Big Date for Obama: May 20, 2008

May 20th is the date of the Oregon and Kentucky primary.  It is also the date that Obama is likley to be declared the winner of the pleadged delegates race (the first to 1627 delegates).  After May 20, 2008, Hillary's only argument is using Superdelegates to overturn the popular will.  Some Superdelegates will likely use Obama's pledged delegate win as an excuse to endorse.  

All of Obama's campaign's emails and Chuck Todd's math discussion turn on how well Hillary would have to do in order to catch Obama.  Those numbers for Hillary are daunting, but what no one ever discusses is when will Obama lock up the title of pledged delegate winner.  That date is important because some superdelegates might start to move once it is clear that Obama has locked up the pledged delegate title and it may effect the remaining contests.  Voters do not like voting for a loser and Obama maybe able to run up the score in the last few contests for that reason.

Based upon Obama's leaked delegate chart, it appears that Obama will likely lock up the pledged delegate lead on May 20, 2008.  Obama is 242 delegates short of the 1627 pleadged delegates needed to be the winner.  Obama projected that he would win 20 delegates in Mississippi, 75 in Penn., 1 in Guam, 60 in North Carolina, 39 in Indiana, 13 in WV, 23 in Kentucky.  The 23 from Kentucky would give him 251--9 over what he needs.  But Oregon also votes on the 20th, and Obama projects that he will gain 28 out of that contest.  So, Oregon will put him over the top even if Obama does a little less well before May 20th.  

Once Obama hits 1627, I bet a few superdelegates will start to bleed over to him as the pleadged delegate winner.  And after May 20th, the MSM's focus on whether the Superdelegates will overturn the popular vote is not a matter of idle speculation, but of reality.  This will not poll well and even more Superdelegates will go for Obama.  There is a huge difference between Superdelegates being posed questions about overturning the popular will now when Hillary could, in theory, take the lead and asking them the very same question when it absolutely cannot happen.  That difference should accelerate a move to Obama.

Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota go after May 20th, and one might see better Obama numbers as a sense develops that Hillary has lost the popular vote.

Given that Obama's status as pledged delegate leader will be unrefutable as of May 20, 2008, there might be heavy pressure to wrap the nomination up immediately after the last primary on June 3rd.  The two weeks between May 20, 2008 and June 3, 2008 might see a stead flow to Obama and drumbeat to end the race.  

•  Tip jar

  by jhwvertigo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:41:31 AM PDT

  •  great observation. (nt)

    by lizardbox on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:54:16 AM PDT

  •  Brilliant

    Thank you so much for posting this!

    It had never even occurred to me that, indeed, there will come a time when Obama hits 51% in terms of delegates and officially "wins". The narrative is always: well, no one can reach a majority before the convention. That is WRONG and I don't think anyone in the MSM wants us to figure it out.

    I feel much better about the general course of this race, now. I think it is really impossible that Obama will hit the majority and that the party will allow Hillary to continue trying to swiftboat him. It could never happen. Al Gore, Pelosi and Dean will give her a stern talking-to and she will have no choice but to drop out.

    This thing is NOT going to the convention. It's ending on May 20th.

    by jenontheshore on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:03:35 AM PDT

    •  Exactly!

      The narrative is always: well, no one can reach a majority before the convention. That is WRONG and I don't think anyone in the MSM wants us to figure it out.

      The traditional media trades in sensationalism and controversy. If controversy doesn't exist, they create it, then sensationalize it. The best of all possible outcomes for the traditional media would be for the superdelegates to overturn Obama's win and hand the nomination to Hillary. Then they could start to sensationalize Whitewater and all that other craziness ad nauseum, again.

      And if that happened, I would hope that Obama would then turn his organization skills, and his organization toward building a progressive third party.

      by oklacoma dem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:51:53 AM PDT

      •  Great thought

        This is probably also why Obama had it easy in the press for a while.  I had a hard time seeing why we Obama supporters saw bias toward Hillary, and the Hillary supporters saw bias toward Obama.  I think it's ultimately a matter of when the news was reporting.  Controversial reporting will always favor the underdog because an upset is a good dramatic story.  So Obama cruised, then got ahead, and now Clinton gets all the favors, because that will carry this thing through May.  

