Why not broker the deal NOW if that's what you want to do?

It's funny that yesterday I'm on here stating all of the reasons a fight to the convention are bad: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party 3) Reps. have their candidate decided which means a better intrastructure.

Those points were brushed aside by a lot of people. Then I hear one of the democratic leaders on my local news show today and he states that the longer this goes it's bad for the dems because: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party, 3) McCain is already working on his intrastructure.

Then he added that the one good thing is that Obama would get a lot of tough questions out of the way now.

I'm happy he found the needle of hope in the haystack of misery at the end, but the end will not justify the means. Her going to convention is going to be brutal for the dems come November.

Here is the thing IS, she doesn't want the dem chair. She wants the presidency and she's going to do whatever it takes to get it. She knows damned well she isn't going to win the delegate count now. She's not getting out because she wants to broker a backroom deal with the superdelegates to beat out Obama. That would be nightmare central for the democratic party. There is a very real chance it would spell the end of the party as we currently see it.

Well of course she wants the Presidency and will do whatever it takes... but as far as consolation prizes go, she'll get far better ones the more scared Howard Dean gets.

Why should she back out now? If she goes to the convention and manages to wrangle the nom via back room dealings, she's happy. If she doesn't, but the protracted fight ruins Obama's chances, then in 4 years she can run again, saying "you should've elected me last time." If you're Hillary, and all you care about is winning the Presidency, party be damned, then fighting to the convention is a no lose situation for you.

It appears that Obama is going to offset the delegates gained by Hillary in the Texas primary with a strong showing in the caucus. That would tend to support the theory that there were a lot of crossover voters for Hillary, as these voters more than likely aren't going to return in the evening to attend the caucus.

When will we know the full delegate count?

People predicting some kind of "bloodbath" need to relax. You're buying into the media's penchant for hyperventilation. I've been involved in elective politics professionally now for almost 20 years. This primary race doesn't even qualify as rough. The Bush campaign's infamous push-polling in the SC primary in 2000, where they alleged that McCain had an out-of-wedlock black child -- that was rough. Questioning Obama's ability to lead in a crisis is, frankly, a good question to ask. You can be sure McCain will ask it again and again and again and again and again.

Democratic superdelegates will be asking the same question, too. And they should.

I say they offer Hillary a deal that she fades away into obscurity. :)

I heard a rumor though that if McCain wins he is working out to be adopted by the Bush's or the Clinton's so the royal families can continue. ;)

Not that I have a pony in this fight, but CNN exit poll data indicates that Republicans voted more for Obama. The data could be corrupted of course, but it's a pretty significant edge (7%).

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/pri.../epolls/#TXDEM

I say people care about polls too much.

A poll on our local paper's website had Ron Paul getting more votes then anyone down here. I was 1 of 264 people down here to vote for him. :D

I'll just state for the record that I don't really have a horse in the race at this point. I'll probably vote for McCain in the GE, but honestly, I don't think it matters which of these three get in. I don't think any of them are going to give us some monsterous improvement or catastrophy. I could actually be swayed against McCain fairly easily.

I'm just finding this a fascinating thing to watch. The media is making this seem like it's anyones ballgame now. It isn't. If Hillary didn't gain 70 or more delegates last night, this is over as far as the delegate count in concerned. Over. Done. Finito. She has no chance of winning. Go ahead and revote Michigan and Florida. She's not going to get 60+ percent of the remaining delegates.

So she's staying in the race to try and sway the super delegates and broker a deal of some sort. She has every right to do it. I'm not for an instant saying she doesn't. I'm just wondering why die hard dems aren't coming out more against it. I think the biggest thing is that most them don't understand how delegates work and exactly what she has to do to catch up. If CNN came on tomorrow and said "Hillary needs to take the next 16 states at over 63% to catch Obama in delegates," I think the uproar would be heard around this country.

I'm reading newspaper articles this morning talking about how Hillary has now switched the momentum, how her attacks have worked and are acting as though this is coming back to her somehow. Guess what boys and girls, it isn't. In the delegate battle, she's done. Last night was not a victory for her, it was a complete and total disaster. It was like being down on away goals 4-0 and getting a 1-0 win at home in the second leg. Sorry. You aren't close.

As for her in four years? I think her windown will have closed. This is her chance. She knows she's lost the delegate count. It's all about backroom brokering now.

In Texas, they've counted all of the primary votes. The caucus tally probably won't be final until this evening. Most districts are only between 20 and 40% completed.

http://precinctconventionresults.txd...tion08district

20 years? 5 elections? So you've went through the elder Bush election, the Clinton elections and the Bush2 elections?

Hate to break it to you, there hasn't been a battle that went to the convention for awhile now. Actually, the last time was 1976. Reagan and Ford went to the Republican convention with the race still to be decided. Ford won and then lost to Jimmy Carter. Think about that for a second. It's not the only time tight primary races that went to the convention floor has ended up in a loss for the party. Quite the opposite, it's what happen a majority of the time. The party in turmoil gets beat in the general election.


Oh, and if the super delegates give this to Hillary in a back room deal? You really think the African American voter base stays democratic at that point? You think that'd be a good thing for the democratic party? I can assure you it wouldn't end well. It wouldn't end well at all.

But you're the experienced one, you should know that. . .

Right now, things don't look so rosy for the Democrats - no matter who wins the nomination, 49% of the democratic electorate is going to be bitter that their candidate is cooked. Which is sad, since the winner and often even the loser of the democratic primary has been getting more votes than the entire GOP field.

So the two democratic candidates need to start "playing nice" and make it easy for the supporters of the losing candidate to support the winner.

