the Democratic Party that they weren't able to win the Presidency just 4 years later (though the shame of Richard Nixon certainly figured into this).

Maybe it makes more sense to hope that Obama becomes the next McGovern instead of the next Carter. Because, given what I see about his appeal, I don't see how he avoids being one or the other.

emotions can be an ugly thing when they grip you.

I wouldn't go through what Jerome has gone through to get my preferred choice elected. not at the expense of the nominee.

Clinton knows that the popular vote means nothing to the DNC. So why is she making this argument?  It's won't get her the nomination.

Is it to undermine Obama's campaign in order to increase her chance of running for president in 2012?

I found something fairly amazing from American research yesterday:

A Surprise About Obama, Clinton, and Turnout

Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama's primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.

A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.

Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.

Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.

There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton's share of the vote.

--Dick Bennett

I'd say that's another argument in favor of Clinton and truly went against what I thought was the case.

it is nice to hear Jerome say, without hesitation, that he will support Obama in the GE if he is the nominee.

I can't say how much better this makes me feel about the site.

I am sure the Hillaryis44 gang will just start campaigning for McNutty; but that is their prerogative and I could give a shit at this point.

I don't get to hang in such stratospheric circles, so if you ever  get the chance, please ask or lobby about a national primary day which chooses the nominee based on popular vote.

The best purpose Hillary has served in this campaign is to demonstrate the weaknesses of the current system, which not only eliminates most candidates before most Democrats ever get their chance to vote for the one they prefer, but is a drip by drip process that opens the door to all kinds of destructive attacks, machievellian schemes, and wasteful expenditure.

Caucuses are only a small part of the problem inherent in a selection process geared to a time when party bosses picked the nominee.

This has been kicking around the internet in a variety of forms, I've copied it from a diary on DKos.  The only way Clinton wins the popular vote is by not counting Iowa, Washington, Nevada, and Maine and by claiming none of the uncommitted vote in Michigan was for Obama despite the exit polls.  How this is a concept that anybody can accept as rational is beyond me.  Here are the figures that the Clinton campaign never talks about in their claims:

If you count all valid contests and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,438,697 / Clinton 15,734,865 = Obama +703,832 +2.1%

--

If you count all valid contests but exclude the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,104,613 / Clinton 15,511,003 = Obama +593,610 +1.8%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the State of Florida, and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 17,014,911 / Clinton 16,605,851 = Obama +409,060 +1.2%  

--

If you count all valid contests AND the State of Florida, but exclude estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,680,827 / Clinton 16,381,989 = Obama +298,838 +0.8%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Obama the uncommitted vote) and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 17,253,079 / Clinton 16,934,160 = Obama +318,919 +0.9%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Obama the uncommitted vote) but exclude estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,918,995 / Clinton 16,710,298 = Obama +208,697 +0.6%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Hillary all her votes but Obama zero votes) and include estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 17,014,911 / Clinton 16,934,160 = Obama +80,751 +0.22%

--

If you count all valid contests AND the States of Florida and Michigan (giving Hillary all her votes but Obama zero votes) but exclude estimates of the caucuses that don't reveal popular vote totals (IA, NV, ME, WA):

Obama 16,680,827 / Clinton 16,710,298 = Clinton +29,471 +0.08%

My thoughts on topic grew into an essay, so I'll post them as a separate diary.

It was good for you to state your position on the overal presidential election, BTW.  You have a position of leadership among many that can be used for positive purposes and I commend you for doing so.

-cheers!

-chris

January 25:

And we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It's a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama.

Feb 6:

We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. We think it is going to be very difficult for Senator Obama to make up that lead because of the way in which the party allocates its delegates proportionately.  And overall, we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party's nominee.

Feb 13:

I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates. We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses and we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials. We are interested in acquiring delegates, period.

There are many, many more quotes like this which prove how utterly hypocritical the Clinton team has become.

I can't believe some people consider you "leadership" in the progressive blogosphere, much less within the party. First of all, Latinos are not a monolithic group. The not-always-reliable exit polls show that the younger the demographic group, the more likely they were leaning towards Obama. But you know what, everyone who has commented basically sees what i viscerally know: We are going to ride a historic political tsunami with Obama in the lead. A lead that will help instead of drag come November unlike HRC. the proof? I guess we shall see in the fall... but another sorry post.

"1) She's leading in the popular vote. Period. "

Really? According to Real Clear Politics, Obama is still leading by 0.22%. This includes Florida, Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington. If you're going to include Michigan, where Obama got 0 votes, then it's only fair to include the above caucuses.

Get a grip Jerome.

We all know that General Elections are won in May of an election year, not November.

Jerome-
What troubles me is that you continue to make the same post with the same points.  In response, people continually raise legitimate questions regarding your math, your map, and your decision not to point out the Clinton's hypocritical approach to the DNC and the MI & FL delegations.  Rather than pushing the discussion forward by addressing these critiques, you simply make the same post with the same points and we're stuck in the same cycle.  Can you at least address the critiques and point out why they don't sway you?  

Is it just me or are you not listening to the counter arguments?

Finally, and this is just out of frustration, your EV map is so fallacious, so speculative, that it boggles the mind how much you push it.  Your logic, if extended, would have precluded the entire primary process and simply anointed HRC as the nominee.