        We've got to stand up to the media and refuse to give them our ratings, money and attention, no matter which "side" we're on.  I think the truth is, both sides have been abused by the MSM this primary season.

        by proseandpromise on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:30:26 AM PDT

        •  An interesting diary yesterday...

          ...discussed along these lines. The fact that this primary is dragging on and the media cannot decide which candidate to throw their propaganda to, may give the Republicans less time to trash our candidate when he/she finally emerges...and will ultimately give our candidate a better chance against McBush. By the time this is over, the media will have tied themselves in a knot and probably given their best shots already. They've vacillated so much, people may start to wonder if they know what they're talking about. That'll be a great day for the country.

          by nehark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:31:39 AM PDT

      •  The Kool Kidz

        The kool kidz don't do their math homework during the big game.  They hang out in the cool section of the stands with their friends and occasionally watch what's going on on the field.

        The media love to talk about the race but don't even care about doing their homework.  It shows in how they answer questions.  This morning on NPR, Cokie Roberts -- a super-reliable source of CW -- said that Obama had a lead of "50 to 100 delegates."  Gee, almost.  MSNBC pegs his lead at 139.  Numbers vary, but no one has the lead at less than 100.  (Even MyDD shows Obama's lead at 101.)  Clearly, in Cokie's beautiful mind, this is a real horserace, hence it must be really close.  And why bother checking the precise numbers, anyway?  That's so wonky!  

        by deminva on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:51:08 AM PDT

        •  should report delegate race like regular results

          You know, when election results roll in, they say what they current tally is and break that tally into %s of those that have been counted so far (so it adds up to 100%, easy for people to understand "who's ahead).  Then they report the % of precincts reporting or % of vote that has come in so far.  Using this method I get the pledged delegate race as:

          Obama 52.7%
          Clinton 47.3%

          81% of total pledged delegates "reporting"

          Or, if you want to include superdelegates (even though they can change their vote):

          Obama 51.5%
          Clinton 48.5%

          79% of total delegates "reporting"

          I got these numbers from NYT so they may very slightly from other sources (probably favoring Clinton slightly compared to AP).

          Reporting this as "% of total needed" is not as intuitive for people.

          by d to the f on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:00:52 AM PDT

          •  Please cross-post everywhere and send to media

            by revgerry on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:50 AM PDT

            •  aw thanks

              I am trying to finish my taxes today :) - but will keep hammering this in conversations w/ friends. Please feel free to post anywhere!

              by d to the f on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:28:16 AM PDT

          •  Exactly--

            statistically speaking, this race is a wrap.  The remaining states are unlikely to be significantly different than the ones that have already voted (unless you pretend that PA is the only state left to vote).  This race is over.

            Also I read yesterday that a 5% lead is actually very big in terms of elections, and that is how he leads in pledged delegates.

            by oscarsmom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:58 AM PDT

          •  I like the way you did this

            by Neal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:50 AM PDT

        •  Uh...Cokie's Seen Her Last Horse Race.....

          time for the ol' pasture!!!

          by serrano on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM PDT

        •  How many reporters

          does it take to change a light bulb?

          two. One to mix the drinks, one to call the electrician.

          by oklacoma dem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:48 AM PDT

      •  Oklacoma dem

        I thought the narrative was: Hillary can't lock up the majority before the convention.

        by fightorleave on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

    •  but what about FL and MI? n/t

      by XStryker on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:53:17 AM PDT

      •  what about them?

        seriously, they Knew the rules and broke them.  Coming from MI, i completely support the MDP's move.  I really want this issue to stick in people's craws....however, I'm not about to demand our state's delegates be seated.  MI has been ignored before and will survive this primary being ignored.

