Skip to main content

(Note: As of 8:45 AM ET 2.7.08, this diary is using THE latest numbers you will find anywhere on the internet; you will not find any more recent numbers than these which are not pure speculation.)
.
.
.
Super Tuesday is over, but the counting still goes on, unfortunately (because it is so slow. It is, of course, a very good thing that all votes are counted properly).

Every 4th comment or so seems to be 'what is the delegate count?'

This diary is the answer to that question, and the title tells the tale, in a best-case scenario for Barack Obama.

I want to make this perfectly clear:

Barack Obama is on pace to lose the presidential nomination to our first female presidential nominee of either one of the two major parties, Hillary Clinton.

This is not a statement of opinion, but a statement of fact.

Let's get to the numbers.
.
.
.

If the NBC 'best case BHO Super Tuesday (ST) scenario' comes true (849 BHO, 829 HRC {not counting either Am Samoa, Dems Abroad [Total = 10 delegates]}).

A. Super Delegates, from RealClearPolitics.com and CBSNews.com:

HRC: 211
BHO: 128

B. Early state delgs won:

HRC: 48
BHO: 63

C. Total 'A' + 'B':

HRC: 259 (211 + 48)
BHO: 191 (128 + 63)

D. NBC's BHO 'best case scenario' for ST (- 10 AM Sam, DA delgs):

HRC: 829
BHO: 849

E. Total 'C' + 'D':

HRC: 1088 (259 + 829)
BHO: 1040 (191 + 849)

F. + Hillary already won Am Samoa, 2-1

HRC: 1090
BHO: 1041

G. + If BHO shuts out HRC in the 7 delegates avail. from Dems. Abroad:

HRC: 1090

BHO: 1048

That is, Hillary would still be up by 42 delegates when Super Tuesday is all said and done, with all delegates considered (including superdelegates), IF everything goes BHO's way according to NBC and if BHO wins Dems Abroad 7-0.

Barack Obama, at best -- without either FLA or MI delegates considered -- trails by a minimum of 42 delegates, and he trails in the popular vote of all voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses so far during this nomination process. Not to mention how much he trails by in the popular vote if crossover GOPers and Indy popular votes are discounted.

Any way you slice it, HRC is still ahead, both in delegates and in the popular vote.

First one to 2,025 delegates wins (at least for now, with FLA and MI not counting). Clinton leads that race, and, as such, she is positioned to be our nominee.

Let no one spin you -- this is where we stand, right now, at this moment. Period.

And, remember, that's giving ALL the benefit of the doubt to Barack Obama.
.
.
.
References:

RCP: Dem delegate totals
CBS News: Dem delegate totals
NBC: Super Tuesday delegate number prediction
ABC News: American Samoa Democratic Caucus page

Originally posted to Universal on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:44 AM PST.

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

  •  I predict (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim J, Salo, BasharH, sable, jay w

    A long diary with lots of subtle insults and outright flames.  

    When our country falls, know that it was because Americans were too afraid to take a stand against corporate greed and personal hatred.

    by pkbarbiedoll on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:48:52 AM PST

  •  If the superdelegates decide it (6+ / 0-)

    We will lose in November.  The superdelegates deciding the race will completely turn off a large portion of the supporters of the losing candidate.

    They should go en masse to the candidate who gets the most elected delegates and then we should vote as a party to abolish them before the next election.

    "Cultist" is an empty argument. It's the new Godwin. If you invoke it, you've already lost.

    by nightsweat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:48:58 AM PST

    •  I waiver about whether (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat, Quicklund, Capt Morgan

      I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. Mostly I think I would, but there are two things which would irrevocably change my mind. The firs is if they seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. The second is if the superdelegates throw it her way. We just don't need another president who doesn't play by the rules.

      It is true that the supers are free agents, but it is unsavory nevertheless.

      •  Did it bother you when (0+ / 0-)

        Gore or Kerry used them as well?

        •  Did Gore and Kerry win based on sd's? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgcap

          Did they not have the lead already by elected delegates?

          Unless I'm wrong, they did.

          "Cultist" is an empty argument. It's the new Godwin. If you invoke it, you've already lost.

          by nightsweat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:15:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, their competitors (0+ / 0-)

            dropped out knowing that with the superdelegates that they had only a slim mathmatical chance of winning the nomination at the convention (Kerry's case), and thus knew that even if they spent the rest of their monies, they only had a slim chance.