IMO, however, it isn't going to matter, because once the campaign against McCain starts, that guy is history. No way McCain can survive that - there is just way way too much baggage to use against him, as if "100 more years in Iraq" isn't enough by itself.

That's the thing with politics though. Many on this board are saying the Republicans are voting for Clinton to prolong the race, but the polls show otherwise. However, it will almost certainly be ignored as inaccurate. Funny how that works when the data doesn't support your argument.

Everyone needs to realize that not only can Clinton not win without super delegates, but Obama almost certainly cannot either. Using CNN's Delegate Counter Game, there are 613 unassigned delegates, with Obama having 1321 and Clinton 1186 pledged delegates before factoring the Texas caucus. Assuming a 37-30 caucus win for Obama, that leaves the counts at 1358 and 1216, respectively. By my math, that means neither can win the delegation without superdelegates, and, in fact, neither will be all that close (even at 66% of the remaining delegates for Obama, the total count is 1762 to 1424).

In other words, no matter the outcomes of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and Puerto Rico (the 4 largest votes remaining by delegation), the 800 superdelegates WILL decide the Democratic nominee. Consequently, I'm not really understanding why everyone thinks Clinton should bow out. Why shouldn't Obama bow out? Neither is going to win without some type of deal mongering (superdelegates, FL/MI, a brokered settlement).

I agree with many who say the DNC is screwed. You give the election to Obama and you most certainly disenfranchise the Latino vote and possibly FL/MI and white women. You give it to Clinton you lose the black vote and the young vote. It is a lose-lose situation unless one of them gives in and I don't think either will.

Anybody pretending this race isn't a nightmare for the Democratic party is either delusional or a spinner.

Super Grover,

Agreed, but the key at this point is who has more "regular" delegates. Let's face it, the democratic party is the "blue collar" party. The Republicans are supposed to be the ones who disenfranchise voters, make backroom deals and go against the will of the people.

If the super delegates win the election for Hillary after she's lost the regular delegate count by 150 to 200? It's a bigtime nightmare for the party. It's something they can't recover from. I think they could recover if they give it to Obama at that point, especially if Hillary gives a nice concession speech and says it's the best thing for the party.

OK, now I'm the dillusional one. :)

Anyone saying this race is a nightmare for the Democratic party is rubbing their hands together on the sidelines, hoping they will fail anyway.

100% false.

Some are, sure. But you don't have to be a democratic hater to see what is happening here. Explain to me why it's a good thing to have a nasty race that encompassing two of your largest favorable voter groups.

You can't. It's not a good thing. If this goes to the convention floor, the dems will lose the race to The White House. Book it now.

Certainly if one of them concedes gracefully then everything will be fine, but neither is going to concede. They are simply too close for either to give up.

My point is that the prevailing theme on this board is that Clinton should bow out because she can't win the delegate count. Since Obama cannot either, I don't see the point. There is going to be shady politics involved by the nature of the Democratic primary system. You think Clinton supporters are going to sit idly by and acquiesce because Obama 5% more of the regular delegation? You don't think that Latinos are gonna be pissed that their voices weren't heard? What about Florida and Michigan? You don't think there is gonna be disenfranchisement either way?

I am a democrat and think this race and the most liberal Republican candidate in years will ultimately cost us the election in November.

Something tells me that Clinton isn't exactly a "take one for the team" kinda gal.

You are assuming it will go to the convention floor. Even if it does, you are assuming the Republicans have a candidate that will be able to capitalize on any possible lingering bad blood. He can't. He is the worst candidate they could possibly have come up with. He is alienating the party loyal, and will be exposed as a panderer on a scale 4x worse than Bill Clinton in the general election.

If the race continues on for a couple more months, Obama and Clinton get a chance to get all of their warts in front of the public months earlier than normal. By November, they will have been forgotten or forgiven. Most Democrats will vote for the party nominee. Self-described independents will continue to not vote, as usual. Meanwhile, nobody will be talking about McCain. Except Fox News and the occasional blurb in mainstream media talking about how he doesn't know who to campaign against yet.

I love it when you get all worked up about something, Troy. You will be in this thread from now until June arguing this point if you had to. Which is fine. But that doesn't make your or my statement of opinion any more "100% false". They are simply 2 competing opinions.

As someone mentioned before she benefits by fighting to the bitter end. If Obama wins the nomination and loses the General, she can run again in four years and still be a viable candidate (she'd be 64). If he wins the GE, she can know that she gave it her all. if she wins the nomination, she got what she wanted. It's a win-win situation for her personally.

Actually it is 100% false. Super Grover is a dem and stated he thinks they'll lose because of it. I don't think he's excited to lose the election or see the dems fail. Therefore your assertion in your first post is 100% false.

I like how I get called out for making widespread generalizations in your post, yet you are the one who stated the biggest one.

can something be "100% false"?

I mean it's either true or false.

Unless you are telling me there is such a thing as big and little coincidences as well.

Actually, you're right. That first blanket statement I made is 100% false. I was just trying to out-hyperbole saint cronin.

I think none of you really know what you are talking about, and you all have a 50-50 chance of being right.

1) They should redo Michigan and Florida. It won't matter in the overall delegate count, but they need to do it for those voters. Anything else is a black eye for the democratic party from the word go. The same people who accused the Reps of screwing over Florida in the last two elections are going to do it now? No way. I think they'll have a redo on both of those states.

2) I think Obama is going to get about 55% of the total delegates in the end and carry around 34-36 of the primaries even after MI and FL are added in. That's enough of a majority to give the nod to him. If the back door dealings get done to give Hillary the nomination, I don't think there is any hope of the dems winning the election.


