Post PR delegate update

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:27 PM EST

Clinton wins by a wide margin in PR, 68-32 with just 2% remaining. About  360K total voted.  CNN is projecting the 55 delegates go 38 for Clinton and 17 for Obama. Here's the latest delegate totals:

Pledged Delegate's remaining 31
Super Delegate's remaining   203
Needed to Win #              2117

Barack Obama                 2071
Hillary Clinton              1914.5 
John Edwards                 13.5
Uncommitted                  0
These numbers are from DCW, updated with the PR and SD numbers from today. They show Obama lacking 46 delegates, that's about 18 percent of the remaining 248.5 delegates remaining. Clinton lacks 203 delegates, and would need to win about 82 percent of the remaining delegates.

Update [2008-6-1 19:59:27 by Jerome Armstrong]: The chances of Clinton gaining 82 percent of the remaining delegates are near to nothing. And if so, Clinton's chances were lost with the closed-door 14-13 (15-14 with the proxy votes included) vote to award Obama half the delegates from Michigan (which led to adopting the MDP resolution instead of the Clinton resolution or going to the credentials committee).

But to show where we would be if the Clinton resolution had been adopted, this would stand at 1916.5 for Clinton, 2012 for Obama, 55 uncommitted, and 13.5 for Obama. Obama would lack 105 delegates, or about 35 percent, and Clinton would lack 202.5 delegates, or about 65 percent, of the remaining delegates. That would have represented a wider open outcome.

One RCB vote changed everything.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 289 Comments :: Post a Comment


46 can be capped by Tuesday night. (2.00 / 5)

I am so ready for the general.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:43:58 PM EST

I am so ready for the general. (2.00 / 2)

Obama won't have to worry about being "mean" to McCain.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Well, she sure as shit isn't getting 82% in SD and MT.


I voted for Hillary!
by deepee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:44:06 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Well since 82% of 31 pledged delegates (25.5) isn't much, it's all down to the Superdelegates as has been the story for the past 3 months.

It's all about Electability.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:58:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Don't you think if the Supers were going to turn this thing around for her, they would have by now.   She had a MASSIVE SD lead thats been hemmoraging since Feb 5, including losing several SDs.  If the majority of the Supers were worried about Obama, they would have not endorsed him.  I respect your wishing hard that she will pull off a miracle, but right not the score is 15-3 in the bottom of the 9th with two outs.  Could she come back... Sure.  But its probably not going to happen.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

You know, initially, he was winning all sorts of demographic categories (working class, men, college, young etc. . .) that would have made it an unmitigated landslide in November for him.

Since April his core demo groups have softened so significantly (and in many cases flipped) and with Exit Polling consistently showing that large numbers of Clinton supporters would actually go McSame . . . that it is now conceivable that McSame has a shot against him in the General. . . as I've said I'll vote for the democratic nominee but will they.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

He'd have to be unelectable not less electable for enough supers to go for her. He's not unelectable. Though if she walked into Denver trailing and walked out the nominee she would be.

BTW,  did you know that  Senator John McCain joined his fellow Republicans to vote to maintain a filibuster on the minimum wage hike.  A hike in the minimum wage is supported by at least 75% of Americans -- that number includes a large percentage of Republicans.  John McCain doesn't support the troops. He does not support the GI Bill which is the minimum that we owe the men and women of our armed forces.  John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. As we have seen, Bush's Iraq strategy is a dismal failure and any continuation will needlessly cost more American and Iraqi lives. How many more lives? Who knows but since John McCain is fine letting our troops rot in Iraq for 100 years it would be thousands upon thousands.
 John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is anti-choice and would appoint Supreme Court justices that will take from women their right to choose what to do with their own bodies. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists. Despite pretending to be a "reformer" John McCain's whole campaign is controlled by lobbyists and there is evidence of quid-pro-quo activity that postdates the Keating 5 scandal.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Disagree.  I do hope she walks into the Convention and takes her chances.  She is CLEARLY the more electable of the two, and by then it will be plain for everyone to see.

Obama is crawling across the finish line on his hands and knees, praying that the finish line they moved closer for him after the despicable cowardice of the RBC comes up fast enough for him to claim a tainted victory.

I am ashamed to be a Democrat.  

I feel exactly like I did when Dr. Dean was thrown under the bus to give the nod to another weak, feckless, undeserving John Kerry.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

If situations were reversed, I'd be against Obama going to the convention.  Why?  Because even if you win that gamble (and she won't... she doesn't have that kind of party support... Hillary is not the Don Corleone of the party... she doesn't control enough people to do that or else she'd have the Supers support already... this is what you fail to understand) we lose in November.  There is no chance that the party isn't forever divided by an action like that.  

And if she made that gamble - win or lose, her chances of winning the nom again are none (unless she defied the odds and won the presidency).  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I am a bit surprised that someone who previously supported Dean instead of Kerry would now support Clinton over Obama.  Its the whole DLC swing state politics vs the Dean 50 state strategy all over again.  I'm just curious what your reasoning is.  What attracted you to Dean?

Thanks


by protothad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

Thank you thank you thank you,
I am glad someone pointed this out.  I speak this as someone who has gone the other way.  I am sick and tired of the whole DLC.  I am glad Lieberman is gone, now if we could just get rid of the rest.
by monkeyga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are welcome (2.00 / 1)

Actually, the non-DLC, grass-roots, 50-state approach that Obama is taking is a primary reason I support him.  I have to laugh every time someone accuses us Obama supporters of being'koolaid drinker' or claims we are taken in by an empty suit.  I made my decision to back Obama from very raional and easily researched facts.  I poured over campaign finance reports, voting records, and platform statements.  I looked at the coalition that was forming around him and what their objectives were, and found common cause.

Obama's detractors criticize his 'change' message and call it empty, a promise he can't deliver.  What they don't get is that the change is already happening, and the success of his candicacy is one aspect of it (in truth, it is more a symptom of it than a cause).  He has blown away fund raising totals, both in the amount raised and in the number of donors, all while refusing lobbyist donations and receiving most of that from small dollar donors... and he has not even finished the freakin primary yet.  He has built an unprecedented grass roots ground game, brought out record numbers of young people, and energized a sizeable chunk of the electorate.

The Change that is happening is that Americans are becoming engaged in the political process again.  They are taking back their democracy.  Obama isn't the cause of that, but he seems to be most in tune with it.  His bottom-up, grass-roots, 50-state approach stands in contrast to the top-down, swing-state, DLC approach that has been the standard operating procedure for the last several election cycles.  That in itself is a significant change from the politics of yesterday, one that many of us find very attractive.  It is, perhaps, just the downpayment on a future Obama presidency.


by protothad on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are welcome (none / 0)

Well said, proto.  Well said.
It's the whole 50 states that is in play. We have all been a part of this historic primary.
by Mae Scott on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

That's a factor of the calender more than anything else. Later primaries including West Virginia and Kentucky, where 30% of Democrats voted for Bush. Those states are uniquely DINO. Polls show Obama doing fine in PA and OH.


by elrod on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

He's still up big in the places he won like Nebraska, Iowa, Oregon etc.  But they use this slight of hand thing where they show her winning recently in Appalachia and make the claim that he's losing among 'hard working people.  white people.'  (urp)  

As though the difference is in time instead of place.  

One thing that is getting little or no mention is how Obama's numbers were going up in CA relative to hers right up to the primary and then continued going that way.  Funny that Obama's people aren't shouting back at all these dumb arguments that if CA was held today, Obama would almost certainly win.  

But that would be cheesy and that tends to be Hillary's job.  


by Sun Dog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

Very little chance Obama wins NE, IA and even if he did (combined 12 EVs) that does not offset FL or OH (47 EVs).  A loss in OR by any democrat means it's over in November.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)


Very little chance Obama wins NE, IA and even if he did (combined 12 EVs)

Step back from the unreality. Obama has led McCain in every single head to head poll in Iowa since mid-February, averaging a 6.6 point margin.


by Casuist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

I stand corrected on IA so that's 7 EVs for Obama, just 40 left to make up after FL and OH (if he loses those 2)


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

why does he need to make up FL? the Gore states + NH is a win.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

Because Gore won MI, NM and WI a total of 34EVs.