        I do not want the MDP/FDP & the DNC making nice if it buries the issue.

        One of the most inportant developments of this season has been the challenge given to the Iowa/New Hampshire monopoly.  2012 will be different    

        by jds1978 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:03:38 AM PDT

        •  As a Floridian, I second your position. (n/t)

          by psnyder on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:19:42 AM PDT

        •  A re-vote in MI means reaching 2,025 sooner

          by neonineten on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:36 AM PDT

          •  A revote in MI and/or FL means

            you need to get more than 2025 delegates.

            by bawbie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:41:44 AM PDT

            •  And I think we will have a revote.

              It's all done but the financing.  Obama needs to get ready to go campaign in Florida and Michigan.

              by DC Pol Sci on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:46:33 AM PDT

              •  There will be a revote . . .

                Which means that this will go into June no matter what arguments are made about what.

                It's fine.  Barring any big changes, Obama will slightly win Michigan, HRC will slightly win Florida and the two will make no difference.

                by dbratl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:10:17 AM PDT

              •  I don't

                everything I hear about these things suggests to me that no one will be able to agree enough to get it done in time.

                It'll be a miracle if there's any sort of redo in either state.  But if there it is still won't make a significant difference in the delegate margin.

                by oscarsmom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:20:31 AM PDT

          •  But that's not the point...<n/t>

            by jds1978 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:42:53 AM PDT

          •  No, It Moves the # Needed to 2200

            or so the MSM is saying

            by reformdem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:27:11 AM PDT

            •  2,208 to be precise.

              but yeah.

              by xopher on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:09:06 AM PDT

        •  Yeah,

          if the Repubs take the White House we'll see Dem primaries in June of 2011. /snark

          What the DNC was trying to do was to make the best of a bad situation, by trying to make sure that each region was represented in an early primary -- Midwest (IA), East (NH), West (NV) and South (SC). Perhaps in 2012 (or likely 2016 if we have the incumbent President running and likely won't have this contentious primary), different states will be chosen to represent the four regions. That's going to be up to whoever the new DNC chair is.

          This process has been drawn out so much that I, and I think many others, are going through a bit of primary fatigue -- and that's why I think tempers are short and people are on each other's asses about their candidates.

          by Cali Scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:57:35 AM PDT

      •  what happens if MI awarded 55-45?

        As I remember the vote was 55 for Clinton, 45 for "uncommitted" which was widely understood as a stand-in for Obama. What if both camps agreed to accept that split instead of a do-over there? And I assume the MI superdelegates lean toward Obama. That would require only a FLA do-over.

        I haven't been keeping the delegate counts accurately enough to do the math, hope someone else can. And can you Michiganders weigh in on whether this works politically?

        by rugbymom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:54:50 AM PDT

        •  wasnt Edwards still in the race?

          it was not a good test, either way, because I think supporters on both sides probably didn't bother, knowing all the candidates were not all on the ballot.

          by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:55 AM PDT

          •  good point dot

            Edwards was still in that time.

            by wishingwell on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:36:17 AM PDT

        •  No. Some of her support

          may have been people who didn't know about the situation and voted for the only name on the ballot. Some Obama supporters may have refrained from voting uncommitted since they aren't uncommitted. It's all garbage. They have yet to vote.

          by kitebro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:27:25 AM PDT

        •  MI superdelegates don't lean Obama...

          ...at least not the committed ones. DemConWatch reports 15 for Clinton, 5 for Obama. That still leaves about 18 uncommitted, however.

          by GreenCA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM PDT

      •  yea, FL and MI will end up re-voting

        in some form or fashion.  The party will be too nervous about pissing them off before the general.  It's a big X factor and I'm afraid one that would skew everything in Hillary's favor.  Depending on when it's scheduled, Obama may not have time to campaign there.  If he doesn't, name recognition, demographics, and all that other stuff will keep her in the winning column in those two states.  Which sucks.  It will just drag out the race and when Obama finally does get the nomination he will look like the dude defending the bridge in The Holy Grail.