3) If Obama is given it, it's still going to piss people off. I do think more Hillary people will move to Obama than the other way. Just an opinion on that one, but I think he's less divisive and more people will move to him. Then I think the dems have a chance. But I don't think this can go to the floor. If it does (and unless one candidate backs down, it will end up being decided there) will cause a loss for the democratic party.

4) I really don't think Hillary gets it in four years. I think this is her best shot and if she doesn't win here, it's going to have a long term impact on her as a viable candidate down the road.

Yes, but there's only a 10% chance of that.

Nope, you weren't. The latest count has her picking up 12, with Obama gettting much of what Clinton gained back from the caucus. So, your less than half of 30 looks to be 100% true.

Now it is looking like Obama will win the delegate count in Texas. He stands to pick up 7 delegates more than Hillary in the caucus, giving him a net gain of 3 in the state.

The only thing I agree with Troy on is that a floor fight will be bad for the party. How bad? It's hard to tell. Remember that in 1968 after an assassination, a failed President, and a truly ugly primary and convention, Humphrey only lost the popular vote by less than 1%. A few hundred thousand votes changing in CA and the election would have gone to the House of Representatives.

All the talk of the Democratic Party dissolving is way overblown. Even if McCain wins there will still be pickups in both the House and Senate and a majority of Governors will still have a D. A floor fight will be bad, but I fully expect things to be settled one way or the other by the end of May.

For the most part, I agree. Though as a Democrat voting in the state of Michigan, I am not too upset at the whole thing. For whatever reason, I don't feel that terribly disenfranchised by the whole affair. Actually at this point, I have reached campaign fatigue. I am really getting tired of this whole thing and the idea of a "redo" in Michigan is a bit nauseating at the moment.


I agree wholeheartedly. If it comes down to the super delegates and they end up, despite the "will of the people of the Democratic party", nominating Hillary over Obama, I think that could be a devastating to the party. I can't imagine they'd be that stupid, though based on how the party's been run the last 8 years or so, I wouldn't put it pass them. I think it would seal the deal for a McCain presidency and disenfranchise a lot of folks, including me most likely.


I agree, people will be pissed, but the reaction wont be nearly as harsh. Not only is Obama less divisive, but he's sort of the "newcommer" to whole thing and the Clintons are like the royalty of the Democratic insiders.

If Hillary does this, it'll be considered the result of slick, back door dealings with the established liberal elite. If Obama pulls it off, it will be because the Democratic party has sensed the desire for "change" and is moving forward in an exciting, new direction.

What are you talking about? The word "convention" didn't even appear in my post. If you're going to insult me, at least do me the courtesy of reading my post first.

But since you called me out, let's talk.

Bringing up the 1976 convention is your first mistake. In 1976, brokered conventions were nothing unusual. Barely even half the states had a primary at that time. A huge portion of delegates were either selected at conventions (ala WV GOP today) or by party elders in the back room you worry about so much.

Ford lost that election because his last boss had resigned and because of dissatisfaction among his base because of Viet Nam. The convention had little to do with it. Actually, the 33 point gap after the Dem convention closed a bit after the Republicans held their's.

The back room superdelegate thing is a joke you've bought into. You'd need at least 200 of the remaining unpledged superdelegate Democrats (many of whom are elected and accountable to their constituencies) to 1) get into a room, 2) decide on a course of action, and, 3) go do it. If you had any experience in Democratic politics, you'd know how ridiculous this is. Just accomplishing #1 is would be a herculian effort.

Now if it gets down to a 10-20 superdelegate lift, that might be possible for HRC. Then it would be up to Obama to either take one for the team or blow it all up. But, still, that seems very unlikely.

The point I actually made, which seemed to escape you, is that by any realistic measurement, this is hardly a "bloodbath." The Gantt/Helms campaign I worked on in 1990 -- that was nasty. This primary race is a walk in the park.

I agree with chesapeake's point that this has been a fairly civil campaign for the Dems.

I don't see the Democratic primary as a negative right now, either. The party has its rules and procedures for its nomination and the media is overplaying its dissatisfaction that it is still going on, rather than wrapped up. I think most normal folks (that are not overly obsessed with politics and are looking on something to have outrage over) recognize that the primary can be/is a process and that process is still not over.

It is certainly nothing approaching a bloodbath at present. In my opinion, this is actually good for Obama. One of my fears over supporting him (I am sort of in a toss-up between Obama and Clinton right now, sort of lightly leaning Obama) is that he will get railroaded by the Republicans while he tries to stay "above the fray." Essentially, will he be the type of candidate that brings a knife to a gunfight. We know that the Clintons know how to and will fight, so this going to either strengthen or expose Obama, in my opinion.

+1

good points Swaggs

It's starting to get more bitter by the day. Look at the ads in Texas and Ohio for proof. Hillary has just started with the attacks. Trust me, it's getting ugly and will end in a bloodbath.

The only "facts" I've brought up are proven. Anyone can look at the delegate count and anyone can grab a delegate count calculator and figure up what it's going to take for Hillary to overtake Obama. (Hint: it aint happening in terms of the normal delegates, that ship has sailed)

The rest is opinion. That's opinion on both sides, not just me. The people who say this isn't going to be bad for the democratic party are no more right than I am. We are all voicing an opinion based off of history, how we view the current events and what we think will happen in the near future.

Mine may end up being spectacularly wrong. Obviously, I don't think they will or I wouldn't voice them. Doesn't mean I'll be correct. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong either. And as far as facts go, I have my facts straight. If you can find something factually wrong in the numbers I've given, feel free to show where those are and how you came up with them.

