Skip to main content

Returns are coming in on election night; the race has been close and polls show either candidate could win.  Now, with 83% of precincts reporting, candidate A is leading 53% to 47% over B.  It's an insurmountable lead, and the race is called for candidate A.  That's where the Democratic primaries are: Of the 3253 pledged delegates available, about 83% have already been voted on, and Obama is leading Clinton by about 53% to 47%.  We can call the race now.

Look at it another way: There are 566 pledged delegates left from states that haven't voted yet.  To catch up with Obama, Clinton needs to win about 65% of those, which means she needs to average about 65% of the vote in the remaining states.  She doesn't win by such margins: So far, Clinton has received more than 60% of the vote in exactly one state: Arkansas.  Her second-best result was 58% in Rhode Island.  Her other home state, New York, gave her 57%.

If every state from now on goes as well for Clinton as her home state of New York did, she'll still lose.

[ Note: I didn't write this for a kos audience; most of you already know this stuff.  It's an overview you can point people to. ]

If every state from now on goes as well for Clinton as her home state of New York did, then she will get about 322 of the remaining pledged delegates, and Obama will get about 244, for a net gain of about 78... leaving Obama still ahead by about 80-90 pledged delegates!  Remember, that's what will happen if Clinton gets a New York level win in every state.  Not gonna happen.  She might do that well in Pennsylvania, but the next-biggest state to come is North Carolina.  We also have states like Oregon and Indiana coming.

One way to look at it is this: For every state where Clinton gets less than 65% of the vote from now on, she's losing ground!  Imagine you're a runner 100 feet from the finish line, and there's someone ahead of you who's only 50 feet from the line.  If, in the next second, you run 30 feet while the leader only runs 25, now you're 70 feet from the finish and the leader is 25 feet from it.  Sure, you just ran a little faster, but your chances of overtaking the leader before the finish have gotten even smaller.

In other words, even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania 57-43, that actually puts her further away from catching up to Obama, not closer.  She'll do considerably worse than that in most remaining states.

It's over: Obama will go to the convention with more pledged delegates, and will be the Democratic nominee for President.

What about the Superdelegates?

Democratic members of the US House and Senate, Democratic governors, members of the DNC, and a few other party leaders, are automatically delegates to the convention and can vote for whomever they choose.  They're called "unpledged delegates" or "superdelegates" (informally).  Even though Obama will have more pledged delegates (from winning actual votes in actual states) that Clinton, if enough superdelegates vote for her, she could have a higher overall total and get the nomination, theoretically.

It's extremely unlikely, for two reasons.  First, for superdelegates to overturn the decision of the voters would be a major scandal.  Obama's supporters would not see it as legitimate: they'd mostly feel that he won, and the nomination was stolen from him.  Black voters, in particular, would rightly feel that the system is rigged against them: finally a black candidate manages to win, only to have party insiders take it away.  Superdelegates know this, and of all delegates, they're the ones with the most to care about the party as a whole.  They know that if this happens it will greviously wound the Democratic party, and almost ensure that McCain wins.  They won't let that happen.

Second, there just aren't that many superdelegates left to go, either.  Of the 794 superdelegates, various polls & surveys show about 220-230 say they'll vote for Obama, and about 250-260 say they've vote for Clinton.  That leaves only about 240-250 who haven't chosen yet (plus 68 who haven't been chosen yet).  Clinton would have to get an overwhelming majority of those delegates to make up for Obama's 100-200 delegate lead.  If those remaining 250 feel so strongly about supporting Clinton that they'd be willing to cause such a major scandal, why have they remained undeclared so long?  Obviously, because most of them don't.  Clinton will not get an overwhelming majority of them.

What about Michigan and Florida?

Michigan and Florida held their primaries too early, and according to Democratic Party rules, their delegates are not supposed to count, so they're not included in any of the counts above.  Clinton's campaign is pushing to have them counted, because she won both states.  If they're counted as-is, Obama gets 67 more delegates and Clinton gets 178 more, for a net gain of 111 for Clinton.

That, also, will not happen.  To begin with, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and you can't vote write-in in a primary.  No credible argument can be made that Michigan's election was fair, and there is no way Michigan's delegation will be seated as-is.  They'll probably come up with a compromise, like splitting it 50/50 between the two candidates.  Florida did have both candidates on the ballot, but neither candidate campaigned there, and many voters stayed home because they were told it wouldn't count.  A compromise is likely there too.