Obama is losing MI in every poll.
NM is a dead heat.
WI is a dead heat.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So freakin what, you're changing the subject (2.00 / 0)

My point was that they've tried to make it appear that his numbers among certain demographics have eroded by literally equating white people in Appalachia with white people anywhere.

Quit changing the subject.  You really don't have a leg to stand on with this baloney and niether does Hillary.  Having to change the subject just illustrates that.  


by Sun Dog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So freakin what, you're changing the subject (none / 0)

Tut tut my little young grasshopper. . .

Change what subject? Did you learn that in debating class?

I'll indulge you, Obama is losing FL, MI and tied in OH, NM, WI these are Swing states or states we MUST carry in November to win . . . there are plenty of non-Appalachia WHITE people in those states . . . explain that spanky.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So freakin what, you're changing the subject (none / 0)

spanky? where you learn this eloquence from?

polls this far out mean little but I'll attempt to discuss your "indulgence". First and foremost, we'll ignore the fact that polls have been up and down for both candidates. We'll also ignore the fact that Hillary hasn't been attacked by anyone in nearly a month. Anyhow...

Obama will lose Florida. I don't see a path for him winning there. Unfortunately.

MI was a state that Kerry barely carried in 2004. Polling is within the MOE and the AA vote is being underestimated. The lack of a unity bounce also hurts him currently. The fact remains, MI has been trending GOP at the national level for some time now. I don't think this is the year the GOP breaks through.

SUSA shows Obama winning WI by a decent margin despite claiming McCain will win close to 1/4 of the black vote. Kerry won it by less then 1% point. Doesn't seem as dire as you claim it to be.

In Ohio, SUSA has Obama winning outside the margin of error. 9 points.

NM is another one of those states that always comes close after the votes have been counted. Polling has been mixed. SUSA has it tied which seems about right.

In any regard, Obama needn't win FL to win the majority of EVs. Heck, according to the EV counter he could lose NM, WI and MI and still win the nomination if you took away VA from states he's currently up in.


!
by alex100 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So freakin what, you're changing the subject (none / 0)

spanky? where you learn this eloquence from?

polls this far out mean little but I'll attempt to discuss your "indulgence". First and foremost, we'll ignore the fact that polls have been up and down for both candidates. We'll also ignore the fact that Hillary hasn't been attacked by anyone in nearly a month. Anyhow...

Obama will lose Florida. I don't see a path for him winning there. Unfortunately.

MI was a state that Kerry barely carried in 2004. Polling is within the MOE and the AA vote is being underestimated. The lack of a unity bounce also hurts him currently. The fact remains, MI has been trending GOP at the national level for some time now. I don't think this is the year the GOP breaks through.

SUSA shows Obama winning WI by a decent margin despite claiming McCain will win close to 1/4 of the black vote. Kerry won it by less then 1% point. Doesn't seem as dire as you claim it to be.

In Ohio, SUSA has Obama winning outside the margin of error. 9 points.

NM is another one of those states that always comes close after the votes have been counted. Polling has been mixed. SUSA has it tied which seems about right.

In any regard, Obama needn't win FL to win the majority of EVs. Heck, according to the EV counter he could lose NM, WI and MI and still win the nomination if you took away VA from states he's currently up in.


!
by alex100 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not yer damn grasshopper (none / 0)

You're not indulging me at all.  I can't believe you just said, 'change what subject' when I pointed out that you'd changed the subject.

You're like a kid with chocolate all over her face, a huge piece of cake in her hand and when you bust her she just says, "What cake?"  

I could address the debate you started but you discounted the point I made by changing the subject.  Then I pointed that out and you called me a grasshopper.

Good stuff.  

All you're doing is making the claim that we should choose our nominee based on what gallup is saying instead of who won the primaries.  

Ya see, that would be insane.  That's why we have primaries and caucuses to allocate delegates over half a year.  We learn more than if we just consulted the pollsters and lobbied superdelegates based on that.

Can you really not understand that Obama's numbers are being effected by the fact that he's being attacked on several fronts, the most potent of which is currently in his own party?  Clinton and her supporters work to depress Obama's numbers even as the GOP ignores her for months because she's already lost the nomination.  

So you point to polls at this time to say she should be the nominee?  That Obama is 'losing' somewhere?  

The election is this fall.  It's against John McCain.  He's incredibly beatable selling exactly what the country can't stand another minute of.  Obama's going to try to beat him while trying to help the bastard maintain his pride.  You can bet he's going to beat him.  Ask Hillary.  


by Sun Dog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

[blockquote]
Obama is losing MI in every poll.
NM is a dead heat.
WI is a dead heat.
[/blockquote]

dude, check fivethirtyeight.com

he's been up in WI for every poll except two.

he's been up in NM for most polls too, with an average of +2.4%

as for MI, maybe if clinton wasn't essentially campaigning against him non stop there, ( and actually helping the nominee ) things might turn back in line.

finally, IT'S JUNE 1st. also, he's had to deal with attacks from the clintons & their surrogates, and John McCain & the republicans, while hillary's had essentially NO OPPOSITION from anyone.

nonetheless she's managed to lose in every poll vs. Obama.

dude, please. stop peeing on the parade, for the party you support.


by scorinaldi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

So you've declared Obama the nominee already but the Democratic party has NOT. . . unless and until that happens I will support my candidate . . . if you feel that that pissess on you little personal parade . . .  then put your raincoat on.

The Nomination is still OPEN . . . go Hillary.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

given that he's up in WI and NM... even if he did lose MI, he can pick up VA and CO and it's a wash. Obama's electoral map is pretty open, the only places where Clinton has a massively better chance to beat McCain and Obama doesn't is Florida.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

He leads McCain in EVERY poll of Iowa.  And today's SUSA poll of Nebraska shows him almost tied in CD1 and down only 5 in CD2 in Nebraska.  He is way ahead in Oregon.

He is basically tied in Ohio and down by about 5 in Florida. Considering has hasn't really campaigned in FL yet, he's in good shape.


by elrod on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mississippi (none / 0)

That is right Missi-a freakin-ssippi my home state is in play.  Latest Rasmussen poll had McBush with a narrow 6 point lead over Obama.  The most encouraging number in the poll for the days going forward, is that Obama won the under 40 vote. Change is happening down here folks, very exciting.  Voter registration is the name of the game.  Don't look now, but we just might shock you in November.


Musgrove for Senate.
by Countificus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

Nebraska I'll give you.  He will win Iowa.  He also has a great shot in Ohio.  

Florida will be harder.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

OH is within the margin of error (dead heat)Obama-McCain, and if any Democrat lost PA he would Lose Period (PA is not a swing state, we must carry it).

Clinton wins OH, PA by double digits.  Wins FL the other key swing state.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

That's why we welcome your support in helping elect the Democratic nominee Barack Obama this November.  There are still 5 months left before the GE to shore up support in areas you deem critical.  We look forward to working with you.


by edg1 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Partly discovering Obama (none / 0)

and partly running a simultaneous campaign against Clinton, who thinks she and McSame have the cred to be commander in chief.

In an effort at party unity it would be nice if you guys would start showing some.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partly discovering Obama (1.00 / 1)

Yup.

As usual with Obama people, "unity" means shut up and sit down.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It means stop whining (2.00 / 1)

about how mean everyone is to poor poor Hillary while you keep attacking Obama.

But whatever........ rant on, if it makes you happy.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And nobody told you to shut up (2.00 / 0)

What's with the persecution complex.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partly discovering Obama (none / 0)

Even the Republicans were mostly able to swallow their pride and support John McCain, who many of them hate passionately. If you can't do the same, then Republicans have shown they care more about their party than you do.
by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Remember though, besides taking a hit on wright, which polls show haven't hurt him too bad, he has been battling BOTH Hillary and the GOP.  So that explains some of the hits he has taken.  Given those hits, he is neck and neck with McCain and ahead or slightly behind in EVs depending on the map you look at.  