If not, it may be time to sit this one out and let the grown ups have a discussion.

I’m somewhat surprised that so many people think super delegates have some written code that they’re supposed to abide by, such as voting proportionally to the popular vote, or voting for the candidate who won their congressional district. If that was the case, they wouldn’t have created super delegates to begin with. The fact of the matter is that they can vote for whoever the hell they want to. Those are the rules that everyone agreed to participate under.

Is it fair? Who knows? Is it fair to have 1% of the registered voters (with an excess of free time on their hands) pick their state's delegates, instead of opening it up to the entire electorate? Is that an accurate representation of "the people's will"?

I didn't see or hear any bitter ads from her in Texas

*shurg*

1) I don't think the media is overplaying the dissatisfaction angle. Many of my democratic friends are sitting in either the Hillary camp or the Obama camp and all of them have said it'll be difficult to vote for the other candidate. The people who don't like Hillary, HATE Hillary. I mean, truly despise her. Many of the people who don't like Obama think he's simply not experienced enough to be president. Those people will fly to McCain.

2) I agree with you on Obama geting a challenge. It's good that he's getting a stiff challenge and is having to go into the fray. The problem is he's getting this after he's already all but clinched the delegate battle. If the Super Delegates give this thing to Hillary, it WILL get ugly for the dems. In other words, I wish he'd have had these attacks about a month ago before he started his huge run.

3) My bloodbath comments come from what I see in these next six to eight weeks. (not to mention how this gets when it hits the floor, I believe that's where this will end) Hillary went in complete attack mode this past week and she'll be doing more of it. The 3AM phone ads were powerful and she's going to hammer those home in PA. She isn't going to get NICER now that she's won Texas and Ohio and still not made up any ground in the delegates. She's going to get meaner and nastier before this next two months are over. (especially after she gets hammered in WY and MS, which I think happens over the next week)

All a prediction, nothing more, nothing less. We'll see how it plays out.

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

Vic,

I'm not saying the super delegates are required to do anything. They aren't. They have the vote and can do whatever they want with it.

I am saying that if they go against the popular vote or the standard delegate count, the Obama voters are going to be majorly aggravated. And that the democratic party will lose a vast majority of those voters. Again, my opinion, nothing more. (I have to keep saying that now so people don't think I'm acting as though I know it all. I don't. This is fun to me and I'm fascinated to see how this plays out)

I don't think the dems have any chance in hell of winning the general election if the Obama voters think Hillary engineered a backroom deal to become the candidate.

No, not really. I thought the ad was kind of silly, it really doesn't matter when the call comes in, does it?

No question she's FOS on this issue. She has the same three years of experience that Obama has, compared to McCain's 25 years.

I'll have to take a shower after this but...

I think the perception that she is playing on by saying she has "more experience" is the eight years she spent in the White House. Remember, many still think of her as the Co-president during her husbands terms, which is where she gets most of her support (IMHO).

By the sound of your friends, it sounds as if their minds are made up and the primary process means very little to them. The Democratic primary lasting six or ten weeks longer does not appear as if it will have much of an impact on them. In the end, I suspect the Republican or Democrat candidate that can get the most of these type of folks that are deciding whether it is better to sit it out or hold their nose while voting for someone who is not their ideal candidate but most closely matches their opinions on key issues will probably be our next president. If your friends literally hate Hillary or absolutely think Obama is not qualified to be president, whatever happens in the primary over the next month or two is not likely to have much of an affect on them.

I think you are "handing" the bid to Obama a little bit prematurely (even though I think he will eventually win--both delegate-wise and superdelegate-wise). I get the impression that you do not like the concept of the superdelegates and how they may be swayed and/or won over by the candidates, which I can understand. The race is still very, very close. Still, the DNC set up the (flawed?) system and, if Hillary remains close, why wouldn't she try to appeal to the superdelegates to get them to swing it to her? She obviously thinks she is the best candidate for the job, has been leading/organizing thousands of loyal supporters for nearly a year to try to reach the presidency, and is trying to win the nomination. It would be extremely gracious of her to concede at this point, but there is still some life in her campaign, so I don't mind her continuing on at this point. Again, in the end, I think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and, more importantly, I don't think there is any indication that enough super delegates would side with Hillary over Obama (I would suspect it will be pretty close to 50-50 if a deal is not brokered before the convention).

I think Hillary's ads were effective because they raised a legitimate point AND because they coincided with her very effective criticism of the media giving Obama a free pass, which lead the media to consider her point and act (overact?) upon it. The PAC ads in the general election are going to be 100x more cutting and negative than the most negative criticisms we have seen in the Democratic primary. As I mentioned, I think it is going to be good for Obama's campaign for him to take a few shots now to harden him, as well as getting some of his warts out now, rather than closer to election day when they may be impactful. I also think it will force him to sharpen his message on some of the areas where his views are not well known and/or still undefined.

I can understand your vantage point, but I think you are assuming the worst-case scenario much too early. I definitely agree that, should Hillary somehow get a tremendously unbalanced amount of the super delegates to swing things to her after Obama has won a majority of the states and their delegates, then the Democratic party will suffer major damage--most notably disenfranchising a lot of African-American voters that have traditionally been very loyal to the party (which would change the face of the party significantly). But, I honestly think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and that their voting will likely reflect that of the actual voters (where it will be very close to 50-50).

Did you not hear the audio of the conference call from Team Hillary last night? The one where the Obama campaign jumped in? Hell, the fact that Obama called McCain last night and said he was looking forward to the general election in the fall (and then let the media know about it). That's a nasty little dig at Hillary.