Who decides what is to be done with Michigan and Florida?  A committee at the Democratic National Convention, whose membership will be proportional from the pledged delegates: in other words, a committee with a majority of Obama supporters.  There's no way they'll give Clinton the full 111-delegate advantage that comes with counting the entirely unfair Michigan primary.

However, even if they did, 111 still probably won't be enough to overcome Obama's advantage.  He's 160+ ahead of Clinton now; she's not likely to whittle that down to under 120 in the few states left.

Is there any way Clinton can win?

Yes, there are still two possible scenarios in which Clinton gets the nomination, both very unlikely:

  • The "Spitzer" scenario: Something very big and very unexpected happens that destroys Obama's viability as a candidate, or forces him to drop out, before the convention.  Even if that happens after the last state has voted, superdelegates would still switch to Clinton en masse, and she'd get the nomination.  Note, however, that for this scenario it doesn't matter whether Clinton is still running.  She could suspend her campaign right now, and she'd still be in position to step back in and accept the nomination if something of that magnitude occurred.
  • The convention fight scenario: Clinton keeps camapigning all the way to the convention, whittles down Obama's lead to below 140, and tries to get superdelegates to put her over the top.  She can do this with her strategy of racial division.  As I explained, this is also very unlikely, but it's the only thing she has left to try for.

Should Clinton drop out?

Obviously this question would make little sense if the outcome were still unclear.  I wouldn't want any candidate dropping out until it became clear that they couldn't win.  But since it is now clear that Clinton can't win by continuing to campaign, it's a reasonable question to think about.  So here's where I switch from factual argument, to opinion.

Contested primaries have a lot of advantages.  Voter registration drives, activating local networks, volunteer recruitment and training: Obama will benefit from having to campaign for votes in more states, particularly swing states like Pennsylvania and Oregon.  And since Clinton is using a lot of McCain's arguments against Obama, he's also getting practice in dealing with those.  On the other hand, McCain's arguments are getting extra credibility coming from a Democrat, and McCain is getting extra time to establish his message and identity for this election, so it's a mixed bag.  And there's that racial division Clinton is exploiting, which also does long term damage.

For Clinton's own sake, she'd do much better to stop campaigning soon.  The longer she stays in this when people can see she has lost and is only campaigning for a convention fight, the more enemies she makes in the party and the more bridges she burns.  For example, if she wants to become Senate Majority Leader sometime, she's hurting her chances.

But from my point of view, as someone who doesn't particularly care about Clinton's future prospects, I think on balance having a primary in Pennsylvania at least would be good.  And possibly a few more.  Rather than Clinton abruptly dropping out, I think we'd be much better off if she lost some more primaries.  Speaking as someone who wants to see Obama become president, the best thing would be for Clinton to lose more votes.  Not good for Clinton, but good for the Democrats and for Obama.

Why you should still vote

If you want a Democratic president and were planning to vote in an upcoming primary, you may wonder: Why bother?  If Obama has already won, does it matter?  Yes, it still matters, because Clinton is still campaigning.  By doing so, she is preventing Obama from getting a lock on the nomination by getting enough pledged delegates for a solid majority even without superdelegates.  As I described above, there's only one thing she could still be campaigning for: a convention fight, where she can get enough superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate plurality, and ensure that she will be the loser in November.  The closer to Obama she gets, the more likely she is to think of that as a resonable option; the further ahead of her he is, the more likely she is to give it up.

So you're not voting on whether to nominate Clinton or Obama - as far as the primaries go, that choice is made.  What you're voting on is the probability of Clinton trying to take it to a convention fight she would likely lose.  If you want her to try that, vote for her; if you don't want her to try that, vote for Obama.

In other words, if you want a Democratic president, you should vote for Obama, regardless of which candidate you prefer.

States that still have primaries coming up:
 * April 22: Pennsylvania - 158 delegates
 * May 3: Guam - 4 delegates
 * May 6: Indiana - 72 delegates
 * May 6: North Carolina - 115 delegates
 * May 13: West Virginia - 28 delegates
 * May 20: Kentucky - 51 delegates
 * May 20: Oregon - 52 delegates
 * June 1: Puerto Rico - 55 delegates
 * June 3: Montana - 16 delegates
 * June 3: South Dakota - 15 delegates

[ table of delegate counts by state ]

Originally posted to cos on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:08 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
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?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If Clinton can't win... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingularExistence

    ...they why are you wasting your breath?  Nobody has ever been able to answer this question, and god knows I've posed it many times.  If she can't win, Obama should treat her like McCain treats the Paulbots.