Now you act as if Obama gained all his SDs PRE April and hasn't gained any since April.

But that really isn't the case:

Febuary he gained 88
March he gained 19
Since April he has gain 103.5 SDs.  

So yes, He did get a big amount in Febuary, but he has gained nearly a third of his SDs since April.

Meanwhile, Hillary has only gained 81.5 SDs since February... and only 33.5 since April compared to Obama's 103.5.  If the SDs were going to turn, they would have done so or he would NOT have gotten 103.5 SDs since April.  

These numbers don't include Florida and Michigan... just SDs through 5-25.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ superdelegate-history-tracker.html


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Oh gosh.

Do you really think Hillary would win without the African American vote?


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Could Hillary swing the election to McCain with a few more national security "threshold" remarks, "He's not a Muslim as far as I know",  or perhaps with faint praise.  

But if she just gets out of the way, I don't think Obama will have any trouble with McCain.  Obama can move numbers in ways that no other candidate can.  He just needs to execute a general election strategy that is as effective as his primary election strategy.  There are plenty of volunteers.  There is plenty of money.  The Democrats have their wind to their back.  

As long as the Clinton's are not there with the long knives, he will do just fine.


by smoker1 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I have more faith in Hillary than THAT.  She might be upset, but (and I hate to use this example but it fits) I feel she will do exactly what McCain did if she isn't or doesn't want the VP slot.  She will campaign for Obama, she will tow the party line.  In 4 years, she will do the same and then we will see probably see a battle for the nom in 2016 between Obama's VP (provided it isn't Hillary) and Hillary.  

Hillary will NOT sabotage Obama. No chance.  She is a better person than that.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I believe you are right.  But there is an outside chance...


by smoker1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:35:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Many would have believed that "Obama can move numbers in ways that no other candidate can" prior to April.

Since April, Obama has decisively lost the majority of primaries, the popular vote by a large margin and shown, far from being the "transformational candidate" that he's just like ANY other candidate.

If Obama is the nominee, he will win it or lose it on his own, and if he does lose, there will be no-one to blame but himself.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SD and MT (2.00 / 0)

So when Clinton loses big in SD and MT on Tuesday, are you going to admit that the tides are turning against her?    When the count of races comes out to 8-7 are you going to admit that she blew her amazing 8-5 lead on the last day of the election?

Of course not.  But since you are making the same arguments about Obama, through today, I guess I will have to make these on Tuesday to show the Supers that Clinton stumbled at the end when she had all the momentum.


by monkeyga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

April has exposed Obama's weakness.  He does not do well in Appalachian country.  He did badly in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, the rural parts of Indiana, rural Pennsylvania, rural Ohio.  Let's face it.  There are many people there (including Democrats) who are racists.  

Let me be very clear.  Clinton is not racist.  Her campaign is not racist.  I think that the "outrage" over her "hard-working, white Americans" was totally synthetic.

But when you look at Obama's weakness, it has more to do with a region of the country than any kind of loss of mojo.

This is going to be a challenge in the fall.  But Superdelegates should not deny him the nomination because they fear that Obama won't appeal to Appalachia.  We are better than that.


by smoker1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

When you resort to words like "electability," it's a fair sign the game's up.

And I feel for you, I really do. Frankly, I'm still not real happy about needing to rally around the candidate way too early four years ago when Edwards' message was far superior.


by mcd410x on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Or 65 percent of the delegates either.

So that "one vote" is hardly as decisive as it seems.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 4)

We've had great candidates running for the nomination this year.  I'm very proud to be a Democrat.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:44:28 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

Thank goodness this thing is almost over. Now on to the General.


by politicalfan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:52:07 PM EST

Ickes said it (2.00 / 2)

MR. ICKES:  I think he would make a very good president, yes.

MR. RUSSERT:  Now, that's the spirit of unity.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST

P.S. that was from this morning. (none / 0)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

spoiler alert! (none / 0)

It's Sunday, so the DVR is bursting at the seams.  I hear MTP was pretty good today.


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's already on-line (none / 0)

DVR be damned.

the entire show is already online as a netcast

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's already on-line (none / 0)

I wish they put more shows up in entirety.  Hardball and Countdown are put up piecemeal, and the stupid MSNBC video player forces you to watch the clips backwards for some reason.


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

accomodating dial-up users (none / 0)

rural america still lacks cable and dsl


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: accomodating dial-up users (none / 0)

I lack cable and dsl


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: accomodating dial-up users (none / 0)

I lack a 100mbps fiber hookup.
by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (2.00 / 1)

I'm sure yesterday was pissed off emotion and today after a long talk among the HRC campaign, they are gearing up to end it.  I have a feeling there have been more talks than the media knows about and that there is an informal agreement on the table for Her to endorse him and appear with him and him to help her fundraise and to give her some concessions on healthcare and let her lead the charge in congress or as HHS or maybe (but unlikely) VP.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

From today:


Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

The former First Lady would get the chance to pilot Mr Obama's reforms of the American healthcare system if she agrees to clear the path to his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.

Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.

Tim Shipman - Hillary Clinton to be offered dignified exit Daily Telegraph 1 Jun 08


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

That would be outstanding!  Then again, we'd need assurances that Hillary's Senate seat would stay in Dem control.  How does NY handle this?


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (2.00 / 1)

If there were genuine efforts at reconciliation I'm confident that the ructions would be easily mended.  But she has to choose, be the perennial candidate or change tack and strengthen her position in the Senate and/or the Obama administration.  In the latter case I have no doubt her Senate seat would remain secure for a long time to come, at least from where things stand today.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

David Paterson our Governor gets to select her replacement.

If you Obama people think this is over, think again.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

I'd highly recommend doing a lot of thing you enjoy this week and staying away from the internet and the television.  It's probably going to be unpleasant for you if you don't.  No snark here.  Just honest advice.


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent! (none / 0)

Then that's settled--her replacement would be a Democrat.

Hillary for Sec. of HHS!  I really like that idea, she'd be damn good at it.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent! (none / 0)

I actually think she'd be a fantastic AG!


by ktmnyny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think she'd be a better fit for HHS. (none / 0)

Healthcare seems to be her real passion, not law.  She does have the background for AG, I just don't think she really has the interest.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think she'd be a better fit for HHS. (none / 0)

Agreed...but.  I think healthcare is very important to her and this is the very reason she won't be the one to promote it.  Think of the nasty vitriol that will be attached to "hillary-care".  

Obama recently stated that in his first 100 days, he'll review all executive orders and remove the ones that are unconstitutional.  She'd be perfect for this and would give her more opportunities for positive publicity.

Just thinking......


by ktmnyny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why (none / 0)

Why would anyone give up a Senate seat for a Cabinet seat?  


by monkeyga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (none / 0)

More power and prestige.  Just off the top of my head.

You almost never hear of Senators turning down cabinet positions.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Happens fairly frequently (none / 0)

Clinton had two Senators that moved to his cabinet  -- Lloyd Bentsen of Texas as Secretary of the Treasury (unfortunately- lost his safe Democratic seat, though he was probably ready to retire anyway) and Bill Cohen of Maine (who was a Republican) to Defense.  They wouldn't do it for some minor cabinet position, generally, but HHS is a big department.  Could be a match made in heaven.  


by Headlight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

I'm sure yesterday was pissed off emotion and today after a long talk among the HRC campaign, they are gearing up to end it.  I have a feeling there have been more talks than the media knows about and that there is an informal agreement on the table for Her to endorse him and appear with him and him to help her fundraise and to give her some concessions on healthcare and let her lead the charge in congress or as HHS or maybe (but unlikely) VP.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

Yes, but Hillary would make a better President than Obama.  You left that part out.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

so? Obama's going to be the nominee. Clinton might very well have made the better president, but we won't find out unless she wins in 2016.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

About half the party agrees with you and half disagrees.  Personally, I think both would do a good job, but I think obama would do better right now.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Its safe to assume Obama gets at least half.  Giving Hillary the extra SD in that 16-15 split (although I think its more likely Obama will get it.) then he needs 31 SDs.  It would be nice to see a mass go on Monday and Tuesday, but my guess is we will see it by weeks end.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I tend to think he has several Super D's in his pocket right now, and will give them a call on Tuesday to put him over the top during his SD or Montana victory speech.