I have a question for those of you who are outraged over the super delegate process.

Where is your outrage over Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington, Maine and Hawaii holding caucus systems that tend to favor affluent people with a lot of free time on their hands, and where in some states 1% of the party’s registered voters select the state’s delegates. How is that any different than some of the “banana republics” that we sit back and excoriate? So, where is your outrage over suppressing the will of the people in those states that don’t hold primaries?

Also, where is your outrage in disenfranchising millions of voters in Michigan and Florida, who will have no say in their party’s nominee?

Or is your outrage selective, depending on whether or not your candidate benefits in these situations?

You can't put the caucus system and the FL/MI issue in the same basket. The key is, what were the agreed upon rules? Both Obama and Clinton agreed to abide by the decision of the DNC to withhold those delegates because of conflicts with the primary schedule. Clinton and the pols from MI and FL don't have a right to change the rules that were agreed to by the Dem candidates.

The super delegates were also agreed to by both candidates, so I don't really think any decision would be "unfair" The key for me is who is the strongest general election candidate. At this point it seems that Obama is stronger than Clinton. If that changes, so be it, but I would not want the super delegates to put the weaker of the two candidates on the general election ballot.

If you want to start a big change in voting in the U.S. I'm all for it. We need extended early voting, mandatory time off for voting, mail-in voting, etc. to open the process to as many people as possible. Both at the primary and general election level things are completely screwed up.

I'm confused about your statements, VV, regarding outrage over the super delegates. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of that in this thread. It seems you are arguing a point that people aren't making.

As for Michigan and Florida, they decided to not follow their agreed upon rules, and they knew the potential consequences of their decision. That is why their delegates are not eligible as it stands now to be recognized at the convention. There was almost no campaigning done in those two states, and most candidates didn't even bother to go through the motions to get themselves on the ballot there, when it was known way in advance that the delegates wouldn't count. There's no disenfranchising going on there. People knew going in that their votes for delegates wouldn't be considered valid by the party. If the voters of that state are upset, it should be at their state bosses, who made the decision.

...or the Democratic party and their asinine rules

Your point is well taken, and I suppose it was more of a rhetorical question as it pertains to the posters in this thread. However, there seems to be a growing outrage within the democratic party (mostly from Obama's supporters) over the role of the super delegates, yet they seem to be just fine with the "banana republic" caucus system that they have immensely profited from.

In the states that have had primaries, where all registered democrats were free to vote, Clinton has 1052 elected delegates to Obama's 1049. It's somewhat ironic that Obama's huge advantage with African-American voters hasn't given him the overall delegate lead, but rather it's the lopsided scores he's racked up in the caucus states, where as I mentioned are sometimes representative of only 1% of the registered voters.

I am not outraged in the least by the super delegate process. I think the super delegates should do their job. Pick the person they think will win in November.

That said, if you think the Obama supporters are just going to meekly zip their lips and follow Hillary to the general election if they have a 5 to 10% lead in the regular delegates, you are kidding yourself.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The die hard Obama voters are going to feel betrayed by the democratic party if it goes that way. (and that is the ONLY way Hillary can win. Again, I don't give a damn about MI and FL, hell add a state or two more to that if you want, Hillary is not going to catch Obama in the regular delegates, she's not beating him 65-35 in every state the rest of the way, that's a pipe dream that isn't happening)

By contrast the Hillary supporters can do like VV did. Point out the advantage in the caucases and point out the victories in the big states, as well as the critical states for the election like Ohio.

It keeps coming down to the same thing: The loser's support base is not going blindly to the winners support base. Quite the opposite, they have a nice liberal leaning (R) waiting to grab their votes. The die hard Republicans? A percentage will go for Obama simply because they are sucked in by his speeches and the promise of change. Are any of them going over if Hillary is the nominee? Hell no.

It's nice that we can have a civil discussion about the issues and all hold our hands up in the air and say "that's the rules, Hillary won this thing fair and square with the super delegates" I don't think that's what the general population is going to be saying. I'll be honest here, if that happens it wouldn't shock me if there were riots outside of The Pepsi Center in late August.

Before anyone slams me, I'm not saying that in terms of race. Obama has the support of most of the young voters. He dominates that age bracket. Some of these people think he could put on a cape and fly if he wanted to. (I know most people here know somebody like that, don't lie) If they feel Hillary won with the backroom dealing of superdelegates? I don't think it ends well. I also don't think the GE ends well for the dems.

I've stated it repeatedly here and there is nothing to do now but watch how it turns out, but I can say I think if:

1) this goes to the floor
2) Hillary wins by super delegates (the only way she can)

That the dems have a 0.000001% chance in the GE. I think she'll get slaughtered.

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much from the democratic primaries when it comes to Obama's potential defectors from republican voters. He has been somewhat shielded during the early primaries by his great eloquence and ability to avoid specifics pertaining to his voting record and stand on the issues. This won't be the case during the general election. The American electorate tends to be center/right, and Obama's voting record isn't going to play very well in the battleground states (where he has to win those center/right voters to have any chance). The same goes for Clinton if she somehow manages to get the nomination.

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

I'm pulling for Obama, but I don't see that ad as nasty or bitter.

But I like the jokes from it better. Like when she picks up the phone, and the person at the other end says, "Can I speak to Bill?" or is she all that good when it takes 7 rings before she answers it.

The Rezko thing could be huge. Is the trial supposed to play out before the convention?

"Senator McCain, you supported the surge...."

Good night, game over. Thanks for playing.