        by Yorick on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:54:48 AM PDT

    •  The effect of Obama winning the pledged delegate

      on Superdelegates I think is going to be very important for some very human reasons.  I bet a lot of superdelegates who think that Obama should be the nominee also fondly remember the Clinton years.  Image that Bill calls them up and says in light of my service and Hillary's service to the party can you please give her a chance to fight back in [Ohio, Texas, etc., you fill in the blank because the goal post keeps moving].  Today is nearly six months before the convention and eight months before the general election.  So, these conflicted superdelegates stay on the fence.  However, once Obama wins the pledged delegate title, Bill has to say please wait to the convention (a little more than two months before the general election).  And I bet that very few people who are uncommitted are willing to wait that long.  May 20th then becomes a good place to get off the fence.  

      by jhwvertigo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:44:39 AM PDT

      •  Tom Daschle

        was quoted this weekend saying something very telling.  I cannot find the exact quote, but the sentiment was this: When you're talking about electability and coattails, I don't know any politician West of the Mississippi who doesn't want Obama as our nominee.

        Now, he's a supporter of Obama, but Daschle has never been a shameless spinner.

        I'm fighting to be an optimist these days, but my sense is that the Clintons have said to everyone: Hold on a little while.  This thing is really close.  Let us make an argument for the nomination, and let's all see whether or not the voters really want Obama.

        May 20 could be big.

        by deminva on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:55:57 AM PDT

        •  you are right. despite all you read here

          these days about the imagined machinations of the evil one, she only has ever said she wants to run till the race ends to see who has the most votes, who has the most delegates. It is a close race, unlike the Huckabee situation, and it is only fair to run to the end. Hopefully its not tied then.

          If May 20 is when he wins it, then thats the time to call it.

          by dotcommodity on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:13:16 AM PDT

    •  I'm already planning a trip to Oregon in May

      to do vollenteer work for the Obama campaign

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:50:21 AM PDT

      •  Thinking about it myself

        depending on home situation...

        by Cali Scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:58:42 AM PDT

      •  You should come to Portland!

        I live here in Portland, it's a very liberal..hip city. If you want any tips before you come out, shoot me an email.

        I still haven't figured out who I'm going to vote for here in Oregon, but I look forward to the horserace making its way to my state.

        by sarahlane on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM PDT

      •  Excellent

        We'll need boots on the ground in Oregon

        by orleansd on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:23 AM PDT

    •  Yes, Howard Dean keeps hinting

      that he expects the nominee to be decided,
      for all practical purposes, before the
      convention.

      by sumo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:25:48 AM PDT

      •  I think Dean...

        ....will put a lot of pressure on fence-sitters if it appears that Obama is putting a significant gap between him and Clinton.

        by metal prophet on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:55:50 AM PDT

    •  Certainly

      my fervent hope that it all ends 05/20/08. That would give us some time to get organized for McBush.

      by RustyBrown on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:30:01 AM PDT

      •  Not as much as we'd like. We need to be doing

        registration drives right now.

        And we are, thankfully. But we need to be doing them in states like OH, TX, SC, and NC as well as PA.

        by fearwig on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:43:35 AM PDT

        •  Workin'

          on it in Texas.

          by RustyBrown on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:56:09 AM PDT

  •  Nice to know my birthday is special...

    by Oxy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:42:55 AM PDT

    •  my mom's too!

      yay for cusps :)

      by Chicago Lulu on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:17:10 AM PDT

    •  Mine too :) n/t

      by Aqualad08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:18:47 AM PDT

    •  Rec'ed for sig n/t

      by yazilikaya on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:55:59 AM PDT

    •  My baby's too!

      by Sun dog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:17:22 AM PDT

  •  MSM is left totally in the dark about

    all of this-----just laughted my head off as Russert----on Today this a.m.----as they were discussing different scenarios----actually said----'if Obama leads in delegates, states, popular vote etc., it's going to be "real tough" to deny him the nomination.'
     He actually said that----if Obama leads in everything, it's going to be "real tough" to deny him the nomination.
     What kind of upside down world are we living in?

    by dotster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:10:32 AM PDT

    •  We apparently

      live in the kind of world where winning by the rules does not overcome power and influence - ever since Florida 2000, the media accepts this without much question.