At least, that's what I'd do.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I demand a recount! (none / 0)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:57:12 PM EST

The RBC close vote (2.00 / 4)

The RBC close vote could also have award Michigan by 50-50. Obama had the votes to do it. But he didn't press the matter and got a wider majority (not one vote as you say) for the 69-59 compromise.


by elrod on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:58:53 PM EST

Re: The RBC close vote (2.00 / 3)

Yeah, Jerome is lying on purpose to make Hillary's supporters even more outraged.


by JoeW on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (1.00 / 1)

He can't help himself.


by sweet potato pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

That's uncalled for.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (2.00 / 4)

I'm not quite sure what Jerome thinks he, or the Democrats, gain by comments like this. It's like hearing that Hillary went off about being the "choice of the people" or something similarly delusional.

I know I'm supposed to be magnanimous as an Obama supporter. Unity and all that jazz. But I hear that, and I think well, you know what, if that's what's bleeding through the bitter bile they must be feeling, if that's the crap they're spitting out at me and the rest of the democrats frantically pacing around the pen waiting to chomp and McCain and the rest of the Repubicans who DESERVE our rancor and pent up RAGE...

RAGE we've been holding back as these pitiful primary battles of nothingdom continue with their spitwads of meaninglessness that serve only to aid MC SAME and the MASTERS OF ET CETERA (BY THE POWERS OF BUSHSKULL!!!) well, damnit... whatever. Sure. Whatever. Great. Right back atcha folks. Lookin' great Taylor Marsh. Sure you're a Democratic Author or podcaster or something. Tell me I'm a "boyz" Algere. Go on. I'll just sip my soda and wait for those Montana results to come in. Or something.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In the spirit of 'unity' (2.00 / 2)

Good Lord if Carl Levin a strong Hillary supporter advocated for seating Michigan honoring the uncommitted for Obama, at least Jerome and Armando could acknolwedge that.

The vote was to enfranchise Michigan.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

You don't know what votes Obama had.  

If it was that close, a ridiculous stance like 50-50 would have failed to get the votes needed.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (2.00 / 1)

well, given it's what Jerome is citing, and it's what multiple news outlets have said, then you're basically arguing against Jerome.

which is amusing, since he's on your side.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

Read "what Jerome said" again.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

All the news groups have been reporting it.  So are you saying hey are lying.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

And, you know, it doesn't matter anyway.

Jerome said if that "one vote" would have changed, Hillary would have still needed 65 percent of the remaining delegates.

Not gonna happen.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

"And if so, Clinton's chances were lost with the closed-door 14-13 (15-14 with the proxy votes included) vote to award Obama half the delegates from Michigan (which led to adopting the MDP resolution instead of the Clinton resolution or going to the credentials committee)."

1. Obama had a 14-13 vote for his 50-50 delegate split request.

  1. Instead of getting the 50-50 split, the group decided to go with the more Clinton favorable MDP position of 69-59.
  2. You're attacking Jerome, who is thoroughly in the tank for Clinton.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One RCB vote changed everything... (2.00 / 1)

Come on Jerome, you know this isn't true.  Even with that vote Hillary would still be about 100 delegates behind, and that's assuming that no uncommitted delegates vote for Obama at Denver.  Even if Hillary got everything she wanted out of Michigan and Florida, she'd still lose.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:34 PM EST

Re: One RCB vote changed everything... (2.00 / 2)

The vote didn't change much at all.

Before the vote, Obama had a massive lead and was all-but-assured the nomination.

At the vote, Obama agreed to retroactively turn a glorified poll in Florida into a half-election and essentially gift-wrapped Clinton a few Michigan delegates instead of neutralizing the delegation with a 50-50 split.

After the vote, Obama had a slightly-less-massive lead and was still the all-but-assured nominee.

If you need more proof of how electorally inconsequential the rules meeting was, look at intrade. No reaction.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One RCB vote changed everything... (2.00 / 0)

It's actually true.

But, in reality, that vote took place last year. Without that vote, everything could have changed. But you can't un-ring a bell rung six months ago.


by TCQuad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That change (none / 0)

would probably have meant Michigan's delegates would have been split 50-50.

If Michigan counted, Clinton would've gotten a hell of a lot less than 55% there IMO...hell, she might have even lost the state.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One RCB vote changed everything... (1.00 / 1)

You are spinning.

You are actually claiming that if Clinton was given the whole thing on Michigan that she would still trail by about 96 delegates?

Where are you getting this information from?

The RBC vote changed everything.  Get with the program.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 7)

Alternatively, Jerome, you might want to consider what the numbers would be if the Rules Committee had taken no action and let the rules that  both candidates signed off on stand. Obama would, of course, have an even larger lead. He made major concessions in the interests of party unity. It's time Clinton did the same.


by Beekeeper on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Stop that! Jerome is merely trying to conserve toothpaste by stuffing it back into the tube.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't try and be 'fair' (2.00 / 1)

You are obviously a sexist for not wanting to give Hillary the woman's perogative to change her mind. She was for Michigan not counting before she was against it.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (1.00 / 1)

You are a misogynist,

that comment is sexist.

Please stop.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

How is Beekeeper's comment sexist??

"Alternatively, Jerome, you might want to consider what the numbers would be if the Rules Committee had taken no action and let the rules that  both candidates signed off on stand. Obama would, of course, have an even larger lead. He made major concessions in the interests of party unity. It's time Clinton did the same."

Pray tell, what here is so offensive?

Or is it snark?  (Serious question)


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

It is sexist because I have said it is sexist and me saying something is sexist means it must be sexist.

:)


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Heh, yeah.  I just realized it was snark about 2 minutes after I posted that.  Good job making it ambiguous!


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Hey I know what I stand for as a Hillary supporter.

My principles don't change unless I decide to change them.  


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

More Obama "rules are rules" self-serving spin.

1.  NH and SC were granted RULES WAIVERS.  There's your "rules are rules".  Feh.

2.  The solution the RBC settled on, granting Obama all uncommitted AND 4 Clinton delegates has no basis in any "rules".

3.  When the Michigan Senate was trying to decide if they would hold another Election, KNOWING the "Clusterfuck" (tm-firedoglake) the MI Election/beauty contest turned into, Obama's operatives lobbied and got it shut down.

So we end up with this:  Obama gets a magical 59 delegates by the decision of ONE RBC member, and we end up with egg on our face after screwing up the most bitterly contested, bitterly fought, bitterly won, bitterly lost Dem Primary since Kennedy-Carter.

Didn't have to end up like this, and I blame Obama and especially Axelrod.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

How was it one RBC member? The vote (which was the Michigan Dem Party position, endorsed by Clinton supporter Carl Levin) was 19-8, with 5 of the 13 Clinton endorsers signing on.

Were those Clinton endorsers traitors?


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Exactly. A good number of Clinton supporters on the Rules committee recognized that Obama was leaning over backwards to accommodate Clinton's (basically nonsensical) argument and voted for the plan that passed.

I'm sorry but you can only turn reality upside down so long before people will stop listening to you.


by Beekeeper on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Careful there with them "facts".


by Frood on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

The Obama people on the comittee even turned down a result more favorable to Obama because the margin that it would have passed by would have been very narrow.  The Obama campaign took less favorable results to mitigate people like Jerome claiming that the election was stolen by the committee.  

Some, though, will only see this as foul play no matter what the facts are.  I wish it weren't so because claiming that this primary win is illegitimate helps no one but the Republicans.  


by PSockNerd on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:31:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Post PR delegate update (none / 0)


We are so lucky Clinton is out of it within the week. This is a sign of the "incoming" a Clinton camapign would take -- and this is from a liberal glossy!!