    As for superdelegates, it's interesting to me that supers pledged to Clinton are seen as ripe for conversion, but those pledged to Obama are seen as inviolable.

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:11:23 AM PDT

    •  Read the whole post, I answered that (14+ / 0-)

      Voting still matters.  However, even people who preferred Clinton should vote for Obama if they want to avoid a convention fight, and if they want a Democratic president elected this year.  I think it's important, and that's why I wrote this.

      •  Its not 65% actually - 57% would do it (0+ / 0-)

        this delgate/%wins calculator that you can try plugging in differing win/lose options and see that 57% wins can do it, as you see. You can try it out by entering differing values yourself

        but I entered 57% (as average) and got this:
        Photobucket

        •  You're misreading that (0+ / 0-)

          That calculator is tallying up pledged delegates with the total number of already declared superdelegates.  Now even based on that I think they've got it a bit wrong, but regardless, look at the numbers you got: 323 to 243.  That's almost exactly what I quoted for that scenario:

          If every state from now on goes as well for Clinton as her home state of New York did, then she will get about 322 of the remaining pledged delegates, and Obama will get about 244, for a net gain of about 78... leaving Obama still ahead by about 80-90 pledged delegates!

          On top of that, they also project the undeclared superdelegates at 57% for Clinton.  In other words, the scenario you're seeing in that calculator is my "every state is like New York" over-optimistic scenario, still leaving Obama ahead by about 80-90 pledged delegates, but then having the superdelegates override that plurality.

          •  no, its not (0+ / 0-)

            try the calculator with your projected numbers: you'll see.

            That calculator is tallying up pledged delegates with the total number of already declared superdelegates.

            You can enter what you estimate except for whats already happened.

            •  look at the numbers (0+ / 0-)

              We don't need to argue about this.  Instead of trusting the totals, just look at the actual numbers.  They show the same numbers I do.

              Obama:  1415 + 243 = 1658
              Clinton: 1251 + 323 = 1574

              1658 - 1574 = 84.

              Ergo: If Clinton averages 57% in the remaining states, Obama's lead will be about 80-90 pledged delegates.  Just as I said.

              Those are the numbers from the very table you yourself posted.  Disregard the superdelegates they're figuring in, and just add them up yourself.

              •  you mean do not fill in any estimate for supers? (0+ / 0-)

                leave the bottom superdelegates line blank

                like this?Photobucket
                even then, I get 63% not 65% gets her to 1862, him to 1850.

                But why do you leave out those 315 supers not yet decided? whats the reasoning behind that? They are part of the mix.

                •  question doesn't make sense in light of my post (0+ / 0-)

                  Your question doesn't make any sense in light of my post, so all I can guess is that you haven't actually read it?

                  My analysis is that Obama will be ahead in pledged delegates at the convention, and that based on that fact, the superdelegates who have not yet declared will make sure he gets the nomination, because enough of them would realize how destructive it would be to deny him the nomination when he has a pledged delegate plurality.  I explained that in order for Clinton to catch up with Obama in pledged delegates she needs to average about 65% of the vote in the remaining states, and that she won't be able to do so.

                  Now you come and say: "Clinton only needs to average 57% of the vote if she can also exceed 57% of the superdelegates".  That's technically correct but completely pointless.

                  In any case, it doesn't make me wrong about the pledged delegate numbers: 57% will leave Clinton 80-90 pledged delegates behind Obama.  Exactly as I said in my post.

                  (Of course she won't do that well either, so Obama would still win)

                  •  Our different math styles! (0+ / 0-)

                    I guess you are not a visual thinker like me, so you are not seeing the examples I post, and conversely: I freely confess doing math in prose does not do it for me...

                    but I'll try:

                    when I plug in 57% average wins, and then I plug in the 315 remaining supers to go to her at a 63% rate, I get a win for her of 2026.

                    Thats with 57% and even a 63% supers rate is not much of a coup in my view, since the ones who know them best, their own colleagues in congress, are already going 94 to her, 87 to him.

                    •  It's not style, it's substance (0+ / 0-)

                      I said Clinton needs to average about 65% in the remaining states to catch up with Obama in pledged delegates.

                      You said she only needs 57%.

                      If you're talking simply numbers, you're wrong.  57% will not catch up with Obama in pledged delegates.