      The media narrative is that Hillary will, must and shall win the nomination.  Therefore, like the Supreme Court saying that a recount that found Gore won Florida would damage Bush's legitimacy as winner (Scalia wrote that), Obama's winning the numbers might damage her ability to easily achieve this mandated status.  

      by KibbutzAmiad on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:36:13 AM PDT

      •  Yes, god forbid...

        ....that the corporate media be deprived of their entertainment: Eight more years of having the Clintons to kick around in the White House. They find them highly amusing, even if they give the Clintons a hard time.

        by metal prophet on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:57:24 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, but unless she quits, there's no

        way to massage the ambiguity forever.  There is a D-Day.  And I agree that May 20 is it.  After that, it's about another kind of process--just like, as you say, Florida in 2000.

        In fact, quitting before then may be the only way for her not to have to admit she lost...

        by Fasaha on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:26:30 AM PDT

    •  It's Called Entitlement World

      Russert lives in it, as does everyone he talks with on a daily basis.  They live in multimillion-dollar homes, dine out on the company teat at the best restaurants, send their kids to exclusive schools, and get the rules bent for them on a daily basis.  They kinda remember back when they were paying their dues and resented the folks ahead of them who got all of this, but now that they're in the club, they have a lot more sympathy for Clinton than for Obama and his Math.

      Notice how, with The Math, Obama is metamorphosing from the Cool Jock into the Math Geek, while Clinton is changing from the Valedictorian into the Student Body President.

      by deminva on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:59:29 AM PDT

•  thought he needed over 2000? does that include SD

  by boatsie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:46:33 AM PDT

  •  This is for the pledged delegate title only

    No superdelegates

    by jhwvertigo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:48:21 AM PDT

    •  following the Obama campaign's lead

      I like to call them earned delegates.

      by elmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:50:51 AM PDT

  •  He needs 2025 of the pledged plus super delegates

    ... I think what the diarist is referring to is the number of pledged delegates needed before adding in the Super Delegates.

    by hungrycoyote on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:51:13 AM PDT

  •  He would need

    about 2,025 (I forget the exact number) to win the nomination outright, but jhwvertigo is talking about the number he would need to guarantee a majority of the pledged delegates.

    by Big Tex on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:53:12 AM PDT

    •  well thanks for this..

      MSM keeps saying there is no way for either to gain the number needed... everyone is buying into that.

      by boatsie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:00:56 AM PDT

      •  Right, but they're forgetting

        that somebody is going to be ahead. It isn't tied, no matter how much CNN tries to pretend.

        by Fonsia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:57:48 AM PDT

        •  CNN Sucks

          They are still trying to spin wyoming as a success...

          He only beat her 7 to 4 in delegates! (or whatever it is)...um.. that's A FUCKING BLOWOUT you d-bags

          by Capt Morgan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:10:32 AM PDT

          •  And also, no one wants to admit he

            won Texas.

            I keep hearing the "Hillary won 3 out of 4 last week" (even specifically mentioning Texas) spin on the news over here, too, and they definitely give the idea that she effectively blocked Obama's winning streak, has regained momentum, and that now he is forced to concentrate on catching up to her again. Every time I hear it I start yelling at the TV, and my son starts laughing at me.

            I've been tempted to write to some of the channels to correct them, but figure it's useless, also because they're getting their bits and bites from correspondents in the U.S.

            The same bias was obvious when Edwards was in the race: when they covered the debates, they never even mentioned Edwards, just Clinton and Obama. I mentioned it to a friend of mine one day, and she said, "Oh yeah, you're right... it seemed to me I saw a third guy there, but I couldn't figure out who it was, and they didn't say anything!"

            The media here obviously depend on what they're fed from the U.S. media. And to think Berlusconi's not even back in power yet! (Hoping he won't be anytime soon, either!) :-(

            by Donna in Rome on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:41:40 AM PDT

            •  Morning Joe mentioned it.

              Also hit hard that Clinton only netted 4 delegates last week. I think once the media gets over the excitement of the "Hillary's big comeback" story, people will start focusing more on her huge delegate deficit.

              by Wit Whither Wilt on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:28:41 AM PDT

              •  Yup

                The spin seems to have changed this morning.. and wind is back behind Barack

                by Capt Morgan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:22:22 AM PDT

              •  all she got was a Broder Bounce

                when reality sets in, it's back to where it was before Significant Tuesday.

                by Mad Kossack on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:29:53 AM PDT

              •  Better late than never I guess

                Is it only 4 now?  I'd been hearing 10-12, but that didn't take Wyoming into account I guess.

                My prediction was that he would make up for any losses on Tuesday with the WY/MS votes, and that THEN the MSM might clue in.

                Glad to hear it might be happening before PA a month from now...a whole month of hearing about Hillary's Joementum would have been intolerable.

                by oscarsmom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:23:37 AM PDT

          •  Got a little pirate in you, Capt Morgan

            Can you follow the logic of what you're saying? He crushed her in Wyoming, which, under the system this game is being played in, results in only a 7 to 4 margin; true enough. He may only net one or two delegates out of Mississippi, despite a comfortable margin. Now, can you wrap you mind around the size of the lead he's built up in pledged delegates: 140 to 150? Can you see, therefore, by your own logic that Obama has an enormous, in fact insurmountable lead in pledged delegates? Do the math.

            by Fighting Bill on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:12:47 AM PDT

            •  You know and I know and many other Kossacks know

              that his lead is virtually insurmountable, but the battle isn't won until the MSM finally figures it out and start talking about it instead of all this nonsense they're spouting now.  The whole framing of the horse race needs to change and that can't happen soon enough for me.  A big change in the dialogue will occur when he finally goes ahead in the super delegate count too and hopefully that'll happen fairly soon as well.

              by vernonbc on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:51:39 AM PDT

              •  MSM

                I was watching Bill Maher the other night and Joe Scarborough was stating how the media is being influenced by phone calls to the Network president especially when someone says something negative about Hillary which is why they aren't hitting her as hard.  Perhaps we should also start hitting the MSM with email, letters, and phone calls to even the playing field.

                by Jaspercat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:17:34 AM PDT

                •  yes, email and call MSM, we need to!

                  by gooddog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:21:18 AM PDT

              •  ABC Radio - "nearly insurmountable"

                I heard on an ABC network radio station reporting on the Wyoming results that "Barack Obama increased his nearly insurmountable lead in pledged delegates".

                I was pleased to hear MSM reporting the obvious.

                by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:24 AM PDT

            •  that's exactly right

              I think the reality of the math is just starting to dawn on the Clinton camp. That's why Bill is going around hinting that they'd be delighted to invite Obama to the VP spot on their ticket. How nice of them!

              by elmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:53:03 AM PDT

              •  It is kind of

                amusing that the person coming in 2nd would offer the 2nd spot to the winning player.

                But I assume the thinking is this: Hillary is the more "experienced" candidate and therefore deserves the top spot.  Plus, she is older and won't want to run in 8 years.  So Obama is VP for 8 and then president for 8 and everyone is happy, the party is united , blah blah.

                by KibbutzAmiad on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:38:02 AM PDT

                •  I think it's more like they feel entitled to it

                  "The White House Is OURS damnit!! We'll give that skinny little upstart a job if he'll just get out of our way and let us win like God intended."

                  by Mad Kossack on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:32:20 AM PDT

                  •  f*** clintons think they do obama a favor!

                    clinton arrogance is beyond disgusting. and racist too, in its way.  i hope black folks notice this. i'm white and it even pisses me off.

                    by gooddog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM PDT

                    •  me too

                      the arrogance is overwhelming.  Reminds me too much of the arrogance of someone else that I've grown rather tired of over the last 7 years.

                      by Mad Kossack on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:52:25 AM PDT

                •  i'm starting to wonder if her kind of

                  'experience' is the kind we want or need right now.

                  by ejpoeta on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:24:22 AM PDT

                •  No thanks

                  After the kind of shit Hillary has put Obama through, he'd be better off offering HER a VP spot or telling her to go jump off a cliff.

                  by Brad007 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:01 AM PDT

              •  They will say next

                that Barack could be her chauffeur!

                by rivamer on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:54:50 AM PDT

            •  Sorry I must have stated it wrong

              They were trying to say clinton did well in wyoming and it was pissing me off.

              by Capt Morgan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:22:55 AM PDT

              •  nah, I got what you were saying

                I think the other commentator misread you.

                by Audio Guy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:25:27 AM PDT

            •  I think the pirate is saying that it's not

              merely a success, it's a slaughter.

              by paintitblue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:49 AM PDT

    •  If Dean had declared

      that the MI and FL delegates would not count towards the number needed unless they voted in accordance with Party rules, it would be possible for one person to get the number of delegates required without going to superdelegates -- the error was not adjusting the total required.

      FL has 210 delegates, MI 157 (not sure if that includes supers). By subtracting those totals from the 2025 number, that leaves 1658, well within reach of either candidate. If either state held a new election (or a caucus), those numbers could then have been added back in to the required total.

      I still think a good compromise would be (a) in FL to split the delegates evenly between all the candidates still in the race as of the date of the FL primary, and (b) hold new elections or caucuses in MI since not all candidates were on the ballot. That's just me though...

      by Cali Scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:42:57 AM PDT

      •  The 2025 number is adjusted -- 2208 is

        the number if you include MI and FL.  So the number was adjusted.

        by mad clamor on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:53:48 AM PDT

        •  Okay, wasn't aware of that

          Everyone seems to imply that the 2025 was including MI and FL -- I've never heard anyone say otherwise till you just did (or I missed it in the maze of candidate diaries).

          by Cali Scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:52 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary.

  I hadn't considered the point of winning 51% of the pledged delegates.  

  by George in AZ on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:49:30 AM PDT

•  But May 20th is so far away

  and from tuesday until PA will be forever.

  by PROfess PROgress on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:51:17 AM PDT

  •  Great point, but August 27th

    the day the delegates vote for President is even further away.  Superdelegates are political pros and some might see wisedom in going Obama's way after May 20th to prevent three months of uncertainty.  

    by jhwvertigo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:56:45 AM PDT

    •  May it be so. nt

         

      by MsCasey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:38:17 AM PDT

  •  i thought the same thing... SO

    far away. I'm tired already..... what about the candidates? I cannot imagine doing this... really how do they do it? I can barely stand the wait.

    by hester on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:51:53 AM PDT

    •  No kidding. The tension they and their top staff

      are under is just tremendous.  Not just the physical grind but to always have to be conscious of every word that comes out of your mouth must be absolutely exhausting while still being gregarious and accommodating to the thousands of people grabbing at you all day and night while a camera is in your face the whole time.  I know I wouldn't be able to handle it for even a couple of days, let alone months on end.

      by vernonbc on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:57:02 AM PDT

      •  Obama is handling it well

        THat dude is a cool customer

        HRC is clearly coming unhinged.. I kind of feel bad for her.... her campaign clearly has no long term strategy.. they are so schizophrenic.... their message changes wildly all the time.

        by Capt Morgan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:26:04 AM PDT

        •  She won't quit willingly

          I see her having to be dragged off the stage at the convention in a straight jacket, with her eyes all buggy and her croaky voice trailing all the way to the assylum.

          by rivamer on Mon Mar