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/featu res/2008/07/clinton200807


by NYWoman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:02:01 PM EST

They threw Dee Dee Myers under the bus (none / 0)

the clinton campaign responded to the VF article, in part, by saying it was a hit job, as the author is Dee Dee Myers' husband.

The problem is, every time I've seen Dee Dee this year, she was supporting Clinton, even using their talking points versus Obama.

And as any clinton supporter would say, you can't hold a wife responsible for the action of her husband (ie NAFTA).


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They threw Dee Dee Myers under the bus (none / 0)

That piece is a piece of .... bad writing.  I doubt anyone could take it seriously.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They threw Dee Dee Myers under the bus (none / 0)

"every time I've seen Dee Dee this year, she was supporting Clinton"-Al Rodgers

Are you Chris Matthews?  Every time she has appeared on Hardball in the past 18 months, Matthews identifies her as a Clinton, supporter, and every time she corrects him and states she is uncommitted.


by mdana on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Eh, not so much. (2.00 / 5)

64-64 was also on the table.  And the 73-55 split with uncommitted unawarded would have meant at least 30 for Obama, since the of the 36 delegates already chosen for those slots, 31 were Obama supporters:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/ michigan-36-obama-gets-18.html

And presumably, the great majority of the 55 would likewise be Obama supporters, "uncommitted" or no.  So no, that one vote really didn't make much difference.  The race was over either way.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:02:09 PM EST

Re: Eh, not so much. (2.00 / 2)

No good deed goes unpunished. So they say.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:30:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Eh, not so much. (none / 0)

The only difference is that this race would then go on to the convention.  I think that would have been a huge mistake and I think that is why there was no chance of it.  That being said, AAOS (As An Obama Supporter...we need an acronym) I think he might as well have gone for 73-55 to take the moral high ground.  I know that was not really possible since Michigan did not ask for it, but if he and Clinton both asked for it, it would have happened.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 4)

God, there just had to be a little conspiracy theory thrown in there at the end.


by rfahey22 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:04:12 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Yup.

The entire primary process hinged on a single vote yesterday.


by JoeW on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

Not conspiracy...an incorrect interpretation of the facts is more accurate.  He also ignored the Uncommitteds DEMCONWATCH has public confirmation of supporting Obama, which lowered Obama's magic number by 30.  But it would have made the contest closer but would have STILL been very difficult for Clinton to win... it wasn't the wide open race Jerome thinks it was.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*            17,107,902    49.0%    16,630,063    47.6%                Obama +477,839    +1.4%


Obama/Warner 2008
by MissVA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:04:23 PM EST

those 4 states are large (none / 0)

put together, those four states add up to 27 electoral votes, the same amount as Florida.  That's a lot of EVs.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

You are a sexist MissVa who obviously hates women.

YOu put a star next to the state of Washington.  That is quite elitist.

And Virginia shouldn't count because

The First half ended FEbruary 5th and

the second half began mARCH 4

YOu voted during the intermission and thus not everybody had a chance to vote so you are disenfranchising.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Super Delegate Add-On problem (2.00 / 2)

There are 203 Super Delegates left, but that number includes 32 Add-On supers who have not been named.

Here's a list of the uncommitted Supers.  As you can see in the Add-On column, it includes 32 yet to be determined delegates.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/ superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

In essence, as of today, there are only 171 Supers.  If they all committed today, there would still be 32 uncommitted supers, cuz they've yet to be selected.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:05:26 PM EST

Re: Super Delegate Add-On problem (none / 0)

Who selects those 32 uncommitted supers?  Would it be Howard Dean, that unabashedly Clinton-loving scamp?


by edg1 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Super Delegate Add-On problem (none / 0)

The states the add-on superdelegates are from.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Super Delegate Add-On problem (none / 0)

Aha, thank you!  I've been looking at the "remaining", "required", etc. numbers for some time and trying to figure out whey they didn't quite add up.


by Frood on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:27:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

That would have represented a wider open outcome

It would have made no difference. Obama would still have a 50 pledged/100+ total delegate lead and be going into two final contests where he is favored. That's easily enough margin to make sure the outcome is the same.


by mattw on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:06:32 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Not to mention, has there been a time at any point in the last two months where superdelegates were breaking to Clinton 2-1?


by rfahey22 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

You obviously can't read

Didn't you read the diary?

The RBC vote made all the difference.

You are just making up facts as you go along.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Just fyi, sometimes snark isnt that apparent online :-)


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:58:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 3)

If the DNC had adopted my proposal to grant all delegates to me, I'd be the next president!


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:07:37 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Nominee you mean.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Technically, but I still strongly believe that just about any Democratic candidate will have a very good chance of winning.  Even Kucinich.


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

You had me until Chris Katan...err...I mean, Kucinich.  :-)


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

I supported that amendment btw.


by mchughusa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 5)

Obama would have been 70 short... He already had control of some of the uncommitted as DEMCONWATCH shows.  Please comment on that Jerome, I would like to hear your take.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:08:24 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

This is a very good point.  Obama locked up a large number of the uncommitted delegates already, which Jerome totally ignores.  It is a very deceptive talking point at the end of the diary.


by rfahey22 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

it would still have him seeing Clinton's path to victory. He's got about as much personal integrity, and objectivity, as David Gregory or Susan Estrich.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Thats uncalled for.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

perhaps. but the first point is arguably true, and the second is certainly so. it doesn't make him a "bad person"- it does make him incredibly irritating as someone who has some small level of influence amongst bloggers and the media as a whole.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 3)

Another way of looking at it is that the Clinton amendment was a crass change of position by a campaign that was driven by political expediency rather than a firm set or values and beliefs.

Clinton agreed that Michigan did not count (verified and documented).

Clinton changed her position only when the election was lost (because of  terribly run campaign).


by mchughusa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:12:51 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Your figure Jerome would have lasted as long as the uncommitted stayed uncommitted - which would have been less than a day for many.  Exactly what is your agenda?


by Piuma on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:13:19 PM EST

Jerome, you have officially ... (2.00 / 3)

c'mon . . . who are you kidding? yourself? it was over a long time ago. in your best case scenario she would be behind by 200 delegates. she never had a chance with the supers. they were just being  respectful to Clinton. she's alienated a large portion of the party and even as she was "fighting" through the last few months, she was pushing supers further and further away from her (with ridiculous arguments that insulted their intelligence). This includes people like me who once proudly endorsed and supported her. this just wasn't going to happen (a clinton win). please, you need to open your eyes a bit more. it was over in Indiana. (if not in February).


by DrPolitics on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:15:42 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 5)

"One RCB vote changed everything"

Actually, failure to run a superior campaign in all states rather than only 10 or so "battleground states" is what changed everything.


by tominstl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:20:33 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (1.00 / 2)

Nah, it was failure to convince people you've some kind of messianic figure.

Repubs had theirs in Bush. Dems now have theirs in Obama.

*shudder*


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That includes Harold Ickes (2.00 / 1)

MR. ICKES:  I think he would make a very good president, yes. (this morning on MTP)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:39:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yawn (2.00 / 1)


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You kind of have to be popular (2.00 / 1)

to win. That is hardly your little cult slam.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Bush got the position because of his family name.
As such Clinton would have been a far closer parallel to Bush.

Back in the beginning the Clinton campaign was even advertising the dynastic connection: "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush" -- I don't think they realized they were turning people off with it.


by Aris Katsaris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:47:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

17 million people voted for Obama. How dare you disrespect them.
From a Hillary supporter: We laughed as that became our mantra - "Barack can't win!"..... ....."he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there."
by Cochrane on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Enough with this "messianic figure" nonsense. Obama's an ordinary, straight-up person. He's just very smart and very organized. This "empty suit" "pied piper" "messianic figure" "obamabot" crap is really getting old. You're so invested in villainizing and dehumanizing him that you're grasping at straws.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (1.00 / 2)

Nope, I've seen it for a long time.  And I have absolutely no reason to vilify Barack Obama.

I'm a staunch Democrat and very anti-Bush and Republican.

I think it's sad, though, that any criticism of Obama is deemed vilifying him (part of my saying he's a messianic figure to his followers).  Can't tell you how often I get that from his supporters.  