            Thus, they dropped out.

            •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lgcap

              This link shows elected pledged delegates in 2004.  Kerryhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

              Here are what CNN called the "unpledged" delegates - what we refer to as superdelgates.
              http://www.cnn.com/...

              There were 802 unpledged delegates available.

              Kerry beat Edwards 2162 to 534.

              "Cultist" is an empty argument. It's the new Godwin. If you invoke it, you've already lost.

              by nightsweat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:33:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  How many primaries did Kerry win? (0+ / 0-)

              And how many did his opponents?

              Presidential candidates drop when the writing is on the wall because American politics is for good or bad party driven.  And in party politics, it is Good Politics to not force a long drawn-out inter-party struggle over a certain lost cause.

              That is why Sen Edwards dropped out when he did, in 2008.  (Perfect timing IMHO.)  By dropping out he preserves his influence and stature in the party.  As a result, he is still a Player.  He can still find a role to further his causes.

              Fight against the inevitable to the bitter end, and you burn all your bridges.  When the elction is over you have no stature, and you get nothing done.

              JUST TO BE SURE:  Sen Clinton and Sen Obama are in a dead-heat and neither one of these two candidates are anywhere near the point where one should withdraw.  Not by a long shot.  On to the next contests!

              [A blind egg gathers no grok.]

              by Quicklund on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Doesn't that suck? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat

      I heard yesterday that super delegates comprise 40% of total delegates and that when/if it comes down to a close race, they can declare allegiance however they feel like it, with no regard to votes cast by normal people.
      (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please).

    •  So you want a winner take all strategy? (0+ / 0-)

      If so, Obama would have been out by now.  Did the super-delegates bother you when Gore or Kerry or even for that fact Clinton used them during their presidential runs?

    •  And superdelegate is worth 150,000 x your vote (0+ / 0-)

      It's estimated that each superdelegate's vote at the convention has over 150,000 times the effect of your vote in the primary. So when Bill, as a superdelegate, votes for Hillary, he'll cancel out 150,000 of your votes. Gotta love democracy in the Democratic party.

      "From the many, we are one." - Barack Obama

      by Travis Stark on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:10:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would like a link proving your assertion (0+ / 0-)

        that the Superdelegate has that affect.

        The superdelegate vote only accounts for 19.6% of the total votes that are needed in the DEM primary.  How is that going to cancel out 80.4% of the DEM cacus/primary votes again?

        •  The link has disappeared. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nightsweat

          Yesterday the Wikipedia entry on Superdelegates said this

          A conservative estimate of the voting power of a superdelegate amounts to one superdelegate vote equaling 153,636 regular votes based on 2004 federal voter turnout. Percentage wise, this means that 0.000007% of the voting population has 19.6% voting power in the 2008 Democratic Primary.

          but when I look today that's gone, so maybe the math is off.

          To get the right number you'll have to figure out the number of voters represented by each delegate in the Democratic primary. So the formula would be:

          (# of voters / # of non-super delegates)

          And that would give you the equivalent number of your votes canceled by one superdelegate.

          "From the many, we are one." - Barack Obama

          by Travis Stark on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:32:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Which is why they wont buck the voters. (0+ / 0-)

      The worst case scenario is that HRC's pledged superdelegates say "Well, you know, things have changed from October of 2007."

      I want a president who is RIGHT on Day One.

      by Inland on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:14:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nightsweat

      have a hard time supporting either candidate if the race is decided by party hacks

    •  Thank you for this diary (0+ / 0-)

      Mr. Daley.

      "Capital consists of living labor serving dead labor for the maintenance and expansion of the latter." --Karl Marx

      by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:30:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If most of them hail from (0+ / 0-)

      Cal Ny Florida and Texas (guess she wins there) I dont' see the problem.

      Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:37:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Modify, reduce in number, but not abolish (0+ / 0-)

      I see reasons to keep the Superdelegate concept around, but it needs modification.  Along with that the Congressional District part needs tweaking so every CD contains an odd number of delegates.  The reaons for these thoughts are nerdy and based in dull math so it's more than I want to bite off in a passing comment.  But the general idea is to give POTUS candidates strong incentive to comete on a CD-by-CD basis nstead of a state-by-state basis.  

      [A blind egg gathers no grok.]

      by Quicklund on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:05:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dems da rules, gang. (0+ / 0-)

      No one complained about the superdelegates until the primaries began.  If the concept was sooooo offensive, why was no one jumping up and down long ago when the rules were established?