As an aside, I like how
A) every Democrat that you can pick out "has a voting record identical to (implied Superliberal dig) Ted Kennedy
B) Because John Kerry ran in 2004, he is now always the second one in that statement
C) In general, everyone in both parties, save about 10, have "nearly identical records" since everyone votes with their parties, but you never hear "But X is a dirty Conservative just like Sam Brownback" or anything like that

SI

I do know how big of a deal it's going to be. Which is why I'm saying the dems need all of their resources (money) and all of their intrastructure (people on the ground running) and all of their parties key dynamics (Latinos, women, african americans) fully backing the candidate they choose.

It's the entire basis for what I've been saying here. This fight is going to get uglier and it's going to split the party in two. It's also going to allow McCain to store money in the coffers and get his intrastructure lined up long before the dems will be even thinking about that. The dems are already in a tough race. They can't afford what is happening right now and the longer it plays out the worse it gets.

Fixed. :)

Also lost in the discussion about the Florida and Michigan primaries is that it wasn't only the Democrats that meted out punishment. The Republicans also are going to penalize each state half their delegates for the same early primary decision.

Troy: Money and infrastructure won't play into this. The Dem candidate will have plenty of money and the infrastructure in the swing states in particular is already much stronger than 2004 due to these primaries. Look at the turnout for these primaries. The candidates have done a great job of building the party and Dean's 50 state strategy has been paying dividends.

I guarantee that if this primary is determined before the convention the party will be fine. Even if it goes to the floor the idea that the party will irreparably split is as silly as thinking McCain will destroy the Republicans. People will scream and shout for a while and then things will go back to normal.

Vic: Polls don't match up with what you're saying. Look at the latest Kansas poll where McCain still wins, but Obama takes a huge chunk of the independents, more tan making up for the slightly lower percentage of Dems he gets compared to Clinton. A lot of state right now are showing similar numbers. If Obama is the nominee McCain loses more independents than he gains Democrats.

Clinton will go negative. A negative campaign hurts Obama much more than it hurts her. And negative campaigns work. (I know that you personally never fall for them. But they still work. Funny that.)

Will he still win? Probably. But not definitely. And in any event it is good practice for him. Clinton is pulling out all the tricks that the GOP will against him: claiming media bias until people start to beleive it; using surrogates to sling the dirtiest mud; repeating hard-to-dispute claims (she has more relevant experience than he does) over and over and over until people accept them as axiomatic.

Better Obama figure out how to deal with these things now than while he is running in the general.

And, of course, if he really does wilt under the pressure, then Clinton can still become the nominee. And we will all look back longingly at 2004 when the election was not so soul-draining and polarizing.

dola--in case it is not clear the "you personally" refers to any reader of the post above. I'm not picking on any one person.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...delegates.html

Rep. Lacy Clay, Obama's MO Co-chairman, says Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided superdelegates later this week.

New ABC/Wash. Post GE Poll:

Hillary 50 McCain 47

Obama 53 McCain 42

If he really does have 50 waiting in the wings, they should wait and announce after Mississippi/Wyoming. That would make those states seem more important.

Clinton has done a wonderful job of declaring which states matter and which ones don't. "Of course, we all knew that Obama was going to win Wyoming and Mississippi. So that's not relevant. We need to keep the eye on the battle that matters--Pennsylvania."

Her dismissal of states where Obama is strong is picked up eagerly by the media and pundits, not because they want her to win, but because a competive race is more compelling than an anticipated blowout. Football writers spill a lot more ink over Flordia/UGA than they do over Florida/Deleware State. The size of a blowout win is much less interesting than the result of a close game.

So, I think that Obama needs to provide people with reasons to care about his blowout wins.

I don't pay much attention to the general election polls until late in the summer. In the spring, they aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. I've learned that over my voting career; otherwise, I'd be reminiscing over President Mondale, President Dukakis, President Perot, President Dole, President Gore and President Kerry.

The polls will look markedly different in September than they do now.

Besides VV's points about polls not really mattering that much this early out, there's another reason to take that WaPo poll with a gigantic grain of salt.

From The Campaign Spot (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...EyZDEyZjlhNjA=)

Fifteen percent of the sample is not registered to vote. Also note that the sample is 55 percent Democrat, 36 percent Republican, 7 percent Independent.

There's more polls than that WaPo one that show Obama makes up any losses in Dems with big pickups in Independents. While the polls don't guarantee anything, they certainly do put to bed the idea that McCain is guaranteed to win. There's no way to argue that with any data. It's just a way for supporters of McCain to cheerlead.

I don't think too many serious political analysts would guarantee a win by any of the three candidates at this point. And frankly, how the mainstream media has viewed Obama will almost certainly change between now and November. I think we're already starting to see some of the frustration of Chicago-area reporters re: the Rezko connection. If Obama decides to pull too many "C'mon guys, I answered like eight questions" press conferences with national reporters, the honeymoon period will be over fairly quickly.

dola

The raw numbers don't mean much, but I bet the McCain folks do see a worrying trend.

2/1 M 46 O 49 with a 53/37 Dem - Rep split
3/2 M 40 O 52 with a 55/36 split

The split is also interesting if you dig into the numbers. The party identification is 40/28 with 28 percent independents. When independents are forced to choose the split goes to 55/36. So the question is whether this is some sort of media bias or a danger sign for Republicans that as it stands independents break heavily to the Democrats?

Cam: I agree Obama's response needs work. He simply got killed in the last 72 hours before OH/TX. As someone on CNN said, he showed he can take a bunch, but he hasn't shown he can throw one. The Rezko thing I don't think will be a big issue come November. I'm more worried about his inability to handle Clinton's experience charges and the the Canada/NAFTA flap.