Really pathetic.

The guy ran using a preacher voice, citing Scripture, and is clearly very, very arrogant, if not narcissistic.  I'm tired of those traits, frankly.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So it's ok (none / 0)

if I call Hillary Clinton a liar and a panderer?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

"The guy ran using a preacher voice, citing Scripture, and is clearly very, very arrogant, if not narcissistic.  I'm tired of those traits, frankly."

Just about the only good points you make.

Calling him a Messiah figure to his supporters is just absolute bullshit.  Especially when a) Hillary's supporters are the ones much more likely to be actively religions and b) more Jews who are actually waiting for a Messiah, vote for Hillary.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Btw, let me ask you something:

I've written two letters to columnists defending Barack Obama (way to vilify someone, huh?).

How many have you written defending Clinton?

I'm guessing not a one.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've defended her (none / 0)

against sexists among my dad's military buddies who say stuff like

"Bill needs to slap her"
or
"She needs to control the hot flashes"

and other various disgusting sexist remarks. You think the MSM and Obama are sexist? Spend a Sunday afternoon with a group of Army guys.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've defended her (none / 0)

Glad to see you defending her.  Hopefully you will continue to do so as well as defend the party nominee AND the country from Republicans.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hopefully (none / 0)

you will too


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

[ citation needed ]


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 0)

Really because the way many of the MyDD HRC supporters have talked, Hillary is perfect, walks on water and is the second coming of Christ.  Many of you do EXACTLY what you accuse Obama supporters of doing.  


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:01:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

It's unreal to see that people are willing to throw away intellectual credibility for cheap points they know aren't true, on all sides of the aisle in any political process.


by KyleJRM on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:12 PM EST

"the RBC changed everything" (2.00 / 2)

kind sounds like "9/11 changed everything"


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:32 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

But maybe if Michigan and Florida hadn't broken the rules they both would be counted. And Obama would have won Michigan and Hillary would have won Florida. Get over it. Fini


by Sylden37 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:37:02 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Hillary probably did better with FL & MI this weekend than she might have in a contested primary. FL might have tightened a wee bit but MI likely would have been something like 50-50. So while MI did not get to benefit from a real primary (due to their calendar shenanigans) the current outcome is not so far off from reasonable scenerios.

It was also a curiosity of mine as to how vociforous some Clinton advocates had pressed MI. Considering the primary violated rules - all of the candidates took their name off the ballot (save for one) - and all passed on competing in the race - given turnout was so low. How disingenuous it is to think that one should benefit mightily from such a flawed and blatantly unfair situation.


by southerndemnut on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 3)

If Clinton voters really thing the country would be better served with McCain as President - then they should just become Republicans.


by southerndemnut on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:04 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (1.50 / 6)

The RCB changed everything as Jerome smartly points out.

This would have been a wide open race.

It would have been 2016 for hillary and 2012 for Obama giving Hillary a 4 delegate lead.

And I don't want to hear any of you Obamabots criticizing me for substituting 2016 for 1916 and then claiming that a 96 delegate difference means Obama would win even if Hillary was given all the delegates in Michigan.

I'm tired of you Obama people spinning like that.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:41:17 PM EST

You were annoying at first... (2.00 / 3)

But now you're just funny. Keep it up.


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Note that I had almost finished responding to this before it my snark-sensor finally went off. That's how ridiculous it's gotten.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

 HillsMyGirl is a parody troll


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I am giving you mojo for your signature line.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

...what?


by Geiiga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

...oh, snark. I totally failed to catch it. Wow.


by Geiiga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Me too...where the hell is IsThisSnark (not to be confused with Is This Snark) when you really need him/her?


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

::virtual 2::


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will win at least 19 more on Tue. (2.00 / 3)

Add 6 more from the Pelosi club.

That leaves 21 Super delegates needed to put Obama over 2,118 he needs for the Nomination.

I expect Obama could have that many new Super Delegates join him on stage Tuesday night in Mn.

Not even all 13 of the Clinton supporters on the 30 member RBC could swallow the unrealistic wish list coming from the Clinton Campaign.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:45 PM EST

Hey Jerome (2.00 / 3)

Do you really think Obama would've done worse in the Michigan primary if his name were on the ballot and he'd have campaigned there?  I doubt it.  So, basically, they ended up giving Hillary more delegates than she's likely have gotten there.

Your "analysis" suggesting this could be close assumes, once again, that nobody in Michigan would've voted for Obama.  Not one vote.  

And you wonder why this site has such a negative vibe.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:46:06 PM EST

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

Um, it's predominantly Obama supporters posting here.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

Yeah, that must be it.

We're telling the Clinton people to drink their Kool Ade, worship their messiah, and follow their cult.

You sure have us pegged, Juno. Thank god for your DINO insight!


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.
by Massadonious on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

Ah yes, more of that change, hope and inspiration, I see.

Think Obama will have as much success with Republicans?

Lol.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

No question more Obamabots hang out here than Clinton supporters.

Way to go, Juno, I am getting to look forward to your posts.
 


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

Lol.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

You know what makes me LOL?

You.  Your constant whining about how mean the Obamabots are.  How we don't try hard enough to unite the party.  Well, I for one have done so in many posts but here's a few thoughts for you that aren't so unity inducing...

1.)  This is the INTERNET.  If you're upset because a few jerks say insulting things, get real.  I'll be damned if that isn't a GREAT reason to be upset with Obama and for you to tell everyone, over and over again, that you're going to vote for McCain.  Bravo!

2.)  I frequent two sites that purport to represent Progressives.  On this one, there's a small but vocal group, including yourself, that constantly stirs things up here, wagging your finger in everyone's face like you're a saint.  But here's the deal, go ahead and vote for whoever you want.  The vast majority of Clinton supporters will move over to the Obama side by November, if they already haven't.  There is ONE choice in this election for anyone who calls themselves a Democrat.  So, do what you want, just quit feeling the need to tell us about it.  We know you're mad and wish you well.

Or is your McCain love real?  If so, I hope you're banned soon.


I was with Obama from the start.
by SpanishFly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

Um no newbie, it isn't.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (2.00 / 2)

Barack certainly didn't like his chances in a revote, and I'm not really sure why.  He's had the media eating out of his hand for months. It's those pesky primary voters, I guess. They're so much less docile than the college students you can round up to win the caucuses.


by Upstate Dem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (2.00 / 1)

A revote paid for by his competitor and limited to only those voters who voted in the original primary.  Hmm, wonder why he didn't jump at that magnificent offer?  He must be ccccrrrraaaazzzzyyy!


by edg1 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:23:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey Jerome (none / 0)

The big sticking point for a revote was that his supporters who voted in the GOP primary trying to get the easiest Republican the win (IE Romney) would not be able to vote.  If you don't thinK hillary would have made the same call, you are nuts.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

What a fighter. A historic fight.

Out spent, corporate media hacked, race card played and she still won the most popular votes ever.

Hillary Clinton is flat out amazing and should be President.

We are not worthy.


by gotalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 4)

We are not worthy.

Man, good thing Clinton doesn't have a cult-like following.
The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 0)

Second most popular votes ever.  Obama won the most.


by edg1 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

C'mon gotalife...
we miss you at TPM
"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:22:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 5)

You've been doing so well Jerome, and your little "one vote changed everything" comment really shot the unity train to hell.  

Even getting 2/3rds of the delegates under Clinton's best-case scenario is essentially impossible, because:

1.  SD and MT are going to have roughly split pledged delegate votes.  This would be the case regardless of Obama's margins, and even if he lost.  

2.  The majority of the Michigan uncommitteds were already de facto Obama delegates.  

3.  John Edward's Florida delegates are likely to endorse Obama overwhelmingly, just as his SC, IA, and NH delegates did.  

4.  This leaves the superdelegates, who even in Obama's rough weeks have continued to break overwhelmingly for him since February.  Given the above caveats, Hillary would probably need closer to 3/4ths of the remaining superdelegates.  

Would it be impossible.  No, because Obama could always implode this week, triggering a SD flood.  But the exact same thing could happen under current conditions.