      Defend marriage. Make divorce illegal.

      by jarhead5536 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:14:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If superdelegates decide (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stridergambit, lgcap, Mojo Jojo

    best case scenario, that's giving ALL the benefit of the doubt to Hillary Clinton, she wins the nomination and loses the GE.

    Super Tuesday: 13 States. More Delegates. Yes We Can!

    by Hope08 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:51:18 AM PST

    •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

      It's very unlikely Hillary will win the super delegates.

    •  I highly doubt she loses the GE (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      santh

      With the disenfranchisement of the right, even with McCain, the turn-out for the Dems will be more than 2-1.  She still takes the Whitehouse, and the DEM's while not taking a veto proof lead in the Senate, keep majorities.

      •  Either loses if it's Miami 2000 all over again (0+ / 0-)

        Can you imagine the Democratic Party giving the nomination to the losing candidate a la the Hanging Chad days?  That would be beyond ironic all the way to tragic.  If there is a floor fight to use parlimentary loopholes to install the loser as the Democratic nominee, expect to schism the Party lose the White House in 2008 and face a legitimate exisitential crisis from 2009 onward.  That move could be so bad as to actually kill the Democratic Party.  Let's pray the party leaders don't Whig out.

        [A blind egg gathers no grok.]

        by Quicklund on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:21:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not a chance (0+ / 0-)

        If Obama is leading pledged delegates and Hillary wins with supers, the turnout is going to hell in a handbasket, and McCain will give us another 100 years of war. I'm not saying HRC can't win, but if she wins by getting extra supers, it's going to ruin turnout for elections to come, and absolutely KILL the young voters that came out in droves for Obama.

    •  a large number of the super dels (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jeffinalabama

      are from Cal and NY and Florida maybe even Texas and Penn. You know, where the people are.

      Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:33:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Universal, Just donated again to Hill (4+ / 0-)

    Our Girl is not done yet, no matter how much the obamites want her to be.

  •  Regarding your "statement of fact" (5+ / 0-)

    Barack Obama is on pace to lose the presidential nomination

    The rest of the February contests include Nebraska, Maryland, DC, Virginia, Mississippi, Washington, Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Maine.  Tell me you think that Clinton will still have a lead (a lead only made up by superdelegates) by the end of the month.

  •  Quit giving opion as fact crap (0+ / 0-)
  •  Super Delegate component is un-Democratic. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BasharH, Mojo Jojo

    Pledged (i.e. non-super) delegates are chosen by regular voters at primaries and caucuses. Super delegates are being given too much weight in terms of how much their choice (in addition to pulling the lever in the polling booths) counts, which is why they're undemocratic.

    If we take your math, we can break it down as follows:

    Delegates chosen by regular voters:

    HRC: 879 (= 1090-211)
    BHO: 960 (= 1048-128)

    "Super" Delegates:

    HRC: 211
    BHO: 128

    I think these estimate of pledged delegates are aren't accurate. My impression is that Obama has a 20-40 lead among (regular people-chosen) pledged delegates.

  •  there are a lot of numbers being floated out (0+ / 0-)

    there.  What will happen to Edward's 26 delegates?  Does Edwards keep them?  Anyhow, this is a tight race and I'm a fraid it's going to come down to Ohio.

  •  Obama gaining (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stridergambit

    Yesterday when I did the same thing, RCP/CBS had those super delegates at 209-118.  So Obama leads 10-2 in recently deciding super delegates. He's catching up there as well.

    In pledged delegates so far elected, Obama's lead is something like 905-887.

    Anyone can still win this. Hillary's task is to survive February and then she has a chance to pull ahead in March.

  •  TX, PA, OH (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim J, Zain, theplaintruth, jarhead5536

    Thats where most of the rest of Hillary's delegates will come from.  Right now she has huge leads in those states which at this point 'don't mean much' but there are huge populations of Hispanics in PA and TX.  Obama has to win practically all the delegates between now and TX, PA, and OH.  That is a mighty big mountain to climb!  Another thing is Obama is very good at winning small states but has not won any huge states to date with the exception of Illinois (his home state).  Hillary also has almost 58% of the total popular vote cast in the entire Democratic Primary (counting MI and FL).  Put that together with a majority of delegates and it's Obama who needs a run a very good luck!  Florida by the way was an equal contest because non of the candidates campaigned there with the exception of the Obama commercials broadcast there thru no fault of the Obama Campaign.  So he did have an edge and Hillary still won overwhelmingly.  That will not go unnoticed by the DNC.  Yes, there is some talk of Caucuses in MI and FL but if Hillary is in command at the end of the day it will be difficult at best to make that happen.

