Until a few short months ago it was the wet dream of virtually every politics junkie - now, as it is becoming more likely by the day to happen this year, the dream is turning into a nightmare. Below the flip: why a brokered convention is becoming increasingly probable; why this is bad news especially for us Obama supporters; and what can be done to avoid it and win outright.

Why is a brokered convention becoming increasingly likely? - The argument was made first, I believe, by Chris Bowers the day before Super Tuesday (OpenLeft has been all over this issue). Today, Paul Kane at WaPo's online chat plays catch up:

Ohio is not at all where Clinton could wrap things up. We've done a bad job of explaing this, but it is now basically mathematically impossible for either Clinton or Obama to win the nomination through the regular voting process (meaning the super-delegates decide this one, baby!).

Here's the math. There are 3,253 pledged delegates, those doled out based on actual voting in primaries and caucuses. And you need 2,025 to win the nomination.

To date, about 55% of those 3,253 delegates have been pledged in the voting process -- with Clinton and Obamb roughly splitting them at about 900 delegates a piece.

That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

Ain't gonna happen, barring a stunning scandal or some new crazy revelation. So, they'll keep fighting this thing out, each accumulating their chunk of delegates, one of them holding a slight edge and bothing finishing the voting process with 1,600 or so delegates.

And then the super delegates decide this thing.

1,100 out of 1,400 means one candidate needs to win nearly 80% of all pledged delegates yet to be awarded to clinch it. As Chris points out, Obama will need a hundred more to overcome Clinton's lead in super delegates - meaning he'll need something like 86% of all delegates yet to be pledged. Unlike Kane and others] I won't say that's impossible - but it's, uhm, not bloody likely...

But the Clinton campaign is broke! They won't be able to compete much longer! - Fellow Obamanians and Obamaniacs, let's not kid ourselves! If you can't respect your opponent (which you should in this case), at least be smart enough not to underestimate them. Even if all her fat cat donors were to have maxed out or gotten cold feet, Hillary has millions of devoted supporters who are every bit as devoted to her as we are to our guy (you know the peeps - there are enough right here on this board). They will shell out every last dime to keep the campaign afloat. And even if the Clinton campaign were to go completely dark in all media markets (which isn't going to happen), there may well still be enough people voting for Hillary to deny Obama the nomination (remember - all it takes for Hillary would be 15-20% of the vote in the remaining contests). And if you think the Clintons aren't going to stick this out to the bitter end, have you learned nothing of the stubbornness of dwarfs tenacity of the Clintons?

But a brokered convention is great! Somebody unbelievably cool (Gore, Edwards, Dean) is going to come in and graciously accept the nomination as honest broker! - That's bull. In this day and age, we like to think of the big-party nominees as elected by public mandate (even though that is strictly speaking not really the case). An outside candidate parachuting into the deadlocked convention to rescue the party is not going to be accepted - would have dramatic legitimacy issues.

Alright, then what is going to happen at a brokered convention? - Two scenarios: (a) The super delegates decide the day for one side - that would most likely be Clinton. Let's face it - we're talking party insiders here! Why would they ever give the mantle to Obama? (Because they view him as more "electable?"? Possible - but likely? I think not.) (Notice in parentheses, though, that some think that pressure from the DNC to avoid a brokered convention would benefit Obama. Which seems to imply, if I read this correctly, that there are a lot of insiders inside (uhm) the DNC who are favorable to Obama. I'm just not sure I'd agree.) (b) Clinton and Obama form a unity ticket.

The problems with a unity ticket? - First, Clinton as veep is plainly inconceivable - it would mean for Obama to accept Bill as co-vice-president and by extension as co-president. And how much say do you think would Vice President Obama have in a Clinton administration? Zero, most likely. Yes, Obama would get to shape the platform at the convention. But how much worth is that? Remember, it's not so much the policy positions that divide these two candidates - it's the world view or political philosophy or ideology or whatever you want to call it. And how do you write a world view into a platform?

Wait, it gets worse! - Once the realization that the veep slot may be the ceiling for Obama sinks into the public's consciousness, it will be a huge drain on Obama's energy. Ask yourself - how much would you be willing to work for an Obama vice presidency under the Clintons? We'd basically be back to Clinton inevitability, I'm afraid. We mustn't let this happen!

OK, what can be done? - First, the obvious and lame stuff: Obama needs to maximize his share in the remaining contests. Reach out to make inroads into "Clinton's" demographics - women and Latinos. And is there a way to turn out more frickin' guys? I'm really not trying to make this diary any more offensive that it already is ;-) but perhaps Hillary's greatest boon has been the fact that 55-60% of Democratic primary voters and caucus goers are consistently women. Next, the two big outstanding endorsements - Gore and Edwards. Obama needs to secure these at absolutely all cost (and Clinton will try to prevent him from getting these endorsements at all cost).

But none of this will change the premise - 80-85% of the remaining delegates is just pie in the sky. So we need the equation changed! The only way to do this is to increase the pool of the yet-to-be-awarded delegates. I'm talking, of course, of the DNC proposal to hold caucuses to award the currently non-seated delegations of Florida and Michigan. Add the 210 original delegates from Florida and 156 from Michigan and the percentage of the remaining delegates either candidate needs to win drops to 65-70%. This is still a tall order, but much more manageable. And caucuses of course have been much more favorable to Obama! That doesn't mean that he would have an easy time beating Clinton (and by a large enough margin) in  Florida this time around. But...

Can we do this?

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
 Unpublish Diary (The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.) Delete Diary (The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

• Tips, comments, rude remarks(33+ / 0-)

Straighten me out.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

• It'll be the 68' DNC all over again(10+ / 0-)

if Clinton wins because of superdelegates...

Granted, there'll be less violence, but you can bet that millions of young voters will be turned off for a while...

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - G.B. Shaw

[ Parent ]

• Can you say(6+ / 0-)

President McCain. Because that is exactly what will happen. It will be worse than 1968, I was there in 68, and trust me, this will be far worse.

• I'd hold you to that...(0+ / 0-)

...except I'm not sure how.

How much did you pay for your crystal ball and where'd you get it?

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• This needs to be fair(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
The Termite, doubting thomas

Or I think it may well be another 1968. Anyway, here is a fair way to do things:

Give the nomination to the candidate that has won more pledged delegates. Hold a caucus in Michigan and Florida to give their voters a fair say in a process that will actually count, and give the nomination to the candidate with a plurality.

Sounds fair to me.

• What sounds fair to you, is(0+ / 0-)

not what others think is fair. What I believe is these "super delegates" think is, they are special, more special than the average American. Maybe it is not their fault, maybe it is the way the system is set up. What they fail to consider is, many of them are elected officials. If they throw over the people who elected them for the sake of making deals for their own personal gains, they will not remain elected officials for much longer. Not only will America being looking carefully at what goes on in Denver in June, this time the entire world will be watching, not just our friends, but our enemies too. Purple fingers will not influence anyone, we must set an example of Democracy being a system for, of, and by the people, not for, of, and by the elite. This will be the ultimate test for Democracy, and the Democratic party.

• No crystal ball, just (0+ / 0-)

a student of history. In 1968 the young people also had a stake in the outcome of that election. There was a war raging, a war that forced people who didn't believe in it to go half way across the world to fight and die in it. There was not much equality in our country, and none of the establishment people seemed to give a damn about the environment. The party hacks in Chicago were trying really hard to silence the voices of dissent. While the Republicans unified behind their candidate. Just as the horrors of Katrine were on news networks for all the world to see, so was the beating of young Americans on the streets of Chicago. Those of my generation who were not there in person saw what was going on with their very eyes. The new generation inspired to participate by JFK, were getting beaten outside of the Democratic convention in Chicago. Inspiration can not get beaten out of you, which is something the "old-timers" didn't count on. Back then we didn't have the advantages of today, we didn't have the Internet, it was more difficult to get the message out, but it got out anyway. When people are hungry for change, and are inspired to work for that change, it will not be pretty if they are denied that change, it especially will not be pretty for those who are the ones denying it. That is just the way it is, history has proven this time after time, and as they say, if you don't pay attention to history, if you think you are above it, you will be doomed to repeat it. Human nature is human nature, and as has been proven, if you don't go along with the change, you will be left behind.

• I will take to the Streets, I promise you.(5+ / 0-)

Obama 2008

[ Parent ]

• a while? try a(0+ / 0-)

generation. Seriously.

• Not data based(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

We took Nixon down.  Hard.

Then we elected a bright, nice, well intentioned, Christian Democrat who did not handle the job well.  And I heart Jimmy Carter.  He did many good things for the country domestically.

In God we trust. All else bring data.--and I am an athiest

[ Parent ]

• Don't count on less violence nt(0+ / 0-)

"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience" --Adam Smith

[ Parent ]

• I have faith in Howard Dean,(5+ / 0-)

I have faith he will not allow this to happen. After all he was the one who said, "We have the power". He didn't say the super delegates have the power, the back room deals have the power, he said, "WE HAVE THE POWER". Are you listening Howard? Was that just a campaign slogan, or your true beliefs?

• Yes, maybe Howard Dean really shines now(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ignacio Magaloni, The Termite

This could be Howard Dean's most important moment.

Should we send 100,000 letters to Howard Dean asking for something?

Obama 2008

[ Parent ]

• Howard Dean isn't going to just invent rules...(8+ / 0-)

...to make sure one candidate wins over another.

It's not going to happen.

He takes is duty to the DNC VERY seriously.

I'm right!!~~~Kos said so!

[ Parent ]

• Agreed n/t(3+ / 0-)

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• What about his duty to the people?(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
annalivia

He was the person who first motivated these young people to get involved. I just can not believe he motivated them to only have them crushed by back room deals and by those who think they are so powerful. The Democratic party is supposed to be the progressive of the two parties. I guess this will be a test of their progressiveness. I think one candidate will have the majority of the votes going into the convention, and this discussion will be moot. If it goes any other way, there is going to be a Republican administration for the next 4 years.

• he will not break rules...(0+ / 0-)

...or invent new ones.  Unlike some, he lives up to the principals he fights for.  He will however work within the rules and use the fullest measure of his influence, but that's another matter.

I'm right!!~~~Kos said so!

[ Parent ]

• There's not much he can do(5+ / 0-)

He doesn't have the power to eliminate the superdelegates, which is really what is needed (not "eliminate" in the commando sense of course, but change the rules to make them null and void).

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

[ Parent ]

• Streetfighting, commandos(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
jxg, The Termite, leftneck

I notice people's imagination is turning towards the more, uh, physical manifestations of political discourse these days ;-)

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• Not mine(4+ / 0-)

Just wanted to make it clear what I was talking about.

For me it's more important to ensure this isn't decided by superdelegates. If it is we will lose the White House. I think everyone knows that.

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

[ Parent ]

• I'm more concerned...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Ignacio Magaloni

...with the scenario of total disengagement.

A 4-year McCain administration would be catastrophic.  What would be apocalyptic would be disengagement by the left.

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• A silver lining...(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
terra, Psychotronicman

if we manage to avoid this is that the role of superdelegates is becoming very well known now.  I've even been seeing them discussed in the MSM quite a bit.  Once the dust settles from all of this (still hoping for the best), maybe a change can be made before the next election.

Obama-Edwards 2008!

[ Parent ]

• Can't they be neutralized?(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
The Termite

I don't even understand their real purpose, other then to make them feel they are more important than they could ever hope to be.

• we can do something(0+ / 0-)

we can get lists of superdelegates in our states and organize. And get them to commit to a do over in those two states.
Refusing to seat them is not 'disenfranchising' the voters of those states. Seating them is unfair to the voters of every other state.

n/t

• No she wont(7+ / 0-)

Obama will cream her in Michigan

Obama just needs to say one word => nafta

• Hillary Clinton only got 55% of the vote(8+ / 0-)

When she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan, that's kinda pathetic if you ask me.

• I doubt it(5+ / 0-)

she didn't fare well even when she went up against uncommitted.  If it ended up being a caucus, which it probably would be, I doubt she'd win there.

She may pull off Florida, but even that would be close I would think.

• I don't necessarily agree(0+ / 0-)

The old folks in Florida that voted for Hillary will not go to caucus. It will be past their bed time and they will miss the early bird special.

• Myabe FL but not MI. No way. She got(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
John Poet

only 55% of the vote and there wasn't even a campaign.

• The 40% who voted 'uncommitted' in MI had to(0+ / 0-)

be 'organized' somewhat to do so.  They were ironically more committed to their vote than the Clinton voters, who just had to show up and mark 'Clinton'.  They would be much more likely to show up and vote in a caucus, and they'd clearly be voting for Obama.

Then there are a few thousand Democrats who voted for Romney in the GOP primary (like myself), who would now participate-- and would now have a better way to work directly for a candidate, which I would now also do.  One of the things that disgusted me the most about this whole mess is how it eliminated the campaign in this state.

But, I don't have much hope that the state committee will relent and reschedule the caucus... the pigheaded morons...

• Good diary. (5+ / 0-)

Maybe they will hold caucuses in MI and FL and Obama wins handily like he did on Super Tuesday?

Gosh, I hate this Super Delegate thing.  What bullshit!!

Party insiders should not decide by pure opinion who gets the nomination.

This is America dammit.

Obama 2008

• A Warning about "Caususes" in Michigan...(6+ / 0-)

I know everyone keeps thinking that a "caucus" do-over in Michigan would favor Obama because he does better at them than primaries.

HOWEVER, here in Michigan, our "caucus" is one in name only--we had a "caucus" last time around, but it was run exactly the same as a primary: You walk in, check a name off of a piece of paper, stick it in a ballot box, and leave.

No "persuasion", no huddling in groups, no moving from one corner to the other, no discussion. Secret ballot voting like any other primary or general election. The only difference between it and a primary is that it was run by the party, not the state.

• Do you see Obama having a shot to WIN?(0+ / 0-)

Obama 2008

[ Parent ]

• Maybe a tie n/t(0+ / 0-)

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• But it would not be the case this time around.(0+ / 0-)

Caucuses are cheaper than primaries. That's why some in the DNC advised them to hold caususes not primaries.

• There are fewer voting sites, and campaigns have(0+ / 0-)

to 'educate' participants on where they have to go to vote.  Michigan Dems also used 'vote by mail' options, and were planning for an internet voting option this time (before the bastard primary was created).

It is still a game which the best organized campaign could win... and it really doesn't matter that much whether people just cast their secret ballot or stay and talk about it, they still had to be organized to show up.  I think with the mail and internet voting options (presuming they'd be used), the Obama campaign, as well as independent groups of self-organized Obama volunteers, would be able to score a big victory here in a caucus situation... just as they did in all the 'flyover' Super Tuesday caucuses.

• To clarify, most caucus voters can't go to(0+ / 0-)

their usual election poll site to participate in the party caucuses, which use far fewer voting sites, which are chosen by the party.... and this of course makes organization much more important than in a primary election hosted by the state, using all the usual election poll sites.

• Don't agree(8+ / 0-)

The problems with a unity ticket? - First, Clinton as veep is plainly inconceivable - it would mean for Obama to accept Bill as co-vice-president and by extension as co-president. And how much say do you think would Vice President Obama have in a Clinton administration? Zero, most likely. Yes, Obama would get to shape the platform at the convention. But how much worth is that? Remember, it's not so much the policy positions that divide these two candidates - it's the world view or political philosophy or ideology or whatever you want to call it. And how do you write a world view into a platform?

You instantly dismiss this possibility with some rather far-fetched assertions. Obama would - trust me - accept HC as his VP if it meant putting the super-delegates on his side. He's not an idiot. And the line about world view is obviously the toxic effects of too much Koolaid!

• But would Hillary accept a VP position?(4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
mrblifil, brainwave, Mike Taylor, leftneck

And where would Bill roam?

Obama 2008

[ Parent ]

• H. Clinton is running for president. If she (3+ / 0-)

wins and allows it to look like Bill is running the show, she'll be a one term president.   I voted for Obama, but I don't think everyone should assume she can't do it on her own.

Actually, I think if VP was offered to her, she'd be silly to turn it down.

NetrootNews coming soon!

[ Parent ]

• I agree. She may not.(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
ksh01

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• I can't see her winning the General(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
ksh01, Number5

What's her message?  Experience?  How will that match vs. McCain?

He's been in the senate much longer.  He's been a soldier, POW.

Her experience argument is light versus that guy.

People want change in this election.  They want a new face, a new voice.

Obama was smart to run now.  And I think he will win.

Obama 2008

[ Parent ]

• yeah, I can't see her winning the general(0+ / 0-)

either.  I think she would need Obama on the ticket to overcome her problems.

NetrootNews coming soon!

[ Parent ]

• What's his message?(0+ / 0-)

A lo-fat Mocha Grande to go?

[ Parent ]

• An Obama-Clinton ticket is inconceivable to me(8+ / 0-)

That doesn't mean I'd object to it. If they can work it out, great. I just don't see it.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• Would Hillary accept the VP slot under Obama?(8+ / 0-)

That would be a Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge embarrassment to the "Clinton machine". Bill would have to operate "under" Obama. Ain't gonna happen. I just don't think she would accept the VP slot under Obama.

• well(0+ / 0-)

would that be worse than losing the nomination and being left off the ticket totally?

My guess is that if we have a split ticket, the VP is whoever would lose if they went to a vote with superdelegates.

• Why?(10+ / 0-)

None of these folks stuck their necks out for Kerry in 2004 - they all figured they'd wait until 2008.

Whomever loses at the convention will come to the same conclusion - they're better off waiting until 2012.

There is zero chance - none whatsoever - Hillary would accept a VP slot. Just won't happen. I'd say there is a 2% chance Obama would - it's really not likely to happen but we can't rule it out completely, even though it's about as likely as me winning the lottery.

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

[ Parent ]

• More importantly, I don't think Obama supporters(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Mike Taylor, leftneck

have much to hope for (no pun intended) with him as Clinton's VP.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• It helps neither of them at all(7+ / 0-)

There is no incentive of any kind for either one to accept the VP post. Neither one will do it.

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

[ Parent ]

• Right(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

His supporters would be much better off having him finish his term as the junior Senator from Illinois.

• Or, if ti came to HIllary as the nominee(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
onanyes

Primarying her ass in 2012 so that we can get out of Iraq.

I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

[ Parent ]

• If Hillary is nominated, she will lose. Period.(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
eugene, Mike Taylor

In that scenario, Obama is much better off staying in the Senate, steering clear of the wreckage, and being available for 2012.

Even if Hillary did manage a win, the Vice Presidency is clearly a career-wreck for just about every politician who's ever taken it.

And Obama take Hillary?  That's a good way for him to add all her negatives to his ticket, while getting no benefit whatsoever.

I think he will win the bulk of the remaining primaries, and enough of the superdelegates will then fall into line to secure his nomination--- and they will be publicly pledged well before the convention, sealing this nomination.  There will be no need for any 'deal'.

• Once again - fantasy(0+ / 0-)

You would want Hillary to lose because it buys into your own view of the world. But it's not an accurate view. McCain is a very flawed, weak candidate. His rightwing hates him with a passion, and they will not vote for him. Clinton is an excellent campaigner. She will kick his ass. McCain cannot control his temper and is very gaffe-prone. She would kick him in the nuts and laugh about it. You are living a fantasy if you think Hillary would lose to McCain. That's a fairytale.

[ Parent ]

• I agree.(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
eugene, ryan t

Obama would be like the White House butler under Hillary and Bill. I really don't think he would or should accept VP under Hillary.

• WH Butler?(7+ / 0-)

If that was a joke, it's on thin, thin ice...

• Have to agree on that one(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Mike Taylor, Psychotronicman

But seriously, what do you think Obama could accomplish as VP in a Clinton administration? They would confine him to the traditional VP jobs - cut ribbons, go to funerals, that sort of thing.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• I don't believe that(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

I don't believe you will see much of Bill as first man, if that comes to pass.  I do think he knows who wears the pant suits.

Obama can make his deals on what he gets to do as VP based on the votes he brings to the table.

On the other hand, I also like either one staying on as a force in the Senate.

In God we trust. All else bring data.--and I am an athiest

[ Parent ]

• because(0+ / 0-)

it'd most likely be 2016 AT LEAST and not 2012.  And that's if Obama lost in 2012 as whomever his vp is would probably run in 2016.

• Not so fast my friend(4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
ryan t, John Poet, swampus, Mike Taylor

I can see Obama calculating that Hillary would lose to McCain and preferring to stay well clear of that train wreck. Really, he gains very little by agreeing to be the VP, whether Hillary wins or loses.

Obama will beat McCain and get elected president in either 2008 or 2012.

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

[ Parent ]

• You just don't know that(0+ / 0-)

Hillary will accept VP if Obama has more delegates than she does and if the supers tell her that it's that or nothing.

[ Parent ]

• Huuge embarrassment from your point of view(0+ / 0-)

But since you don't like her in the first place, I think we can skip your insights on what she might or might not do.

[ Parent ]

• Finding a way to let Fl & Mich vote(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
eugene, ryan t, forestgreen

I would think is a good idea.

I understand why Dean penalized them.  But I also think if we can find a way to allow these people to be a part of the primary process, that in itself would be excellent.

The party let their voters down.  The voters are the ones hurt by this. Disenfranchising that many Democrats because their party bosses went bonkers is not the way to gain/keep party members in those states.

I think allowing a do-over is an excellent idea.

In God we trust. All else bring data.--and I am an athiest

• Do over is good. But we need at least 4 weeks(0+ / 0-)

For Obama to campaign, for ads to run.  For grassroots to grow.  For people to canvass.

I think we can win Michigan.  Uncommited won 40% of the vote!!  She was the only name on there...

Florida: not sure.  Could split?

Obama 2008

[ Parent ]

• I just spent (3+ / 0-)

hours arguing with Clinton folks about "do-overs".

It's not going to be a happy work-out.  I don't see this scenario happening, it turns into a pie fight about counting existing votes, disenfranchisement, and existing rules.

I think they should stand as-is, because you just don't want to change the rules mid-stream.

Only if Clinton and Obama agree, would I consider this path, so that there is no PR battle about the legitimacy and the rule-breaking.

Florida has a huge Hispanic vote.  I wouldn't count on this going well for Obama.

9/11 didn't change the Constitution! Are we marching towards fascism?

[ Parent ]

• the problem is(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

that the Florida and especially the Michigan primaries have little legitimacy as is.  Especially Michigan where Clinton was effectively the only person on the ballot.  I think Michigan must be a do-over if it counts unless we know the nominee going into the convention.

Floida may be able to get away without a do-over given everyone was on the ballot, but then again it wasn't really contested, so could you really say it was a true representation of the will of the voters?

Besides, having Michigan and Florida vote, in say, June might give them more influence than they were trying to get by voting in January.

• I agree with this line of thinking(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Mike Taylor

but you will not find a lot of Clinton supporters who are willing to grant this (at least on this site).

I think if Clinton and Obama agree and it is scheduled, fine.

If not, it becomes a nightmare.  Who will support the outcome then?  Only the winner - with the losing half of the party shutting down and going home for the general.

Changing the rules mid-stream only works if all parties agree with the change.

And that is the rub.

9/11 didn't change the Constitution! Are we marching towards fascism?

[ Parent ]

• well yeah(0+ / 0-)

I can see why.  Why give Obama the chance to win more delegates if not the most delegates in that state when you already hold a lead in Florida and all the delegates in Michigan.

The problem is that if Clinton wants to gain delegates on Obama by counting Michigan and Florida, that may be the only option she has.  I have doubts that the convention delegates will vote to reinstate them as is and i'm almost certain the DNC wont.

• I don't want f%\$king Florida decide another (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
kubrick2008

election!!  Not this way. They had their chance. They broke the rules, Dem voters didn't complain. That's it. They don't count because they screwed it up.

• Actually, its not for Clinton or Obama to decide!(0+ / 0-)

It's a matter between the DNC and the state parties of Michigan and Florida.  What the Clinton or Obama people want has nothing to do with it.

• but Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan jesus(0+ / 0-)

Obama 2008

[ Parent ]

• I know, which is why they should stick(0+ / 0-)

to the rules as articulated by the DNC:  Don't seat the delegates.  FL and MI knew the consequences of breaking the rules.  Let them stay at zero.

However, if the candidates agree, let them re-do the elections.  I trust that if they can agree on that, then fine.

Otherwise, let the rules stand as-is.

See, we agree...........

9/11 didn't change the Constitution! Are we marching towards fascism?

[ Parent ]

• But most of them are Cuban-Americans and they(0+ / 0-)

are Republicans.

• Both Edwards and Obama...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
leftneck

urged their supporters to vote uncommitted in Michigan...so the two together "won".

I think announcing Edwards as VP would cement a Michigan win for Obama-Edwards...and possibly FL, but I didn't follow the goofiness down there as much.

• Nonsense. It's one thing to urge them to(0+ / 0-)

vote uncommitted and it's another to go there and campaign and be on the ballot.
MI had a very low turnout. Most people will not go out in the winter to vote for uncommited.

• The Party didn't do this(3+ / 0-)
The GOP led legislatures in these states did this, in large part to fuck the Democratic Party.
• what was the florida state vote count?(0+ / 0-)

Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page.

[ Parent ]

• I believe that also(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
naus

Even more reason to try to find a way to reach out to those voters.

All too often we only look at this primary process in terms of what it means for our candidate.  Florida, in particular, has been screwed by the GOP enough.

I am really saddened by them not having the ability to shape the primary decision.

In God we trust. All else bring data.--and I am an athiest

[ Parent ]

• Do you have a link or...(0+ / 0-)

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• That isn't entirely true(0+ / 0-)

As I understand it, this idea was concocted and pushed originally by Jeremy Ring, a democrat.

• Democrats passed it in Michigan, and a (0+ / 0-)

Democratic governor then signed it. And then, the State Democratic Party decided to use that primary to choose nominating delegates-- twice; once before and once after the DNC stripped the delegates.

We don't have the 'Republicans did it' excuse in Michigan. The House is Democratic, the Senate is Republican.  It was a joint venture.

And frankly, Florida's state Dem party could choose to use caucuses instead of a disallowed primary to choose delegates.  They are in no way "locked" into a primary which some conveniently blame the GOP for creating--- so that really doesn't wash for Florida, either.  They can choose to do otherwise, but it sounds like they won't.  Both state parties act like goddamn children stamping their feet when they aren't getting their way.

• If we...(9+ / 0-)

...show up an the convention with more delegates than Clinton we can dare the Superdelagates to overturn "the will of the people".

I don't think too many of them would have the guts to do it.  Not on national TV.

But we can't show up at the convention with a thin margin...we gotta bust ass to get Obama's numbers up.

• What may end up being the key(0+ / 0-)

are the 76 unpledged delegates elected at state conventions where state delegates are formally elected to the convention.  We don't know who these delegates are because they are, as I said, elected at the convention.

Now, it would seem to be logical that states will elect unpledged delegates who would vote for whoever won the state.  That would favor Obama in the number of states, but bigger states also get more unpledged delegates (CA gets 5, New York gets 4), so that helps her.  Overall, that may end up being a wash.

• but if hillary has bigger margin of delegates(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

same apply right? If she is leading, but s.d feel he is more electable, they shouldn't be allowed to choose him.  I agree on both counts, whoever comes in with delegate lead, should get S.D, you agree, even if it's Hillary?

• if she is leading in both(4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

elected and total SDs, then yes, same principle applies.

The problem comes in if, say, Obama leads in elected delegates but Clinton leads in total delegates.

• No, of course not.(0+ / 0-)

If Hillary is ahead, then each Superdelegate should "vote their conscience"...heh-heh.

• I think the popular vote will also matter.(0+ / 0-)

If Obama will have more votes and more pledged delegates it's hard to see how the superdelegates
would give it to Clinton.

• nice summary, I understand it better now but(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
pseudopod, forestgreen

If Obama doesn't get the nomination legitimately, I don't have a problem with him being VP.

As a matter of fact, I don't know that the VP slot is really unacceptable to Clinton.

Stranger things have happened.

NetrootNews coming soon!

• It is true(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
ksh01, LordMike, leftneck

and if she is happy to spout about Obama being the VP of her choice, she'd damned well be ready to step up to the plate of electoral reality if Obama wins more than she and accept a VP slot herself.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose.

9/11 didn't change the Constitution! Are we marching towards fascism?

[ Parent ]

• it's an odd construct, but given the (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Native Light

delicacies of the situation, I think that's the only way to go if Obama has more delegates (without the super delegates), since there would be a hue and cry if he was relegated to the VP slot after having won more pledged delegates.

NetrootNews coming soon!

[ Parent ]

• The other issue:(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Native Light

why would anyone accept a VP slot instead of a Senate seat?

I can't think of too many reasons.

Clinton might be a Senate majority leader candidate or defacto leader, while Obama would be somewhat less likely, but still much more powerful than the VP slot.

It just doesn't make much sense for either to be a VP.  And disengenous for Clinton to basically say that Obama would be her VP.  I just don't see him accepting it.

9/11 didn't change the Constitution! Are we marching towards fascism?

[ Parent ]

• Could either of them(0+ / 0-)

be in line for a position in the other's cabinet?  That's also another possibility.  Hillary as Secretary of State?

• Fine with me.(0+ / 0-)

I don't really care about the Sec State position at this point, and it might be good to have the pair of Clintons doing that job.  There is a lot of clean-up to do in the rest of the world.

Not that anyone cares what I think anyway.

9/11 didn't change the Constitution! Are we marching towards fascism?

[ Parent ]

• boy do I disagree(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
copithorne

I think Clinton could get rid of a lot of her negatives by being VP.  She'd do a great job.  People would see her in an executive context. She'd be the first freaking woman VP in our history. I'd be surprised if she turned it down.

The same goes for Obama.

NetrootNews coming soon!

[ Parent ]

• No, Hillary is much more valuable to the Dems...(0+ / 0-)

...as a senator. She will only become more powerful as the years go on. Plus she has a virtual lock in a state that the Dems don't want to risk.

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• There's no risk to losing the (0+ / 0-)

NY-Sen seat to a Republican.

There aren't any left in NY worth much.

That's not the concern.  The concern will be Clinton's ambition and what to do with her, if Obama can manage a clear win, or if he can even manage to negotiate a spot that is acceptable for her.  Seems doubtful.

WHo knows.  Wake me up when its over.

9/11 didn't change the Constitution! Are we marching towards fascism?

[ Parent ]

• Could you write a diary that does NOT.....(7+ / 0-)

...assume that every reader is an Obama supporter?

"I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

• There's a difference b/w addressing Obama support(5+ / 0-)

and writing exclusively for them. But I hear ya.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• I agree with this much ; )(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
brainwave, forestgreen

Hillary has millions of devoted supporters who are every bit as devoted to her as we are to our guy (you know the peeps - there are enough right here on this board). They will shell out every last dime to keep the campaign afloat

but seriously, good analysis, I don't know if a brokered convention can be avoided, even with Obama gaining some momentum in Feb, I still see this being VERY split, the only solutions, no matter how incompatible, may be a unity ticket. Or if one wins by super delegates, or MI/FL delegates, many will feel VERY upset, and there goes G.E for us.  Hopefully Dean is serious about working something out before we get to that point.  I prefer Hillary, but am Fine with Obama, lets just settle this at some point.

At the same time, having a long process on democratic side could lead to a SUPER candidate, but that still excludes brokered convention. at this point, its SO hard to predict what will happen...

• I think If Obama can get through PA(9+ / 0-)

with an overall delegate lead - including superdelegates, which I think is quite possible, I think there will be a lot of pressure on the remaining superdelegates to back Obama as the leader in both elected and overall delegate counts

In any case, I wonder if we'll get some sort of superdelegate reform after this - either having fewer of them or what.

Unless Clinton just gets swept everywhere, I too don't see how this isn't decided by superdelegates.

• Agree with all those points.(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
The Termite, Mike Taylor

I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

[ Parent ]

• Agreed..(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
someotherguy86

...and get ready to hear that word over, and over, and over for the next six months.

Before this is all said and done, we will all know more about superdelegates than we ever wanted to.

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• I don't think we'll see delegate reform.(0+ / 0-)

if Bush vs. Gore wasn't enough to raise awareness of our stultified electoral process, neither will this, unless a candidate cannot be properly worked out and we lose the general election because of it.

• i dont think democrats are suicidal(9+ / 0-)

Having super-delegates determine the outcome would fracture the party irreparably.

Im guessing loser of elected delegate count is pressured to withdraw.  If it goes to convention enough  superdelegates will likely be pressured to vote for winner of delegate count.

There is no prospect of obama-clinton or clinton-obama

• Hmmmmm(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Mike Taylor

i dont think democrats are suicidal

I assume you exclude our present Democratic Congress from that statement?

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• Actually Donna Brazile said something similar...(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

the other day on CNN - something to the effect that if the super delegates (even though she is one) decided this nomination in a way that seemed to subvert the will of the voters, it would be disastrous for the Party. I was surprised by her intensity... she always seems such a party hack but not this time.

I don't fail - I just succeed at finding out what doesn't work.

[ Parent ]

• Hillary always counts them when she(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

mentions totals. She will destroy the party if that results in her getting the nomination, so that she can lose to her drinking buddy John McCain in the general election.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

[ Parent ]

• I do not believe Clinton would accept VP...(0+ / 0-)

I DO think she'd accept a Supreme Court nod.

• Change is painful(11+ / 0-)

This party cannot pass up the opportunity to grow and prosper by sticking to the same old game plan of relying on big donors and only playing in a few states. Obama is following the 50 state strategy and the Howard Dean fund raising model and proving it works.
He is making the party bigger and stronger with more Independents and an energized youth vote.
I hope cooler heads will prevail and not egos.

Tired of white haired, old white men ruining the world. (Bald ones too!)

• Much depends on Obama(5+ / 0-)

I would hope....truly...that if Clinton takes the nomination, Obama shows he is a Democrat and helps to pull his primary voters through to the GE.

I can honestly say, as an Obama supporter, that if he does not take the nomination and his response is to take his bat and ball and go home.  I am through with him. He is a Democrat.  And he should jolly well act like one through thick and thin.

I would also remind that voting is a habit.  Once people start voting, statistically, they keep it up.  I believe that dkos is buying spin when the folks here opine that if Clinton takes the general that we will lose all our new voters.

Just as I believe the Grand Old Party will pony up behind McCain after a couple of weeks of moping.  Limbaugh does not speak for the party.

In God we trust. All else bring data.--and I am an athiest

• The problem is(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
oldliberal

That many people simply won't vote for hillary clinton.

I'm not interested in being a member of a party that would pick a person like hillary over a person like Obama... If she wins fair and square.. so be it.. that would tell me that our party and country have truly lost their way

This election is our only chance to get our country back

• 70% of Dems polled(5+ / 0-)

say they like the candidates just fine, either one. Some people might not vote for her who would vote for Obama, but hey, guess what, that cuts both ways. Just because he rings your bells doesn't mean everybody has to feel the same way.

• A lot of people(0+ / 0-)

Watch american idol... this has nothing to do with ringing my bell.

Things are much worse than they appear.. this is a very dangerous time in our history... if we elect another conservative leader (hillary or mccain) we are in big trouble..

I could be wrong.. but that's my belief.. this isn't a popularity contest for me.. I don't care about obama's speeches.. what I care about is his vision.. it's plain in his writings....

And I think it's what we need now.. before things get much, much worse

Maybe im preaching doom too much.. but I think that the financial system is much less stable than the experts are letting on

• Stevens. Retiring.(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
DMiller

Do you hear what I'm saying?

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• Lost our way?(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

I hear that from some of the Edwards backers.  I don't buy it.  We are finding our way.  Democracy is not easy.  Change is not easy, as Obama says.  He is young.  If Obama does not gain the nomination, he will not die.  He will continue to move and shape the party, if he is the real deal.  And you will continue to move and shape the party if you are the real deal also.

I believe that either candidate is well positioned to win the nomination and would certainly do much better than McCain at taking back America.

In God we trust. All else bring data.--and I am an athiest

[ Parent ]

• I don't think people undrestand the peril(0+ / 0-)

We are at an inflection point in our history.. and if we don't drastically change our course we could be in for very, very, very dark times.

We need a visionary.... Obama is the only person in the race who MIGHT fit that bill.. I already know that neither hillary or mccain can handle the challenges that face us.. they simple are too entrenched in the old ways....

Strong language.. but I truly believe this to the be the case

We've been sent this man.. (and you know what I'm talking about if you read his writings.. he's brilliant and a very deep thinker)... and we need to put him in place and how that his vision is as true as some of us think it could be.

• Most Obama supporters...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

...and by most I mean a huge majority approaching all, would support Hillary in the general if she wins the nomination in a manner that they understand and that is fair.

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• What exactly do you want him to do?(0+ / 0-)

Are you saying he should go campaign for Hillary?

I doubt very much that he would do that.  It is customary for to go home at that point.  Other than Giulani, when last did a primary loser campaign for the winner?

• I for one will not vote for Clinton. And(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
John Poet

don't forget that many Obama voters are indies like me. They will vote for McCain in the general or not vote at all.

• The way we avoid a brokered convention is for(4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
jxg, blueness, leftneck, Capt Morgan

Obama to sweep all of the states through March 4, 2008.  The next 9 look possible, but then things get more difficult on March 4.  If Obama can sweep through the rest of February and get enough momentum to win victories in both Ohio and Texas giving him a substantial overall delegate, then I think there would be a lot of pressure from the super delegates (including some of Hillary's current supporters) to step aside for the good of the party.  However, Obama has an uphill battle ahead if he wants to pull off that feat.  Although the remainder of February is favorable to Obama, sweeping all of the states remaining in February is no forgone conclusion.  And in both Texas and Ohio, he has a lot of ground to make up.

• I think he has to take PA as well(0+ / 0-)

on April 22nd as well.  If he can somehow pull out Ohio and Texas on the 4th, and then fend off Clinton in Pennsylvania, then I think she'll be forced to concede.  However, anything other than that goes to the superdelegates I think.

• There are 7 states plus Guam and Puerto Rico(0+ / 0-)

after PA. One of those states is North Carolina with 134 delegates.

• If obama(0+ / 0-)

wins the rest of february (which he will except for possibly maine)... and wins ohio and texas.. it's over

There will be huge pressure on hillary to quit

I actually think that if he can just win texas OR ohio it will be all but over

• You really think he will take VA?(0+ / 0-)

I'm an election official in sw VA and I don't think it will be so easy for him in rural VA... sad but true.

I don't fail - I just succeed at finding out what doesn't work.

[ Parent ]

• If it's the same as NE tennessee(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
va dare

it will be hard as Clinton was pulling in something like 80% there.  Though SW virginia does have Tech, which I would guess would swing to Obama.

• I think Obama will pull about 25%...(0+ / 0-)

the university towns don't have that much 'reach' into rural areas. The United Mine Workers had endorsed Edwards - I don't know which way they will swing.

I don't fail - I just succeed at finding out what doesn't work.

[ Parent ]

• hes up almostt 20 points(0+ / 0-)

in the new surveyUSA poll

• I don't know....Virginia might be an iffy(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

but we'll see.  I think I look forward to this ending just so I can get some sleep.  lol

• They could always settle it by(5+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
2lucky, brainwave, pseudopod, haruki, leftneck

shooting free throws.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

• Or...(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
InsultComicDog, demoKatz, leftneck

...they could have a penis measuring contest flip a coin.

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• Nah(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
The Termite, InsultComicDog

Nah, a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.

• Let them play a game ofHarpoon against each other(3+ / 0-)

whoever wins, er, wins

• Obama starts with...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
InsultComicDog

..an "O" in center square?  If those are the rules, I'm down!

"Some folks look for answers...others look for fights."

[ Parent ]

• penalty shots(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
InsultComicDog

Trying to score from the 25 yard line?

• Romney dropping out means that...(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
LordMike, leftneck

...it will be over after the next big state (Tx, OH,...)primaries.

Hillary holds tough in the big states and Obama doesn't pick up ground. Obama will then drop out after being offered god-like status in the senate. He won't see any point in going in to the convention holding less delegates, including super-delegates. He'll lose and split the party while ruining his future with the Democratic party and any chances at a future run.

or,

Obama manages a dead heat in the primary states and pulls close enough in pledged delegates ensure a tie in overall delegate count, including super-delegates. Hillary will drop out after being offered the future majority senate leader spot or some other highly powerful position. If she doesn't she risks losing her Democratic base support and not being re-elected to the senate.

The DNC will make these deals to avoid a repeat of 68' which is certain to not only lose us the WH but also our slim majority in the congress. There won't be any hard feelings from Hillary or Obama, they're both grown-ups and know how the game is played. They are also good Democrats and are too respectful to risk destroying the party for their own hubris.

Neither will accept the VP slot.

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

• I don't get what Mitten's got to do with it eom(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
VClib

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• I guess the logic(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
brainwave, Psychotronicman

that it's better to drop out gracefull than have a intra-party fight.

Of course, Romney was basically out of it anyway when he dropped out.  That probably won't be the case for either Clinton or Obama.

• I see(0+ / 0-)

Not that the argument makes much sense. Like you say, it's not exactly like Romney and MacCain were running neck-and-neck.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• Actually Romney dropping out is very...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
brainwave

...meaningful. McCain is now their nominee. The Republicans now have a head start on us. They can start pulling together the party base and also begin campaigning against the Democrats earlier. This is a huge advantage of six additional months if we go all the way to a brokered convention. It is important to tie up our nomination quickly to prevent this.

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• Oh, okay, now I get it n/t(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• The Clintons care more about themselves(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
TheSpike, happymisanthropy

Than party. I mean Bill really did wonders for the Democrats in the 1994 elections.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

[ Parent ]

• I like how people bring up 94(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Bill O Rights, Psychotronicman

but don't bring up 96
or 98
or 2000, at least as far as the congressional elections.

• Yeah(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
blueness

We really took back Congress there.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

[ Parent ]

• so elections are only successful(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

if you take back congress?

• There were 267 Democrats in Congress in 1992(0+ / 0-)

And 212 in Congress in 2001. Let's hear the Clinton spin on that.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

[ Parent ]

• It's called 94 being a change election(0+ / 0-)

something that was brought up by a lot more than a mere 2 years of Clinton's presidency.

• I got a stunning vitriolic email from my mother..(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
brainwave, leftneck

...about both her and my father's support for HRC.

It's pretty shocking the level of Obama-hate I was reading in that one. Still not sure about it, hoping it was heat of the moment.

There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

• Find out and let us know(4+ / 0-)

I know that although voting for Obama, I hold great warmth for the Clintons.  I also do not think for a minute that Hillary would let Bill upstage or control her once elected.  How much does he get into her Senate position now?

In God we trust. All else bring data.--and I am an athiest

[ Parent ]

• Emotions are running high...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
DMiller

...it'll pass. If Obama wins the nom Hillary will immendiately go to work for him mending the bridges that inevitably get burned during the primaries. And, hopefully so will Obama.

(Michelle's statement was hair-raising to the Democratic faithful. Taking his ball and going home means his career as a Democrat is over. He'll be drummed out of the senate for the betrayal.)

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• I'm not over it(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Bill O Rights, Psychotronicman

I've got to tell you.  I've been about equal between them throughout and that statement just about did me in.

• Oddly enough I didn't think that...(0+ / 0-)

...anything Michelle Obama would say during the campaign would have any impact. But, that may have been the biggest mistake of the Obama run so far. It certainly hardened many Hillary supporters resolve to win.

I'm not over it either.

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• Michellle's husband said as much...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman
when he threatened that Hillary would not get some of his voters.

This blog is friggin skewed and not representative of the 50/50 actual vote nationwide count. When you realize Hillary's votes were in states that a Dem candidate can win, Obama looks weak.

• Yep, because more indies...(0+ / 0-)

...go to McCain if it's her VS. Clinton that Obama.

That's not taking your ball and going home that's just the facts. I wouldn't work on the Clinton campaign EITHER. Though I'd vote.

I'd work on the Congressional Dem campaigns. Because they'll need it with an anchor at the top of the ticket.

There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

[ Parent ]

• Ever pull a trailer full of molasses?(8+ / 0-)

It will pull fine unless you get it about 10% off balance going around a corner. Then it's going all the way over.

I don't care how tenacious the Clintons are, if Obama is 10% to 15% ahead at the end of April (and he will be) then most of the superdelegates are all going to come over in the interest of party unity.

Obama doesn't need to 'clinch' this thing. He knows it and the Clintons know it.

Obama's not worried about any of this math right now and neither should any of us be.

Just keep donating and keep winning. The sky is not falling. There will be no brokered convention. We'll have our nominee by June. It will be Obama.

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

• agreed,(0+ / 0-)

with this caveat: this will be Clinton II's last shot at the White House. Would she be stubborn and reckless and selfish enough to fight tooth and claw to snatch away a "victory," by any means necessary--meaning, first, superpressure on superdelegates, and then, seating of the Florida and Michigan "delegates"?

• No. She knows where it has to end.(3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
blueness, haruki, Psychotronicman

And it's no where near the 'clinch' number everyone is throwing around.

She's a good human being and she'll protect her legacy as supporting the Democratic Party and working Americans.

That's no reason to slack up! We still gotta get that 10% to 15% and keep it until the end of April!

Michigan and Florida will be seated just like they are, because after the superdelegate slosh, they won't make any difference in the outcome. Obama himself will request they be seated.

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

[ Parent ]

• dern,(0+ / 0-)

I'd like to be as confident as you! I just remember 1972, and the lengths to which Hubert Humphrey was willing to go to deny the nomination to McGovern. You think Clinton II is more of "a good human being" than he was?

• Yes. And beyond that she's smart.(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
blueness, haruki

People are getting WAY ahead of themselves worrying about a brokered convention. I would be if I thought Obama's momentum had been halted. It hasn't.

Everything is working in his favor now. Time (very big). And Money.

Forget about Michigan and Florida and the stupid 'clinch' number. Obama isn't thinking about them, for good reason.

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

[ Parent ]

• Hillary gets a kick-ass consolation prize(0+ / 0-)

If she steps down gracefully before the convention has to be brokered. I'm guessing senate majority leader. She is a lawyer. Does anyone think she might make a good supreme court justice? What else could they give her? Suggestions anyone?

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• She'll be happy with New York Senator(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

She really is more interested in what's good for this country. She'll be satisfied knowing she did her best.

She's a hell of a lady. We're damned lucky to have her.

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

[ Parent ]

• Damn straight- One of the true good guys(0+ / 0-)

We're very lucky to have her.

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• I actually think the superdelegate slosh(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
blueness

will begin soon. As soon as we come through this weekend and then Tuesday well ahead... and then once Obama's poll numbers start rising in Texas (they will), you'll see superdelegates coming over at an increasing rate.

Wouldn't surprise me if Obama and Clinton were nearly even in superdelagates a few days before Texas and Ohio.

When Dean talks about "doing things", he's talking about his influence upon superdelegates (where he has plenty).

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

[ Parent ]

• okay(0+ / 0-)

I'm won over.

• Good. Now if you believed all that,(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
blueness

then we can make it true.

A lot more work to be done.

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

[ Parent ]

• I've been hard on hillary(0+ / 0-)

But I truly hope you are right.. I don't have anywhere near the faith in her character than you do.

But seriously.. I truly hope you are right

• as a HRC supporter(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

I favor some kind of do over in Fl and MI--but those states won't change the math.

The only solution is a unity ticket with Obama as VEEP--setting us up for 16 years of leadership.

• *sigh(0+ / 0-)

If only that were possible but I just don't see it. Neither candidate would really benefit from the position.

I do know this: If there was a Hillary/Obama ticket the ones not coming out to vote would be the Republicans. They know it would be unbeatable and the contributions for McCain would dry up instantly.

'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

[ Parent ]

• false(0+ / 0-)

Obama can not be on a hillary ticket in either position... she ruins his appeal completely

• Obama will be well ahead after Tuesday(0+ / 0-)

and superdelegates will start spilling over. Why do you think he'd accept VP?

Because he's winning?

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

[ Parent ]

• This Paragraph In Your Diary Is Completely Wrong:(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
DrMicro

1,100 out of 1,400 means one candidate needs to win nearly 80% of all pledged delegates yet to be awarded to clinch it. As Chris points out, Obama will need a hundred more to overcome Clinton's lead in super delegates - meaning he'll need something like 86% of all delegates yet to be pledged. Unlike Kane and others] I won't say that's impossible - but it's, uhm, not bloody likely...

Kane's math takes into account all of the super delegates, even the ones that have pledged already.  My comment title is hyperbole; it is not all wrong, just the part about 86%.  He only needs 80% to overcome the total of all of the super delegates, not just the ones who have already pledged to vote for Clinton, but 80% wins it even if the super delegates already promising to vote for Obama change their minds and vote for Clinton.  Look at the numbers again and think about it, then maybe edit the diary.

Real change in America - real change in Washington - will never occur if all we do is replace their insiders with our insiders.

• Don't think so(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Psychotronicman

Kane is talking about 1,400 remaining (to be) pledged delegates, not total delegates.

That means there are now only about 1,400 delegates left up for grabs in the remaining states and territories voting.

So, do the math. If they both have about 900 pledged delegates so far, they need to win more than 1,100 of the remaining 1,400 delegates to win the nomination through actual voting.

1,100 of 1,400 - that's 80% of the delegates still to be awarded.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• Oh wait, I think I understand your point now(0+ / 0-)

But I still don't agree ;-) Bowers is saying Obama needs 100 extra pledged to overcome Clinton's advantage in supers. Of course that's assuming that Obama either won't be raking in super delegates the way Clinton does or won't be able to rely on them coming through for him in the end.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• Regardless(0+ / 0-)

As you indicate yourself in your first reply (despite the title of the comment), 80% is the correct number, not 86% which is the number given in the paragraph I pasted from the diary.

Real change in America - real change in Washington - will never occur if all we do is replace their insiders with our insiders.

[ Parent ]

• What pisses me off(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:

Is when Superdelegate Bill Clinton whines about how un-democratic something is, but doesn't whine about how un-democratic it is that his vote counts for over 10,000 times my primary vote, because that helps his wife.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

• Caucuses and FL disenfranchisement piss me off(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Bill O Rights, ryan t

quit bitching.

• Superdelegate count left(0+ / 0-)

If the 2008 Convention Watch website is correct and I counted right, there are:

91 US Representative,
29 US Senator, and
12 Governor Super delegates left, plus Gore and Carter.

That's 134 super delegates.  We then have the 76 unpledged superdeleagetes elected by the state conventions which elect delegates to the democratic convention.  that leaves something like 200 to 250 DNC superdelegates left, and the lions share of those are STATE DNC members, ie the people who got Howard Dean elected as DNC chair.  Are those really people who could really be considered "insiders" or not?

I'm not sure Clinton being the supposedly insider candidate (something which I think can be quite disputed at this point) necessarily means superdelegates will fall her way.

• She's leading them 2-1 right now(0+ / 0-)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

[ Parent ]

• erm(0+ / 0-)

I think I read somewhere where this leaked Obama spreadsheet indicated that he had 170 superdelegates (obviously not all declared) if that's the case, he would have narrowed the margin considerably.

• I salute you, Admiral(0+ / 0-)

You're right on the money.

The superdelegate slosh will begin right after Tuesday and all this talk of a brokered convention will evaporate as Obama's poll numbers in Texas and Ohio start coming up daily.

It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

[ Parent ]

• MI and FL are a red herring(0+ / 0-)

Let's say someone pulls in 60% of the vote in each state.  It's still only a net gain of about 68 delegates (back of the envelope, but the actual delegate count won't be that much different - if anything, the differential will probably be less).  That's not going to be enough to make a difference.  Like it or not, the supers will decide this thing.  Obama's only hope is to continue to win primaries and shame the supers into voting for him.

The party has other reasons for letting MI and FL back into the game.  I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with those reasons.  Just don't expect them to eliminate a brokered convention.

I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

• Sorry, sticking to my math(0+ / 0-)

65% is a lot more doable than 80%, anyway you slice it. It's still a very tall order though.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• I've got a problem...(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
brainwave

I'm a florida resident and longtime independent. Shortly after new years I tried to change my voters registration in order to support Obama in the beauty contest. But I was informed no changes were permitted after the end of december. Since Florida has a closed primary I was left out.

If they're going to allow a change of rules, and if there's to be a do-over, and if it's really going to count, I want independents to be permitted to participate!

What are the chances all parties agree to allow every Floridian who wants to have a say to be heard?

"Be you ever so high, the law is above you." - Thomas Fuller

• Well the first question is(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Heimyankel

what are the chances of the state of Florida agreeing to holding caucuses? I didn't get to talk about this but I don't think even Michigan (which still has a Democratic governor) is eager to this. Taxpayer money, answering to Republican constituents, and all that.

It could be a historic opportunity though - if the state Democratic parties were to run the caucuses themselves (I happen to believe that the parties should run their contests). But the chances of the FL Democratic party being interested are apparently not great either. And anyway that probably wouldn't help you as an Indy.

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• caucuses would be great(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
brainwave

And just imagine how persuasive they'd be if thousands of independents joined in to pitch for Obama!

"Be you ever so high, the law is above you." - Thomas Fuller

[ Parent ]

• It's possible(0+ / 0-)

The Florida officials are open to the idea but they need 10 million to pay for it.  The outcome from a caucus will be very different.  I don't see the older vote having as much of an impact. It takes much more effort to go to a caucus.  Plus, some of the districts are ridiculous and some people will have to drive long distances.

Anything can happen.

Recommended by:
brainwave

Clinton agrees to serve a single term as President until 2012 when she'll turn 65. Obama will then run for  President in 2012 (he'll be 51), and can serve 2 terms.

Clintons can pitch it as an economic repair job, clearing way for Obama in 2012. The thing is 2012 can either represent the birth of a new world or the apocalypse depending on which prophecy you believe.

I'm mad as Gravel, and I'm not going to take it anymore!

• Hm... have to think about that one n/t(0+ / 0-)

Damn George Bush! Damn everyone that won't damn George Bush! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning George Bush!

[ Parent ]

• A coin-flip would be better than a brokered(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
ryan t

convention.
This "super delegate" shit is for the birds. If it were up to me, I would disqualify all of the super delegates, then get a new "magic number" from whatever would be the majority of "regular" delegates. Whoever reaches the majority of "regular" delegates is the nominee. If it's a tie, flip a goddamn coin. Anything but letting the "super delegates"(party insiders) decide who will be our nominee.

• Here's one way to resolve this...(0+ / 0-)

Michigan holds a caucus.

Florida gets 1/2 its delegates seated, based on the results of its primary.

Superdelegates are required to vote for any candidate that receives an outright majority of pledged delegates.

Note: Edwards has 33 pledged delegates counting 1/2 his Florida delegates, so this scenario would create a little bit of a "buffer zone" for either candidate.

The clinching number would then be 1785 out of 3569 pledged delegates (now counting Michigan and 1/2 of Florida in this denominator).  The way that the math works out, that means a candidate would have to win 50.5% of the non-Edwards pledged delegates.

Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

• an absurd and impractical solution(0+ / 0-)

never-ever happen.

i'd rather see the two candidates play rock, paper, scissors--best 4 out of 7.

Nothing beats rock--right?

• Because ... you're a Hillary supporter?(0+ / 0-)

How is this unfair?  Hillary gains a 19-delegate advantage in Florida from an election that was unsanctioned.  We have a real contest in Michigan.  And frankly, that 33-vote buffer zone is about the point at which superdelegates would begin to defect to Obama anyway.

Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

[ Parent ]

• change the rules now--why exactly?(0+ / 0-)

Do think the democratic party fell out of the sky for the express purpose of helping Obama get the nomination.

The man chose to run an insurgent campaign, which meant he had to win big--he knew it going in.  Like Bill Clinton did in '92--remember that--or were you in diapers?

Why shouldn't the people who work the hardest to build the party and are the most informed have a say in who could very well be leading them for the next 8 years.

As opposed to a bunch of schlubs some of  whom probably voted for George Bush at least once.

• You really dont get it(0+ / 0-)

The people who have been building the democratic party ARE voting for obama...

The superdelegates can not override a pledged majority from obama.. (or clinton for that matter.. but espeically for obama).. it's total suicide.. a nuclear option.. it guarantees a loss in the fall

• that is nonsense(0+ / 0-)

most of them are newbys--former republicans even.

Earlier in the week, the Obama Fan Base was bragging on that 12yo precinct captain in Colorado--maybe you think he should have as much power and influence as somebody like Dick Gephardt--who is a superdelegate for HRC.

That is insanity!

Get your majority first and it better be a big one!!
Than we can talk!

Why shouldn't the people who work the hardest to build the party and are the most informed have a say in who could very well be leading them for the next 8 years?

• Take some Metamucil(0+ / 0-)

...because you sound just like Fred Thompson, a grumpy old Republican elitist.

Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

[ Parent ]

• Wow...(0+ / 0-)

I don't know if I've ever read anything on this site that's made me quite this angry.  Unbelievable, really, just unbelievable.  You're seriously asking why people's votes should be given precedence over backroom mechanations?

Gaije's Page www.gaije.blogspot.com

[ Parent ]

• oh spare me your outrage(0+ / 0-)

If the Obama Fan Base had the edge in superdelegates--you'd all be gloating about it now.

An the word is machination--dumbass!

• Schlubs = voters? Seriously, go to hell.(0+ / 0-)

And if you're scoring at home, if Hillary wins the nomination in spite of losing in the pledged delegate category by more than 33 ... she will not get my vote and she will in all probability not win the presidency.

Barack Obama. Because we can do better.

[ Parent ]

• but...(0+ / 0-)

a bunch of the superdelegates determine their vote by how their state turns out... and will decide before the convention... so it still isn't necessarily that it'll all happen at the convention.

tunesmith's latest song: My Favorite Clown

• who here has been to a national convention?(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Moresby, doinaheckuvanutjob

Hmm nobody--that figures!!

The superdels are a necessary evil--half the people there are newbys--and need experienced hands to show them around.  Things have be done and issues have to be decided--that won't get done without them.

Hillarys advantage with the supers was a known factor with Obama going in.  That is the nature of an insurgent campaign you have to win big.  Changing the rules now is just as wrong as changing the rules in Fl and Mi.

The Obama Fan Base has got to stop their damn whining about this.  My personal prediction is that supers won't decide this thing anyway.

• Really?(0+ / 0-)

If the super-delegates are necessary to handhold the newbies, then make them into mentors.  There is no need to give them a damn vote.  The real problem is that they make up 20% of the delegates.  They should amount to no more than 5%.  And should only be in play if the pledged delegate count is exactly even.

I say get the NFL to design the rules.  There is no system of rules more precise than that.

• and how exactly did you arrive...(2+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Moresby, doinaheckuvanutjob

...at that 5%?  You just pulled it out of your ass--I guess.

• My guess is ...(0+ / 0-)

Obama drops out of the race if he doesn't win both OH and TX.  I don't think he will.

But that's really what the race will come down to.

Disagree, flame me, but that's what's gonna happen.

I am neither bitter nor cynical but I do wish there was less immaturity in political thinking. -- FDR

• Just elminate the Super Delegates(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Timothy Scriven

or make them support the person with the most pledged delegates.

1964 Cassius Clay vs Sonny Liston, 1997 Masters Tiger Woods vs Field, 2008 Barack Obama vs Field

• As long as you are willing to change the rules(0+ / 0-)

in mid-stream, that is okay, if you also include Michigan and Florida AS ALREADY VOTED.  Or are you only willing to change the rules if it helps Obama?

If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.

[ Parent ]

• Obama leads the pledged delegate count(0+ / 0-)

Most superdelegates have not endorsed anyone.

Those who have endorsed may change their mind.

And then there is FL, MI and the Edwards delegates.

Noone knows what will happen to those.

• Gore/Obama ticket. Hillary on the Supreme Court.(0+ / 0-)

Just checking... how many of you would be good with such a compromise?

• Doomsday is not going to happen.(0+ / 0-)

First, Dean came out to prevent a brokered convention and all the rest of this nonsense.

Do you think for a second that Kennedy and all the rest of the 'party elders' would tolerate a brokered convention? Heck no. Dean was fully backed on this, I have no doubt. And he will have Obama and Hillary on board for it.

Someone is going to win this fair and square, by winning enough primaries and leading in delegates at the end. Superdelegates won't decide it, nor will Michigan and Florida.

If they are tied without the necessary majority, a unity ticket is inevitable, or a unity platform on which one or the other will run and be endorsed by the other. And that will be fair to all parties.

Now I've seen everything-- the threat of a brokered convention or a unity ticket as an organizing tool. Well, if that motivates you, go for it, you have my blessings.

Factual reality soundcheck over.

Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

• If Obama won a solid majority of the pledged (0+ / 0-)

Delegates ( say 55%+) the superdelegates would have no choice but to go for Obama or lose the general election, the whole process would look farcical otherwise. With that in mind I think that there may be a convention withotu a majority made up entirely of pledged but that it won't be a major disaster so long as Obama wins a solid majority. Failure to win a majority through pledged delegates alone does not equal a brokered convention.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of superdelegates have made no move in either direction and that Clinton superdelegates can always change their minds.

Cthulhu 08, why vote for a lesser evil? Economic -6.12 Social -7.23

• So your solution(0+ / 0-)

is to replace a democratic primary in Florida with all the candidates on the ballot with a grossly UNdemocratic caucus, because it favors Obama?  So as far as I can tell, you are perfectly willing to "change the rules in the middle of the game," or as so many here have put it, "play Calvinball," as long as it favors Obama?  Fuck that.

All the candidates were on the Florida ballot.  Nobody campaigned in Florida (and before you start bitching, look up how "campaign" is defined in the agreement, look at Obamas national ad buy, and his own violation of the agreement last September).  Additionally, as so many Obama supporters have pointed out in response to Hillarys request for a debate, there were NINETEEN debates before the Florida primary, so the voters (just as you are all arguing now) had more than enough information to make up their own minds.

If you refuse to vote for OUR PARTY'S nominee in November, the blood of a thousand back-alley abortions will be on your hands.