McCain, though, has a very similar problem. His response to the revelations about Hagee and his performance next to Bush were pretty bad. The general may turn into a contest over who can finally figure out how to go on the offensive.

Despite your hammering this point over and over, I'm not persuaded that it isn't basically already factored into most everyone's perception of a general election.
Pretty much no matter who the Democrat nominee is or could be, there will be some analysis, or something, by someone, at some point, that says that he or she is a filthy left-leaning liberal. And that report will be used by countless GOP pundits and pollsters and operatives during the campaign in all forms and fashions. That just seems like a given.

I happen to agree with you that the current polls vastly understate the likelihood of a McCain victory come November. But I disagree that this is essentially because there's some huge shoe left to be dropped on a matter like this. Republicans play to the middle by calling Democrats liberals. That's just how the game is played, it has basically dissolved into the fabric of a general campaign, it won't take anyone by surprise.

I'd take QS a step further. The crazy liberal charge needs some sort of evidence to stick. That's where Obama's inexperience in the Senate plays in his favor. He doesn't have the long voting record that kills most Senator candidates because of the ease of which it can be distorted. It was easy to beat up Kerry because of his long record of Senate votes. Obama doesn't have that baggage and the votes he does have are pretty innocuous as the Senate has been at an almost standstill for most of his term.

I respectfully disagree.

In the early general election polls, many of those polled don't know anything about the candidates' voting records or their stand on the issues. This has been the case in almost every modern presidential election, and it seems to be the case in 2008. I guess we'll see when we compare the post Labor Day polls to the current polls.

I wanted to quote this in its entirety because I think it is articulate and, in my opinion, very accurate.

If I may add something regarding superdelegates -- the pressure on Clinton's declared superdelegates prior to last Tuesday to switch to Obama was enormous. The pressure to switch the other way was non-existant. If TroyF's doomsday scenario comes to pass, where Obama wins a majority of pledged delegates but has not secured enough superdelegates to win, what I witnessed in the last couple weeks will be modest compared to what Clinton's and undecided SDs will face from their constituencies. Even exceptional politicians like the Clintons will be hard pressed to make headway against that.

Ah, another place where I'd disagree. Obama's a product of Chicagoland politics, which as we've seen can pose some problems because of who you associate with. Rezko's gotten some attention. Obama's connection with Bill Ayers has been largely brushed off, but frankly, so has much of Ayers' background.

If I'm John McCain, at some point I take a look at all of the nanny-state measures that Chicago has passed over the past few years. Foie-gras bans, bans on free newspapers, smoking bans, bans on trans-fats, bans on street performers, (not to mention the ban on handguns that's been in place since 1982).

As a state senator, did Barack Obama have much to do with these? Nope. But as a resident of Chicago, what did he have to say? Did he complain? Did he talk to his Alderman buddies? What did he have to say about these invasive policies enacted by the city?

Now it could be that most Americans will look at these things and shrug their shoulders. But I'm guessing there are a lot of moderate Democrats and Republicans who see these as paper-cut infringements on rights and will be bothered by the fact that this is the political culture that bred Obama.

And then there are the votes Obama cast in the State Senate as well. Heck, there he faces two problems. Not only did he cast votes on issues, there were a number of times where Obama voted "present" instead of taking a side, including on issues like more jail time for criminals who shoot a gun near a school.

Certainly there are more votes in McCain's past than in Obama's. But McCain might be helped a bit by his "maverick" persona. I mean, McCain has been cast as the guy that many conservatives don't particularly like. He hasn't always voted the conservative position. Obama's persona, on the other hand, is one of pope-like infallibility. The voters already know McCain's a politician. It's Obama that they're treating like a religious figure, and when they are exposed to votes or positions that they disagree with, I'd argue their disappointment is going to me much greater than the disappointment they'll feel when they disagree with McCain.

No, they couldn't pin that on Bill Clinton, because he actually had a track record as a centrist governor in Arkansas, with tax cuts and welfare reform. They wouldn't have been able to pin the "Ted Kennedy" label on Bill Richardson this year, but he never got out of single digits in the democratic primary.

Wow, I'm amazed at the fact that the Clintons and Obama are descending upon Wyoming a week after I leave the state. Too funny. It won't matter, obviously. Wyoming is blood red. But hey...the state never gets any positive spin, so I suppose it'll be a day in the light for Wyomingites. All 10 Democrats o' them.

You left Wyoming, DC? Where'd you move to?

Oh my.

Except that opinion on the war is changing back. Not the decision to go to war, which is still very unpopular, but whether to pull out or not. It's now basically a dead heat between pull out and stay in. While in reality the reduction in violence IMO has little to do with the surge, politically the surge is getting credit for a success.
Even including the flawed WaPo poll where it was 60% Democratic, McCain is in a dead heat with Clinton at worst in the polls right now. Obama holds about a 5% lead on average. I don't think the polls are down playing the possibility of McCain winning as much as the pundits are.

And the sort of shitslinging we have every reason to expect will occur during the general election will actually make people more informed about actual voting records or actual positions? Again, I also disagree with you here in the sense that there will suddenly be a newly well-informed electorate showing up at the polls come November.

I do not disagree with you, by the way, about this being a close election. I recently bought shares of a GOP win at 36 cents on the dollar, and felt like I was stealing money.

Not to mention it's another caucus state.

Another example of democracy in action, where probably less than 10,000 of Wyoming's 59,000 registered democrats will determine the delegate allocation, and the winner will proudly proclaim, "See, I can run well in a red state."