                      I also argued that if she doesn't catch up with him in pledged delegates, the superdelegates won't give her the nomination.  You're saying "but wait!  if she only gets 57% the superdelegates could still give her the nomination!"

                      See the problem here?  Yes, you're technically correct, but you're entirely missing the point.  You're not addressing my argument that if Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, the superdelegates will not give Clinton the nomination.

                      And whether I'm right or wrong about that, that doesn't change the math: 57% is not enough for her to catch up in pledged delegates.  That is what I said, and it is true.  It's as simple as that.

                  •  illustrated: 57% wins and 63% supers=>2025 (0+ / 0-)

                    Photobucket

                    •  oh, enough already (0+ / 0-)

                      You insist on completely missing the point.

                      What you want to say is that even if Obama is 80-90 pledged delegates ahead of Clinton, she could still win if the superdelegates break for her by a big margin.  That does not contradict anything I said.  It's also not gonna happen.

                      Stop posting more tables like this, they don't make your point any clearer.  I'm right about the numbers, and your dispute is with something else.

                      •  delegates assigned by percentage of the win, so (0+ / 0-)

                        if, my example of a 57% win would add as you see on the upcoming delegates line; Obama an additional 243, Clinton 323, so how would he be 80 ahead? she would be ahead in delegates with that.

                        •  I showed that earlier. Again: (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JD SoOR

                          Obama:  1415 + 243 = 1658
                          Clinton: 1251 + 323 = 1574

                          1658 - 1574 = 84.

                          If Clinton averages 57% in all the remaining states, she will remain 80-90 pledged delegates behind Obama.  My calculation said 85, this calculator says 84, but there's a bit of uncertainty in both, so I say 80-90.

                          Why do you insist on pretending that "pledged delegates" means the same as "pledged delegates plus superdelegates"?  I don't get it.

                          What you are saying is that if Clinton averages 57% and superdelegates support her over Obama by a wide margin, then she will get the nomination.  What I'm  saying is that if Clinton averages 57% then she will still be behind him in pledged delegates, and if that happens, superdelegates will not support her by a wide margin.

                          Both your numbers and my numbers show very very clearly that 57% is not enough for Clinton to catch up in pledged delegates; that she will be 80-90 behind.  Why do you belabor this point?  It's getting truly idiotic.

                        •  IF... (0+ / 0-)

                          57% in each remaining contest would get her there, I'd be inclined to see some hope for your projection, but she doesn't need 57%. She needs much MORE than that in the states she is gonna win, cuz she isn't going to sweep from here out. NC is likely a 14 point win for Obama, Oregon will be 8-12 for him, Montana and South Dakota will both break from him, Guam will.. Indiana could be 51-49... if 5 of the remaining 10 contests go Obama, some by double digit margins, she is in a VERY deep hole for the other 5 races. 57% will not do it. She needs Arkansas-like margins in PA, KY, IN, WV, and PR and she isn't going to get there.

                          ActBlue for Southern Oregon and for good dogs!

                          by JD SoOR on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  her continued prescence in the race is damaging (11+ / 0-)

      the party, and is taking away resources that could be better deployed against McCain and for downticket Dems.

      As long as the media can maintain the cover story that this is a neck and neck race that could go either way, then every little triviality can be blown up into a damamging meme.  Like for example, running the Rev Wright 30 video clip 24/7 for weeks, or blowing up verbal gaffes into potentially mortal wounds -- essentially running the Republicans attack ads prematurely.

      HRC continues to manufacture McCain's fall ads and lead the charge legitimizing their fall Willie Horton attacks which damage not only our fall candidate OBama, but all the other downticket candidates as well.

      Plenty of people have been answering this question for some time now Rich in PA.  

      It's time for pro-Obama supers to endorse now and take the uncertainty out of the system.  Then, I agree, we can ignore HRC is she choose to stay in.

      But the artiface of a close race creates a self-fulfilling battle to the death media frenzy which is hurting our party in too many ways.

      The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by HoundDog on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:20:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  partly agree... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cos

        but I think Obama will be stronger going into the GE because of the abuse he's taken during this ugly primary.

        ALSO - John McCain's fundraising is for shit right now.  He can't afford to buy much publicity, and he sure as hell isn't getting much free play in the media.

        It's not all that bad... but, like you, I wish it were over.