Honestly, I don't see why you're waving this bloody shirt.  I think, on legal grounds, you're correct that the result on Michigan was the worst possible, but it's not constructive to act like even under her best-case scenario her chances would have improved much.  


by telephasic on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:52:52 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 4)

"And if so, Clinton's chances were lost with the closed-door 14-13 (15-14 with the proxy votes included) vote to award Obama half the delegates from Michigan (which led to adopting the MDP resolution instead of the Clinton resolution or going to the credentials committee)."

--Not to be a nitpicker or anything, but I'd say Clinton's chances were lost when her camp had no plan after Super Tuesday, and effectively gave Obama 11 straight contests.


by ArkansasLib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:18 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Or maybe when her campaign head thought California was winner-take-all?


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 3)

One RBC vote changed nothing. You're still looking at a 100 pledged delegate vote difference, which would be overcome Tuesday night/Wednesday morning.


by Addison on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:04 PM EST

clarification... (2.00 / 1)

(100 delegate difference between Clinton and Obama, and 100 delegates needed for Obama to clinch, which would happen Tuesday/Wednesday morning).


by Addison on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So much for Jerome's (none / 0)


   and the other Clintonites predictions that 2 million Puerto Ricans, or even 1 million, would vote. Not even half a million.

  May want to be a little more humble with your damnations and predictions next time eh?


by southernman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:50 PM EST

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)

Not likely.

Many Clinton, and even Obama, supporters have been humbled in their predictions by the unpredictable nature of this election cycle and tempered their self-assured attitudes.

A few have not.


by KyleJRM on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (1.00 / 2)

Oh my gosh, an Obaman asking for humility!

ROFL!!

that's rich.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:06:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)

Stop trolling, please.


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (1.50 / 2)

I'm not a troll.

sorry to disappoint.

I know criticism of anything Obama is incomprehensible...


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)

So are voting McCain, other or abstaining?


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)

So are you voting McCain, other or abstaining?


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)


   I'll settle for an admission that they were wrong. It was ridiculous, claiming a popular vote win would happen when Puerto Rico turned out 2 million voters.

  Turns out it was a tad bit less. Oh well.


by southernman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (1.50 / 2)

I admit readily I thought Puerto Ricans would turn out in more numbers.  The soft bigotry of lowered expectations from Obamabots had a lot to do with it, I would guess.

On the other hand, the margin was so much bigger than expected that my prediction, between one and two hundred thousand votes added to Hill's total, was right on the mark.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)

Who cares?

Predictions are inherently unreliable.

Obamans predicted Obama could bring change and unity.

Nope.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)


   He's brought together an awful lot of people. Far more than Clinton has I daresay.
by southernman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:47:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)

I didn't make a PR prediction.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:11:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So much for Jerome's (none / 0)

Well, on your front page post on May 23rd "On the Popular Vote totals", you said the following:

But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico's last major election, two million people voted. Let's assume that turnout for this historic vote - Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before - will be equal to or greater than that turnout.

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).

You definitely assumed that the turnout would be close to 2 million.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Current California Polls (1.66 / 3)

If the CA primary were held today, Obama would win by double digits. It's a moot point but it's a much more relevant moot point than claiming that Hillary should get 100% of the vote in a Michigan primary which was billed as meaningless, resulting in only a tiny fraction of the electorate turning out. If you want to try to come up with outlandish change-the-rules scenarios to argue for your candidate, realize how many such claims could be argued on the other side.

Take a close look at Poblano's chart:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/m ichigans-turnout.html

Michigan, by and large, stayed home.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:04 PM EST

bogus troll rating from Elie (none / 0)

Elie - Troll-rating a comment such as the one above on the basis that you don't agree with is not permitted at this site and if you continue this behavior, you'll discover that you've been stripped of your ability to rate anything.

Try a well-reasoned rebuttal instead of a troll-rating.


McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist.
by obsessed on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current California Polls (2.00 / 2)

I would love for the CA Primary to be held again today, and Iowa, and many others.

Hillary has cleaned up the floor with Obama since mid-February, winning or tying 8 of 13 contests and winning net hundreds of thousands of votes from him.

Obama's crawling across the finish line.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Current California Polls (none / 0)

Mid Febuary?  No... Beginning of March.  

And to the point there have been 14 contests.  She has won 8.  After Tuesday, there will have been 16 contests and a good chance of an 8-8 Split.  Not the momentum he had in February, BUT hardly crawling.  Because by your rationale, Hillary would be crawling as well.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has probably peaked (1.80 / 5)

So far the public has only seen him--through the prism of the Clinton-hating media--as a gallant knight doing battle with the forces of darkness.  Voters haven't really contemplated Obama actually serving as their President.  

He doesn't bring much to the table in this area.  No accomplishments, no reason to believe that he can do anything, a man constantly having to redefine himself. (I wouldn't want to be his next pastor.)

Simply running as the un-McCain won't be enough.


by Upstate Dem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:05 PM EST

Re: Obama has probably peaked (2.00 / 1)

Obama benefitted strongly from his "newness" against Clinton, and now must redefine himself in a completely new race vs. McCain.

I don't agree that he will fail, but I agree that it is up in the air and he work to do.


by KyleJRM on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has probably peaked (none / 0)

Exactly.


by Juno on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:05:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has probably peaked (none / 0)

I agree that his legislative/political accomplishments are not as impressive as Hillary's.  Or even McCain's.  But people are voting for Obama because he represents something new.  For many Democrats, it's being part of the DFA instead of the DLC.  For some Independents, it's not being Bush.  For some Republicans, it's not being McCain.

And yes, unfortunately, for some people in all different parties, it is either because he is black or a man or both.


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has probably peaked (none / 0)

i disagree...If his policies positions do not suggest the differences, then nothing will...It is a night and day choice.


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome. I was at the RBC meeting. (2.00 / 4)

Your take on this is wrong. One RBC vote didn't decide the end of Hillary's campaign---it was her entire campaign strategy that ended it.


by slinkerwink on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:09:49 PM EST

Re: Jerome. I was at the RBC meeting. (2.00 / 1)

I read your blog.  Good stuff, Slink.  Thanks for that.  :P


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome. I was at the RBC meeting. (none / 0)

Jerome was there too.


by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I'd submit, that one little state, Iowa, changed everything...


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:55 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

It wasn't even that.

If Hillary's people knew the damn rules, they would have fought in the caucus states after Super Tuesday.

Instead, they basically took a month off, while Obama cleaned up.

Make no mistake: Hillary could have very likely won this if she didn't run such a piss poor campaign.

By the time they even realized what was going on, it was too late.

Just pathetic.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"One RCB vote changed" (2.00 / 1)

Nothing!  Senator Clinton lost on her own merits.  She started out with all the advantages and managed to punt them all away.  Want to blame someone, blame her advisors.

On to November and the White House


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:41:13 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I'm about one more "Jerome Update" like this from walking away from this site.  I am going to invest myself in trying to elect Obama in the Fall and this kind of garbage is working against that.  This is the absolute biggest load of crap I've read yet on this site.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:29 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I'm convinced that Jerome and Markos worked out an agreement where one would take Clinton and the other would take Obama.  Unlike the nuts over at 44.com, Jerome seems almost amused when people call him on the cherry-picking and spin.  I think he's playing a role.  My prediction is he embraces Obama wholeheartedly the minute Clinton concedes.


by sneakers563 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Source needed (none / 0)

What's the source for the vote total of that closed door meeting?


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:59:31 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Jerome:  Now that you concede that Obama is our nominee, I expect that you'll fall in line behind him immediately... unless, of course, this is no longer a Democratic blog.  Well?


by XoFalconXo on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:02:18 PM EST

Jerome, why are you so determined... (none / 0)

...to leave dry tinder just sitting around?

One RCB vote changed everything.


by palamedes on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM EST

Ickes vote in 2007 to penalize 100%? (none / 0)

Just asking.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

If Hillary Clinton had voted against enabling Bush on Iraq she would be the nominee. It's really as simple as that.