This isn't a new system. It's been this way for a while now. Yes, Obama seems to be benefitting from it. But in terms of absurdities, it's hardly the most major of the American electoral process. If parties wanted to make prospective candidates wrestle a steer and call that the nomination process, that would be there business. Parties can conduct their private matters however they choose.

Unless you're a lifelong Democrat on the front lines and feel as if somehow this process offends you majorly, because your voice isn't being heard (and I can't see how, since these are the rules that have been in place for some time now) your gripe isn't well taken here.

I started a new job in Illinois this week.

Hillary is conducting a town hall meeting in Cheyenne tomorrow where I used to work. The multipurpose room there holds about 1,600 people and the gym holds about 800. I'm curious mostly to hear the questions and to find out if the sense is the people they have in the audience were planted as has been accused in the past. I'll be able to find that out directly.

UW is hosting Obama tomorrow night in Laramie. I do love how they had to mention at the end of their little note telling people he'll be there that "this is not an endorsement by UW". Probably because the alumni have been calling in like crazy to complain about all of these Dems showing up to true-Red Wyoming.

I think that's pretty funny.

Wording matters a lot in those polls on Iraq. If the decision is leave ASAP or stay until Iraq is stabilized you get a close to even split like the Pew poll in late February.

If you have leave now, leave within a year and stay as long as it takes over sixty percent is in the leave now or within a year groups like the LATimes/Bloomberg poll in late January.

If you just have approve/disapprove the split against is 2-1 like the CBS poll in late February.

As for the WaPo poll the actual split is 40/28/28. It gets to 55/36when independents are forced to choose, but that's what happens when independents prefer one party to another. Right now you won't find anything close to an even split if independents are forced to choose. Regardless, the 60% number is bogus.

I disregard the independents, so you have 40/68% are Democrats... which is 58.8 to 41.1%. That's a really wide split for a supposedly non-partisan poll. But if you want to argue that 59/41 or 55/36 isn't 60%, sure.

The polling the wording clearly matters, but regardless which poll you're using there has been a trend back to support for American troops in Iraq. And given that al-Sadr just agreed to extend his cease-fire for another 6 months, violence should stay low through at least September. It's not the slam-dunk issue in favor of the Democrats it was last year.

I think it’s kind of funny watching Florida republican governor Charlie Crist suddenly getting proactive and feigning indignation over the Florida delegates getting shut out of the convention, when after all, he was responsible for getting the primary moved up in the first place.

Of course, he knows that stirring this up now will prolong the chaos in the democratic party and help McCain.

Yeah it's disingenuous but the wise thing for Crist to do. Obama should offer to have his supporters fund a caucus.

Bishop: You can't disregard independents and then claim bias. On Iraq, you're right that it isn't the issue it was a year ago, but people still don't want a permanent presence in Iraq.

I think Obama still has a 600,000 lead in the overall popular vote as well. (at least the last numbers I looked at show this)

It's not likely at all that Obama catches Hillary in the overall vote. It's essentially over in her catching him with the delegate vote. (hxxp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751)

From what I'm seeing, I think it is going to be at a minimum of a 125 delegate lead for Obama before the uncommited supers come in. There are currently about 330 super delegates who are uncommited.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the math is going to work for her here. She'd have to get virtually all of the uncommited supers or steal a bunch of Obama's pledged ones. That'll do just what I said it would, it'd split the party in two and McCain would walk in with little trouble. But it isn't happening. Obama will get the nomination. The only questions left for me are:

1) How long does Hillary fight this
2) How nasty does she get doing it
3) Depending on how long this goes, how will Hillary's voters vote in the GE
4) Will Obama stick out an olive branch and offer her the VP and give her an out before she makes herself look completely psychotic.

All she's going to do now is fling shit at him and hope enough of it sticks that he's unelectable by Denver and the superdelegates go to her because they have no other option. It's almost crazy because I'd wager that she has more skeletons in the closet.

It'll be interesting to see a) How effective it is, b) how well Obama fights back and c) how long she's allowed to go before the party shuts it down, or even if they do.

I think you're on to something there.

Round up 20,000 Floridians to caucus and legitimize their state delegation, thus ending the controversy. It must be a caucus, though, as letting all registered Florida democrats vote in a primary would give Clinton an unfair advantage.

Not sure what the laws are in Florida, but in Texas, if a party gets more than 20% of the vote in the previous gubernatorial or presidential election (among a couple of other qualifiers), that party must hold a primary for the next presidential election.

I don't think Obama has to worry a lot no matter what happens in FL or MI. I think his best bet is to come out and say there should be a revote in the two states. Hillary isn't going to gain a ton of delegates in those two. Essentially, blowouts are what matters now. Obama could lose the popular vote by 10 to 12 points in both FL and MI, and it still wouldn't put that much of a dent in his delegate lead.

I think the biggest danger for him is to fight it hard and act like he doesn't want those two states to have a revote. He's not going to make that mistake. Revote FL and MI, let Hillary gain 10 delegates. Whoop de do. It isn't going to make a difference at this point.

Yep. Hillary is going to drag this out for months delaying the inevitable. She's a monster.

The bigger problem with a revote is who pays. The DNC should fight like hell to avoid throwing thirty or forty million dollars away a few months before the general.

Those that support Obama and his campaign really should hope that they take back the upper hand. In the past week including today, they have let the Clintons dominate expectations for both camps; from how we should viwe results to the unimportance of Wyoming et al to how the Democratic ticket should look like. Obama's inexperience in dealing with these is really showing.