        -6.63/-6.31 Please visit the Grieving Room on Monday nights to discuss issues of mourning and loss.

        by Dem in the heart of Texas on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:21:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  more benefit than damage (3+ / 0-)

          I agree with you, as I said in my post actually: On balance, I think more contested primaries help more than hurt.  However, a convention fight would hurt badly.  That's why I want to see some more contested primaries with Obama doing better, so that Clinton knows not to try a convention fight.

          My ideal is not for Clinton to drop out now, it's for people to stop voting for her.

          •  I understand both of these viewpoints cos and Dem (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cos, Dem in the heart of Texas

            and you may be right.  I still have a diary draft sitting in my private que from about a month and a half ago urging HRC to stay in under the premise that the free media attention and victory speeches behind 10s of thousands of cheering fans was the best general election ad coverege we could buy, and we would be innoculating Obama against a Willie Horton campaign to set his "not-well-known" image.

            But before I could publish it HRC came out with the Shame on you weekend, then the Rev Wright episode, and now the bittergate have changed my mind.

            It's the large indiependent swing vote I think is at risk.  

            But your view seems to be what supers have pickec up on, so I hope you are right.  But I'd still appreciate a steady flow of supers endorsements along the way to strengthen Obama a bit, and keep everyones' hopes well nurtured and appearing healthy not desparate.

            The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

            by HoundDog on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:33:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Because she's attacking and distracting Obama (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat, ratador, cybrestrike

      Which party does she want to win the White House?

      We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

      by RequestedUsername on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:35:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because she hurts our chances in the general (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shadetree mortician

      By roughing up Obama in the primary, she shows the Republicans which lines of attack will work and which will backfire.

      There are no unimportant states, only uninspiring candidates.

      by nightsweat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:37:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  that nothing backfires is good (0+ / 0-)

        which lines of attack will work and which will backfire.

        thats just part of R&D, before you roll out the new product, testing reveals if theres gonna be any breakage points, and thats good. So we can fix them first.

        But Republicans are going to run against him as a commie lesbian gunhatin elitist just like they run against all Dems. They'll fine tune it a bit, but already Redstate is pretty much equating commie lesbian Hillary with gunhatin marxist Obama against that warhero McCain.

        •  Clinton is battle-hardened (0+ / 0-)

          bat-shit (sorry) crazy for power, knows the attack line they'll use. However, an extremely flawed candidate who would lose to mcCain. Obama is an inexperienced, unvetted, Cook county machine pol., who has never had to confront a hard assault. He could easily get slaughtered by mcCain, especially if Rezko flares-up, which I believe is highly likely. Best case scenario? Brokered convention with different candidate or...Hillary, she would run closer to mcCain. But....I could be wrong!

  •  She's waiting for some... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, Cartoon Messiah, bearian, Abie

    sniper fire.

    I will not stop agitating until We have our country back.

    by David Kroning on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:12:56 AM PDT

  •  The Spitzer scenario (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, nightsweat, Wisteacher

    Why does only Obama need another candidate to step in and accept the nomination should the Spitzer scenario come to pass? Does this strike anyone as slightly racist? We can't trust a black man to not have some terrible hidden secret?

    I don't recall Dean or Edwards staying in due to the Spitzer scenario, or the likelihood that something awful would be discovered about Kerry. So why does only an Obama candidacy need to have this possible intervention?

    •  he doesn't (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Reino, theran, Sedi

      Like I said, in a Spitzer scenario, we don't need another candidate still running.  At this point, if something like that happens to Obama, it's clear Clinton would become the nominee, but there's no need for her to stay in the race for that purpose.  Again, I said so explicitly in my post.

      •  I like your take on this (0+ / 0-)

        , but if I could add to the scenario. Edwards has only 'suspended' his campaign, has not endorsed (curious?), has not released his delegates and has been, to me, disturbingly silent. Is something up? I don't know. Could it be the pooh-bahs are worried about Obama? Don't like Hillary's chances and would accept a Clinton/Edwards ticket if things unravel? It's a little tin-foiley, but hey, all's fair in love, war and politics!

        •  Edwards (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe he's genuinely undecided?

          Maybe he's loyal to his supporters who want to go to the convention as Edwards delegates because they felt so strongly about his message?

          Maybe he doesn't want to be seen to take sides because he thinks he will personally be better off if he can stay neutral?

          There are plenty of possible reasons for Edwards to stay quiet like this, and nothing disturbing about it IMO.