  •  Superdelegates will not decide this election. (5+ / 0-)

    It's poor analysis to include them.

    The winner of the pledged delegates race will win the nomination.  Clinton is behind in the delegate race, and will fall further behind with each successive contest in February.

    Good luck with the Giuliani strategy.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:04:38 AM PST

  •  Hillary leads 892-716 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zain, theplaintruth

    "Ripeness is all." Shakespeare

    by Jim Riggs on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:06:52 AM PST

  •  stick to the popular vote (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phil S 33, BasharH, inertiac, Mojo Jojo

    Thats Hillary's best arguement.   More people voted for her by a tiny margin on Super Tuesday.

    Your numbers include superdeligates which while important shouldn't be used to gauge someones chances.

    Also you have no mention of the upcoming primaries which favour Barack.

  •  Nope. Worst case = HRC's pledges back out or (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BasharH, Mojo Jojo, DFutureIsNow

    there are undeclared superdelegates actually for Obama.

    Since the pledge is not legally, morally or even pragmatically binding, you can't include them in the "worst case" scenario.  Sorry.

    I want a president who is RIGHT on Day One.

    by Inland on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:13:33 AM PST

  •  Lie, Damned Lies... (6+ / 0-)

    and idiotic diaries propped up by selective use of statistics...

    Interesting how you ignore that Obama had more pledged (picked as a result of voting) delegates than Clinton before Tuesday and won the majority of delegates on Tuesday.

    Interesting how you ignore that most projections have Obama winning almost all of the next 10 primaries and caucuses...

    Interesting how you ignore that Obama has gathered more votes so far than Clinton...

    Interesting how you ignore that the trend has been for HRC to lose some of her current crop of superdelegates.  In addition, as more and more party officials recognize that they both risk the wrath of their constituents if they ignore the will of the people and the loss of their seats with Clinton at the top of the ticket, expect that trend to continue.

    Barack Obama is on pace to lose the presidential nomination to our first female presidential nominee of either one of the two major parties, Hillary Clinton.

    The only thing Obama is on pace to lose is the undue influence of lobbyists on our political system.  Hillary, on the other hand, has defended the role of lobbyists in our system and has taken more money from lobbyists than any of the Republican candidates.  

    •  Cool down a little (0+ / 0-)

      Don't call people idiots like that...and don't call them lier's the only part you disagree with is the opinion of what will happen.

    •  Clinton is just playing the game (0+ / 0-)

      That she knows how to play.  Lobbyists have been a large part of the political process and I can't blame Clinton for associating with them.  I support Obama because he has the chance to change all this.  So please, let's not compare Clinton with Republicans here, when she has only been following the rules, as she knows them.

      I do like the inclusion of the pre-Tsunami Tuesday states into all of the math.  And I agree, the supers don't vote in a block and their votes are very fluid and it's inappropriate for the diarist to call something a fact when it's their opinion of how the super-delegate split will happen.

      Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind -- Albert Einstein

      by BasharH on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:54:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Counting superdelegates (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, lgcap, Mojo Jojo

    Yeah, play that card until Obama's real delegate total surpasses Hillary's superdelegate total next week. If the superdelegates throw the election to the loser of the popularly chosen pledged delegates, the Democratic Party will split in half. It will be 1968 again. And that goes in either direction.

    •  If it's a fifty-fifty split, it will. (0+ / 0-)

      The Michigan/Florida credentials fight will tell the tale.

    •  Of course ... (0+ / 0-)

      you can't on one hand support parts of the process and decry others.

      Politic parties are private institutions.  They aren't part of the government.  So they aren't subject to equal protection arguments.  They can decide candidates any way they want.

      If we chose to decide the candidates by which candidate was better liked by dogs, we would be allowed to.

      Caucuses are undemocratic, super delegates are undemocratic, the way delegates are apportioned is undemocratic.

      But this is the process that the parties agreed to.  If you win using this process, you win.

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

      by Moresby on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:29:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's in the party's best interest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        to make the nomination process as democratic as possible. The selection process is supposed to yield the candidate with the most popular support that will thusly be the most viable in a general election.

        •  Partly, yes, but ... (0+ / 0-)

          it's also in their interest to help select a candidate who most reflects the interests and positions of the party.

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

          by Moresby on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:50:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Supedelegates never meant to change results. (0+ / 0-)

        you can't on one hand support parts of the process and decry others.

        Of course I can, if it's used wrong.  "the process" was never one to change the outcome of the primaries and caucuses with backroom deals; it was meant to affirm the winner of the plurality and make the party united for the convention with a big number of delegates for the winner of the plurality.

        I can promise you that any superdelegate, or nominee, who makes the process into that sort of a joke is going to be punished to the extent that I can punish them.  We aren't going to replay Bush-Gore 2000 and just shrug our shoulders as the effect of "the process" disregards what we fought for.

        I want a president who is RIGHT on Day One.

        by Inland on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:30:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Clinton campaign... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    is in trouble. Running out of money in politics is not a good thing. Obama's base is fired up and you get the sense that Hillary's is deflating by the minute. If Hillary's strategy is to lose most of the primaries and caucuses up until March 4, she'll lose the nomination.

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

    by First Amendment on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:26:54 AM PST

  •  Hillary HACK. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mojo Jojo

    You are just a Hillary hack pushing your opinion and you are doing very poor job.  No wonder Hillary is in a bit of trouble.  It is people like you, who try to spin everything instead of looking at reality.  Instead of spinning, you should seek solution to overcome Barack fund raising advantage.  Before the election start, Barack didn’t stand a chance.  Hillary racks up the big donors and some of these donors didn’t donate to Barack out of fear of the Clintons.  Barack out flanks Hillary by taking his campaign to the people and the people responded and now he is reaping the benefits.  The big donors max out, which now put Hillary in a bind.   Clinton has the name, but with the name comes the positive and the negative.  She is a 50/50 candidate within the Democratic Party.  Most of the people who are in the 50% are soft supporters, meaning that they like her but also like other candidates too.  The other 50% is having a hard time voting for her.  

    Super Tuesday was for Clinton to lose and she lost it.  Yes, Barack make a late run, but with the early voting and her name, she should have clobbered him and she didn’t.   Most of Hillary Super Delegates choose here early in the campaign and some are soft.  Hillary also proves that she cannot be trusted.  Michigan and Florida broke party rules and all candidates agreed to ignore both state.  Hillary didn’t.  This will hurt her later.  Yes, when all is said and done, Michigan and Florida delegates will be included, but Hillary should have stayed out and let the DNC, Michigan, and Florida deal with their problem.  I am in Florida, and I am ticked at my Florida Leaders because they took my voice away.  I don’t blame the DNC because 2008 is only one election.  If both Michigan and Florida were able to pull off their stunt, then all States would pull something similar and we would have chaos in our party in future elections.   Hillary and the other candidates also told FOX that they wouldn’t debate on FOX...now Hillary have broken that promise too.  How can I trust her?  She can’t keep her words.   If she win the primary...I will vote for her, but I am voting for her because I want to break the glass ceiling.  

  •  Fine, I won't let you spin me... (0+ / 0-)

    Basically, your argument rests on the number of super-delegates who will stick with Clinton after this month of February primaries.  Next up are Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, and the Virgin Islands.  Then, Maine, followed by DC, Virginia, and Maryland.  February closes with Hawaii and Wisconsin.  I don't see too many states in there that Clinton can carry.  There aren't very large states where Clinton can win and off-set the loss of other states (not counting Ohio and Texas which are in March and are in no way a given anymore).  And Obama has been winning his states by very large margins... at least 15%, apportioning quite a proportion of the delegates per state.

    Do you know how close the popular vote is?  Isn't it a few tens of thousands out of 15 million?  That's pretty close, I think.  And to discount crossover Independents and Republicans is what the Clinton campaign has done, to their peril (in these first primaries).

    Maybe you are confident in your super-delegate number for some other reason?  For me, I'd rather have the campaigns tell me their super-delegate count, instead of media outlets.

    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind -- Albert Einstein

    by BasharH on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:39:33 AM PST

  •  You do realize ... (0+ / 0-)

    if we were using the style of delegate selection used on the Pug side(we used to use a similar one), Clinton would be way, way ahead.

    And if the Pug's were using ours, it would be essentially a three way tie.

    Essentially, Obama is a Democratic Romney with better hair.

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

    by Moresby on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:46:54 AM PST

  •  The Trends Say Otherwise (0+ / 0-)

    Your post is emblematic of the increasing desperation in the Billary camp.  Staffers going without pay, candidate loaning money to the campaign (Hello Mitt!) and losing both the race for states and delegates on Super Tuesday

    http://www.cnn.com/...

    The trend is your friend, and the trends are all towards Obama.

  •  Superdelegates mean jack. (0+ / 0-)

    If/when a clear frontrunner is established, superdelegates will flee the sinking ship and back the frontrunner. That's really the entire reason for their existence.

  •  You're making several bad assumptions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    XOVER, mcthatch

    that far outweigh the 10-15 delegate cushion you're giving Obama on numbers so far:

    1. You claim Clinton's ahead on popular vote.  There's no way to know this.  The popular vote totals for the caucus states have not been released so far.  Given the huge margins by which Obama won every one of those and the tiny margin in total popular vote count, this is an unsupported assumption.
    1. You assume the remainder of the pledged delegate vote will go against Obama.  Given that he's won more pledged delegates thus far, I'd need to see a reason to believe otherwise, and none has been presented.  He's likely to win around six of the seven primary contests in the next 5 days.  It's nearly a month before we get to states with Clinton-friendly demographics, and the overall vote trending is not positive for her.
    1. Obama has cut into Clinton's lead in every state in which he has campaigned by significant amounts.  Every single one.  The effect was diluted somewhat by having attention spread so thin for the Super Tuesday vote, but it's irrefutable.  When Obama hits the ground, he gains ground.  Until the trend shows some sign of stopping, I'm going to believe it's going to continue.
    1. You assume the Superdelegate count will remain static.  I think this is a bad assumption.  The great majority of Clinton's superdelegates came on board very early, when there was literally nothing to lose and a lot to gain by supporting the presumptive nominee early.  Some count of supers will remain static, but I fully expect Obama to pick up more Superdelegates from here out until and unless Clinton becomes the presumptive nominee.

    I found a quick cite for that.  The day after Iowa, the AP reported "Clinton leads with 160 [superdelegates], compared to 59 for Obama[...]."
    That means that by your count, since Iowa, Obama has picked up 69 superdelegates to Clinton's 51, and his campaign is gaining traction, being behind in national polls until a week ago.

    In selecting a president, I favor foresight over hindsight.

    by Rorgg on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:10:24 AM PST

  •  Hanging your hat on unelected delegates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rorgg

    Is not only undemocratic, it gives all those people who are superdelegates way too little credit.

    Once upon a time, when HRC was "inevitable", she racked up a bunch of endorsements, known as super delegates.  Then we had a few election, and lo, Barack Obama actually won the most delegates (so far).  If this continues, do you really think that all these superdelgates (and the remaining vast majority, who are as of yet uncommitted) are going to jump in and void the will of the people?  

    I suppose HRC would like that, but not only would it be political suicide for the party, it's just NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

    If Hillary can win on actual votes then they will line up behind her, but until then, all this superdelegate spin is just that.

  •  Belly laughs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hhex65

    Love your "facts" on the uncommitted superdelegates. Seems like the real facts are those superdelegates don't count one bit until the convention. They can change their minds up to the last second. You've got to stop spinning, you might get dizzy.

    -8.38, -7.38 "Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    by mcthatch on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:33:30 AM PST

  •  After Saturday, (0+ / 0-)

    Obama may lead the delegate count even using Hillary's best case scenario.

    Almost for sure Obama leads by next Wednesday.  Even including uncommitted supers.

    There's a definite way of thinking that Hillary will lead in delegates going into the convention only if MI and FL are seated.

    Interesting race.

  •  Super delegates can change their mind (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland

    etc etc etc etc etc

    Yet another apples - to - oranges mis-analysis.    I suppose you'll fool some people, but your words do nothing to change the Clinons' fading electoral hopes.  Nothing eally more to be said.  This is as factual as any assertaion made in the diary.

    [A blind egg gathers no grok.]

    by Quicklund on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:58:55 AM PST

  •  add Florida and Michigan: 1286 - 1163 (at worst) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    santh

    Florida and Michigan will add to her 196 delegates (at least) and only 115 to Obama, see
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/...
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/...

    But actually if you will check this site more:
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/...
    you will see that Hillary has almost 200 delegates more than Obama

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site