Don't make compromises that are evil and kill over a million people. It's not worth the Presidency or anything else. Uphold your oath and duty to the Constitution as an elected official and carry out your duty to the best of your ability.


by wengler on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:37 PM EST

RBC vote about MI is illegal (none / 0)

  • nobody can assign uncommitted delegates and votes to person who is not on ballot and you cannot steal delegates from person who was on ballot.
  • RBC members and Dean should resign.
  • And Hillary will fight in Denver for full seating of FL & MI.

Landslide of lies
by engels on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:46 PM EST

Re: RBC vote about MI is illegal (none / 0)

No one had any delegates prior to the Committee vote, because the primary didn't count.  Come on now.


by snaktime on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:42:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wider open outcome? (none / 0)

That sorta flies in the face of the last five months of SD movement, but if you want to vilify someone, Jerome, you are certainly free to.

At what point does MyDD.com join TexasDarlin`s blog on the blogroll at "McCain Supporters New Republican Party Blog?

Jerome, are you actually willing to cross that final line?

Seriously, this is getting surreal...

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:59:01 PM EST

nevertheless... (none / 0)

Clinton's Victory speech in Puerto Rico:


by 4justice on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST

Is this still a Democratic blog? (none / 0)

Serious question.


by gcensr on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:34:56 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

15-14 vote?  What are you talking about?  The vote was 19-8 with 5 Clinton supporters voting aye!!  And Obama had the votes to make MI 50/50, but chose not to for the sake of unity and to give you guys a break... of course you still complain with the gift you were given.

The Clinton proposal was preposterous, and you know it!  BTW, you didn't include John Edwards' delegates in Obama's column... most have already declared for him....


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:41 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I think he's claiming that the 50/50 split passed 15-14.  With victory in hand, the Obama supporters (graciously) accepted the compromise proposal.

Jerome worded it clumsily.


by sneakers563 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's your point Jerome Armstrong? (2.00 / 0)

I am really tired of responding to the Clinton camp fuzzy math. I just want to make a political point. Jerome Armstrong is accusing the "party insiders" for "giving" the nomination to Obama. They have been arguing all along about electability and all that in an attempt to convince other party insiders to give it to Clinton. That is, unless they give it to Clinton insiders are bad. This is hypocrisy at its maximum. You have no principles and no values. Just a desire to win. But it ain't gonna happen this time. The Clinton era is over. We are moving to the new phase for the Democratic party, the United States of America, and the world.


by hania on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:58:44 PM EST

Phantom Rec! (none / 0)


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:47:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Your last sentence is a total non sequitor, Jerome.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:31:38 AM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

One RCB vote changed everything.
That's an interesting way of putting it.

I think most observers would say something more like "One RCB vote didn't make the enormous change the Clinton camp was asking for."


by Frood on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:11:20 AM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

What gives you any reason to believe Clinton will get 65% of the uncommitted superdelegates?  Even that wouldn't be enough when Obama gets 16 or 17 delegates on Tuesday from Montana and South Dakota, and when he continues to win most of the add-ons.  This hyperbole is embarassing.  Stop hitting the beehive Jerome, you're just making it harder for everyone in the long run.  Obama will become our nominee fair and square.


by Skaje on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:18:30 AM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

R.I.P  DLC


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:23:31 AM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

For Jerome...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NaVpv9js To
"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:55:22 AM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I was tracking the exact stats that Jerome mentions.  65% is right on.  But for some perspective, on 5/24, she needed 60% of the remaining delegates.  It was going up about 1 percentage point per day.  Basically, she was needing that percentage of each day's delegates, and she kept on undershooting the mark.  Obama was consistently getting more superdelegates than her each of those days, and it's been that way for weeks now.  Even today, she got 69% of the day's delegates, which would have been just more than enough to keep her steady (Obama had a 2-0 superdelegate day since then).  And that percentage would have climbed more after Montana and South Dakota.  I really doubt that Hillary would have gotten 65% - 70% of the superdelegates to go with her, not if they weren't already after West Virginia and Kentucky.


by tunesmith on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:14:55 AM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Jerome, my conclusion to this comment is that your "1 RCB vote changed everything" spin is pretty ridiculous.  You don't think that it was ridiculous for 14 people to be arguing that Obama should have been awarded zero support in Michigan?  Why not look at the actual facts behind the artful "way of looking at it"?

At any rate, there's on more point here.  Say Michigan had been awarded at 73-0, 100% power, with 55 uncommitted.  Obama already had somewhere between 31 and 35 of those 55 uncommitted pledged to him through the district conventions.  And the remaining 19 statewide had yet to be elected.  There's no way Clinton was going to get 65% of those delegates.  So her percentage was going to be going up again.

Any way you look at it, the 65% number is a non-starter.

Do you even read this stuff?


by tunesmith on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

It would have changed, in the sense of not being over. Being at 60 or 65 is a lot different than being at 82.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

One vote? (none / 0)

Your Michigan position is such that the committee really didn't even consider it but considered its opposite.

The logical decision for a one-candidate primary would be to make EVERY Michigan delegate Uncommitted.

Seriously, the "one vote" that changed everything was each one vote following Super Tuesday when Clinton didn't have a plan. That's where the election was won, and lost.


by mcd410x on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And why (none / 0)

And why does Puerto Rico get to vote and why do we care?  They don't get to vote in the General so why should they be permitted to vote in a primary.


Scy
by scytherius on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:18:27 AM EST

Look, I respect your right to have an opinion, (none / 0)

but you're deluding yourself if you think one RBC vote changed this.  It was February that changed this, and HRC was not prepared for the elections that month.  I'm sorry that she didn't prepare for them.  I think it WOULD HAVE BEEN an interesting fight to the last delegate then.  But the fact remains that February is where Obama got his delegate lead, and that same delegate lead has remained more or less in tact with or without MI and FL.


by The Distillery on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:18:16 AM EST

Jerome - a typo in your post (none / 0)

One RCB vote changed everything.

I think you misspelled "failed to change anything."

Have some cheese to go with that.


by RT on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:41:01 AM EST

Re: slightly disingenuous... (none / 0)

...to imply Clinton getting the nod would be doable if she had gotten what she wanted on Saturday.  Of those remaining delegates, 34 are yet unpicked add-on delegates, which Obama is likely get at least half of.  She'll probably get less than half the 31 pledged delegates at stake in the last two states.  Spot her 32 out of the above numbers, and she'd need about 70% of the remaining MI uncommitteds, Edwards pledged delegates, and undeclared superdelegates.  But Obama supporters had already gotten at least 18 Obama-supporting pledged delegates selected in the first stage of Michigan's delegate selection process, so if you subtract those out, Clinton would have needed about 3/4 of the remaining pool of delegates.  Basically, if/when Obama gets another 50-60 superdelegate endorsements, this thing is over, regardless of what might happen at the credentials committee, because he will still have 2210+, even under her best case scenario.

And once he has that number, there's no need for her to pretend she can still alter the outcome.  For the sake of party unity, the best thing for Clinton to do is drop out and endorse Obama by this Friday.  Suspending her campaign is also acceptable, though a bit cynical on her part.  


by megaplayboy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:39:31 AM EST

talking of "changing everything" (none / 0)

can we have a new, "unified" delegate counter please, since the party has made a ruling on this matter which the state parties have accepted and surely no-one now thinks FL and MI are going to get full representation? Other sites have already done this; things seem to be a bit slow around here.


by al1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:41:44 AM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

But to show where we would be if the Clinton resolution had been adopted, this would stand at 1916.5 for Clinton, 2012 for Obama, 55 uncommitted, and 13.5 for Obama. Obama would lack 105 delegates, or about 35 percent, and Clinton would lack 202.5 delegates, or about 65 percent, of the remaining delegates. That would have represented a wider open outcome.

One RCB vote changed everything.

In plain English, "if the committee had adopted the Clinton resolution, which represented the most extreme outcome possible, and which no sentient being actually expected WOULD be adopted, then Clinton's statistical odds would have been more favorable."


by joeldanwalls on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:18 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: