This is going to be quick, as I am sick as a dog today and need to go back to bed.

I personally cannot believe anyone is seriously considering either the idea of having Clinton as Obama's VP, or the idea that Obama should pay off Clinton's debt. I say a resounding hell no to both ideas.  There are tons of  honest, hard working folks out their who would make outstanding VP's.  And I really, really don't want any of the money I have donated going to HRC's campaign or debts.

I have a new tradition.  Every caucus and primary, I like to make a donation to the Obama campaign to keep his numbers and momentum up.  I figure it is one of the ways I can still keep showing ongoing support for him even though my state caucus has passed.

I believe his money raising abilities have been one of the most important keys to his success to date.  The superdelegates cannot ignore this kind of ability to appeal to 1.5 million people to give their hard earned money.

Hillary Clinton was right. It took a village!

The Dededo Village, the most populous village in Guam, has finally reported. 509 for Clinton, 313 for Obama. This results in a win for Obama of exactly seven (7!) votes.

OBAMA 2,264 50.1%
CLINTON 2,257 49.9%

Source: Pacific Daily News.

The results have to be certified, and the Obama folks areupset about spoiled ballots, according to the Pacific News Center.

Barack Obama lead the count all day (it is now morning on Sunday, March 4th in Guam), but his margin was always too small to be sure of victory.

The likely delegate split for the pledged delegates from Guam will be 2-2 (4 half delegates each).

A superdelegate slate to Obama was also elected in a landslide.

My final "magic map" of Guam is attached:

Congratulations to Guam and to Senator Obama!

If 9.2% is a decisive win in Pennsylvania, then what would a 30% margin be in Guam?  None of the usual suspects have conducted any polls in Guam, but AFP reports:

Although there was no obvious pre-election favorite, political analyst Dr. Ron McNinch forecast Obama to take 65 percent of the vote.  McNinch, a professor at the University of Guam, said voter sampling showed Obama had a "cross-cutting demographic appeal in Guam and in a number of ways he has a better sort of connection to our public."

Two superdelegates are being chosen today, too, to fill a couple of vacant party positions.  Looks like a very likely +2 delegate advantage for Obama in those alone.  Possibly as high as five by the end of the day.  Results have begun to come in, but at this writing, less than 100 of the roughly 4,000 votes cast have been reported.

Okay, all Guamians, report in.  The polls opened at 6PM eastern and they will close at 6am Eastern.

When did you vote?

Is your polling place crowded?

What was the turnout?

Any linked exit polls?

And for the few of you who don't live in Guam, what are your expectations for the Guam election?

What do we know about the Guam Caucus? Try as I might, it's been hard to find much about what is going on in Guam. I'll summarize what I've found thusfar...

I'm beginning to think they're on a mission to disenfranchise me personally any way they can.

Way back in February, I sent a letter to the Clinton campaign explaining why I was no longer supporting her bid for the presidency. It was an eleventh hour conversion: a few days before the Washington caucuses I started reading Mrs. Clinton's comments about the states she hadn't won, and about caucuses in general, and what I read drove me to say, in part:

I take great offense, not easily forgiven or forgotten, at being told I don't matter as a voter. But I take greater offense at being told the election will be decided without me, and that you as a candidate are not asking us, the people, to elect you -- you are telling us, the people, how it's going to be.

I've lived in that country long enough. I will fight tooth and nail not to live in it any longer.

I wish I could have voted for the first woman to run for president in the United States. But of course, to hear you tell it, you don't need me.

Their latest set of goalposts is kind of like saying they're going to kick a field goal through the basketball hoop...Read on.

Obama needs only 43 more unpledged superdelegates to clinch the nomination.  That's right.  Not 100, not 60.  Just 43.  At 43 more currently-named, unpledged superdelegates, Obama and his supporters can claim that Hillary Clinton cannot win.

Here's why:

1. If you've played strategic boardgames, you know that the cardinal rule is that you declare victory and stop playing when your win is possible and your opponent's is not.  At that point, your opponent becomes irrelevant.  Remember McCain vs. Huckabee?

3. 305 UNPLEDGED SUPERDELEGATES IS A MYTH.  Please repeat this over and over.  There are only 240 undeclared Superdelegates, because 65 are Add-Ons, and their selection process is not arbitrary.

When Obama wins another 43 superdelegates, although he has not yet reached 2024 delegates, his supporters will be able to argue tat as a matter of practicality, Hillary Clinton no longer has a viable path to 2024 delegates.  

Read why on the jump.

This is Obama's second endorsement of the day.

From BarackObama.com

Audra Ostergard, Associate Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and member of the Democratic National Committee, publicly announced her support for Senator Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

"I have carefully weighed input from Democrats across Nebraska and closely watched results from primaries and caucuses across the country," said Ostergard.  "There are compelling arguments for supporting both candidates, but my decision came down to what’s best for our country and for Nebraska.  In that regard, I am confident in my decision to endorse Senator Obama.  He has a proven ability to activate Democrats in Nebraska."

"The gravity of this decision has weighed on me heavily," Ostergard added.  "I don’t want to use my position to influence the process, but at the same time I agree with Howard Dean that our party needs a nominee.  Senator Obama’s prohibitive lead in pledged delegates was a major factor in my decision."

I asked a Clinton supporter tonight for a metric to calculate popular vote numbers from caucuses because I don't think the popular vote is a legitimate metric unless you can incorporate the caucus totals somehow. Anyway, this is what they said:

I have to say, I am ready for this primary to be over. It stresses me out. Enough is enough. I'm so sick of the Clinton campaign and Clinton supporters constantly changing strategies and constantly trying to spin this election in their favor, when it's clear that any way you look at it: they lose.

This is an update to "The Cult of Popularity" from April 11 about the final ten contests in the Democratic Presidential Preference elections. Since we are just under one week until the Pennsylvania Primary - I thought now would be a good time for us to visit that "popular vote" strategy that Senator Clinton is trying to employ to sway delegates (both superdelegates and elected delegates) to her side.

I will repeat the same response I have whenever someone tries to rewrite the rules. The DNC determines the Democratic Nominee by only one measure: Delegate count in sanctioned, legitimate elections. However, to quell the cries, I've laid out the math of the popular vote scenario. Since the first post, Clinton has made a little headway in the projection (about 11,000 votes) due to a .8% increase in her Real Clear Politics average lead in PA and a new SurveyUSA poll in Kentucky. However, at the same time Obama has tightened the race in Indiana and increased his numbers in Montana and South Dakota while losing a smidgen in North Carolina.

My Fellow Democrats...

I stand here before you today, with Senator Clinton on one side of me, and President Clinton on the other, and we have something wonderful to share with you about the bruising battle we have just fought for our party's nomination.

About two months ago, after winning several consecutive primary and caucus contests in the wake of Super Tuesday, I received a most gracious phone call from Senator Clinton.

cross-posted @ This Week With Barack Obama and One Million Strong

                         
                                                        barack in south bend, in

Democratic Debate
April 16, 2008 - Philadelphia, PA, ABC

cross-posted @ This Week With Barack Obama and One Million Strong

                         
                                                        barack in south bend, in

Democratic Debate
April 16, 2008 - Philadelphia, PA, ABC

I've been posting for quite some time now of the large gap in West Virginia in the grassroots support and county level Democratic activists for Sen. Barack Obama well out of proportion to the polls that showed Sen. Hillary Clinton ahead in West Virginia by a large margin.

Today in Berkeley County, one of the largest counties in the state, 50 of the 52 delegates elected at the county convention today to the state convention in Charleston were Sen. Barack Obama supporters.

That's the very persuasive case being made by Shawn Christensen over at Huffington Post. Here is his lede:

Many DNC insiders fear that if Hillary Clinton manages to lose the pledged delegates, she may still take the lead in the popular vote, thereby causing the superdelegates to make a hard decision as to which candidate they should choose come August. Their fears are rooted in the notion that Clinton is only behind by roughly 800,000 votes, and that she could feasibly catch up with a big win in Pennsylvania.

They'd be wrong.

In fact, Obama leads in the popular vote by anywhere between 2 million to 3 million voters. How is this possible? The reason lies in the ever elusive math of the Democratic caucus.

Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and I just released a new study that casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.

A major problem with using the popular vote as a measure of democratic will is that some states have held primaries while others have used caucuses, which have far lower turnout.

According to our analysis, an additional 4.1 million voters likely would have participated in the Democratic nominating process had every caucus state instead held a primary – people who are left out of current popular vote tabulations. Additionally, it is likely that the candidates’ share of the popular vote would be different.