          •  You're probably right. (0+ / 0-)

            He maybe Obama's choice for V.P., they had a sit-down without a word being mentioned what was said. It would seem odd for him to take another crack at V.P., but he really could have helped shut this down with an endorsement. Just proves my point down below...these pols are slippery, devious...well, you know the rest! PEACE

    •  Rezko, simple as that... (0+ / 0-)

      His trial is getting a little dicey. May not resonate now, but repugs will pound it. Cook county pols. are forced to play an un-savory game, whether they like it or not.

      •  It hasn't touched Obama (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike

        What has come out from the trial that would hurt Obama?  Everything has been bad for Blago so far.

        There are no unimportant states, only uninspiring candidates.

        by nightsweat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:54:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That Obama met with Auchi (0+ / 0-)

          twice, after repeated denials. Auchi is the money man who financed Rezko, He's a shady business man(?), who has a penchant of bribing politicans all over the world. State dep't listed him as an undesirable and wouldn't allow him in U.S.. Rezko was trying to get pols. to over-turn the ruling. Obama was pretty low level at the time, but they were raising campaign money for him. That house deal with Rezko is trying to be connected to Auchi. The house deal IS going to be a problem at some point, you can bet on that. These are not slanderous,rumor mongering points I'm making, their facts coming out of the trial.

  •  Clinton want's him destroyedand... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cybrestrike, Wisteacher

    the party is either too chickenshit of the Clintons, or complicit in Clinton corruption.  Oh, and some of our leaders have issues with a pure breed white person in office, even if we choose to deny it. (I'm getting over my denial about the party putting up with, and sometimes participating in, racism/race-baiting.)

  •  Long enough, enough already Hill (0+ / 0-)

    Great article. Everyone knows what you wrote is true except the Hill? I read this morning that the only reason she is still in the race is she is once again hoping for the "big mistake." What this tells me is she loves herself more than getting a Dem back as president. That ego is too large to back down and she has no trouble taking everyone down with her including President Clinton. When this is over and Obama finally gets going on McCain one cannot help but feel a little sad to think how low people will go for something they think is their's just "because." Bill and Hill did nothing for his legacy other that remind people how "bitter" thay can be when things do not go their way. Again let's hope the fine people of PA end this for all of us and let Obama get going on McCain since Obama is really running a campaign against Hill,Bill, and all the Republicans and he is still winnning!

  •  it's not over because (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingularExistence, riverdan1900

    it's not yet "official".  Votes remain to be cast and counted, and neither candidate has the required number to clinch.  Simple as that.  Just ask Yogi.  He'll confirm it.

    •  you miss the point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cos

      Yes you are right about the counted votes and, talking just about the math and the way the system is set up, right or wrong, she cannot catch up to his delegates and votes and states. I also wish we had the time and money to drag this out and again you are 100% right about the counted votes. The point is, she knows she cannot win unless he goes nuts which allows her to fall in as the winner. The stakes are too high after 8 years of a total mess. I just wish she would think of our country a little more and believe me, if she had even a close chance (the math) I would say keep going!

  •  If the roles were reversed (4+ / 0-)

    you would have the Clinton people and her machine literally screaming for Obama to drop out for the good of the party.

    It is perverse what she is doing. Putting out ads against the candidate who will be our nominee. I would have expected this from McCain but not from her at this stage. Wouldn't it be nice if she at least ONCE attacked McCain?!

  •  Thanks for the calendar of events (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bearian

    and the delegate count. I marked them off on my desk calendar.

  •  Great post (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cos, bearian

    Sound logic and analysis.  I agree, let her go for it; she will anyway, and I don't want to hear her whine how the boys won't let her play at recess.

    She loses credibility as each day passes, and I have no problem with her losing whatever political capital she has remaining.  At this point, she adds nothing to the Democratic Party equation and as she implodes, she will drive her supporters over to Obama anyways.  

  •  You cannot rail against superdelegates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    riverdan1900, dotcommodity

    for "overturning the will of the voters" as long as you accept the validity of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Deval Patrick's pledges to support Obama.  Massachusetts went overwhelmingly for Clinton. If they were following the will of the voters, they'd be supporting her.

    I don't like the superdelegate system, but as long as they're out there and able to vote in whatever candidate they feel is most "electable," this race is.not.over.

    "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

    by SingularExistence on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:09:13 AM PDT

    •  I'm not railing; that's not the point (0+ / 0-)

      Superdelegates have the right to pick any candidate they want, doing what they feel is in the best interests of the party.  I did not state any opinion on that matter in my post, so you don't know whether I rail against it or not.

      If you must know, I personally feel that any superdelegate who made a public endorsement and campaigned for their candidate ought to stick with that candidate unless there's a very compelling reason to switch (even though more superdelegates did that for Clinton than for Obama - this isn't my support of Obama speaking).

      All of that is beside the point.  What I state is this: If the overall vote of the superdelegates favors Clinton so strongly that it's enough to give her the nomination despite Obama's pledged delegate plurality, it would be very destructive for the party, and likely ensure a McCain victory.  Since most superdelegates understand this, they will not let that happen.

      Note that "not letting that happen" doesn't require any already-declared superdelegate to switch.  It merely requires that the remaining undeclared not break for Hillary in a landslide.  Presumably they have a reason for remaining undeclared, and it isn't that they overwhelmingly support Hillary.  Hence, they will probably do right by the party, and let the pledged delegate winner win the convention.

      My analysis has nothing to do with railing against anything.  I'm simply explaining why the pledged delegate winner will become the nominee.

      •  One slight disagreement... (0+ / 0-)

        It is with your first sentence. What's best for the party, my tush, it's what's best for them! Make no mistake about that.

        •  throwaway (0+ / 0-)

          That's a throwaway line, it doesn't affect the analysis.  The point is, they get to vote for whoever they choose to, and I didn't rail against it.  The rest still holds: There won't be an overwhelming majority of yet-undeclared superdelegates who feel it is best for them to foment a convention fight and the deep destruction of Democratic prospects that flow from it.

      •  Maybe not "railing" per se (0+ / 0-)

        Point taken. But any time you talk about the inevitable destruction of the Democratic party if the superdelegates break for Hillary (which I don't think will happen, btw), there's an implicit message there that her nomination would be illegitimate because it would go against the "will of the voters."

        My point was simply that the whole point of the superdelegates is to overrule the will of the voters, and many have already done just that. So it's premature to declare the race "over," as much as everyone would like it to be.

        "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

        by SingularExistence on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:18:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree, anyway you slice it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SingularExistence

          the Supers WILL decide this, unless one drops out. When they do decide it probably will be ugly. We're going to need ALL our voters, but sadly 19% will be gone.

        •  Like it or not, it's true (0+ / 0-)

          What "the point" of superdelegates is doesn't matter here.  If Obama goes to the convention with a solid pledged delegate plurality (which he will) and the superdelegates give Hillary the nomination anyway, they'd be acting within the party rules but it would be a disaster.  It takes serious blinders not to see that.

          Some superdelegates may have such blinders on, but most of those have already declared for Hillary anyway.  For superdelegates who haven't declared a preference yet to harbor amongst their number so many who can't see that obvious fact, is extremely unlikely.  Therefore, whatever their purpose is supposed to be and whatever the rules allow them to do, they will choose to nominate Obama because of his lead in pledged delegates.

          As of yet, no superdelegate has "overruled the will of the voters" because nobody has been nominated yet.  It really doesn't matter how each individual superdelegate votes.  What matters is the end result.

          If the candidate with a pledged delegate lead gets nominated, it will be seen as legitimate.  If the candidate who is behind in pledged delegates gets nominated, only that candidate's supporters will see it as legitimate, and the party will be greviously divided.  Like it or not, it's true.

    •  Spot on! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotcommodity

      I agree 100%. It kills the 'will of the people' argument in its tracks. It took the stake and most effective weapon out of our hands. Anyone who uses that scenario in discussing Supers and what they are obligated to do....is a damn fool!

  •  Boy, once these diaries leave (0+ / 0-)

    the front-page everyone sure takes off. To hell with a quality diary! Hello! Anyone out there? :-). Always wanted to do that!

    •  There's always Rescue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotcommodity

      I write high quality diaries often.  They never make the Recommended list.  My only Recommended Diary, ever, was a frivolous, effortless piece that happened to tie into a popular emotional vein.

      But my good diaries almost always get Rescued.

      I hardly ever read the Recommended Diaries here anymore.  Rescue is the place to go for quality.

      •  Thanks and Kudos... (0+ / 0-)

        I found it very interesting. Seems the more scintillating the headline (usually misleading) ,or worse, feed the echo chamber, the more recs one gets. See you later tonight, perhaps? Enjoy the day!!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site