Unrelated (0.00 / 0)

Joe Lieberman isn't a super delegate is he?

---

by: Jack @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:05:40 PM UTC

No, he was stripped of superdelegate status (0.00 / 0)

Basically the 'Zell Miller' rule in place now.

---

by: PsiFighter37 @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:07:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

From wikipedia: (0.00 / 0)

"Superdelegate":

Superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention include all Democratic members of the United States Congress, Democratic governors, various additional elected officials, members of the Democratic National Committee, as well as "all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee."[1] There is an exception, however, for otherwise qualified individuals who endorse another party's candidate for President; they lose their superdelegate status. In 2008, Senator Joe Lieberman was disqualified as a superdelegate because he endorsed Republican John McCain.

(Note that I'm doubtful whether Lieberman would be a superdelegate even without the Zell Miller Exception, since he is not an elected official who was elected as a Democrat...)

---

by: mcc @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:09:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Winning" (0.00 / 0)

I wonder if the media and/or public will be more open to accepting a situation where one candidate wins the popular vote and the other wins the most delegates. No one (media or the public) really seemed to care after Nevada. But now that all the talk is about delegates, maybe a more nuanced (and more accurate) narrative can emerge in such a scenario.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:25:49 PM UTC

There is no basis (0.00 / 0)

for considering Wisconsin a must win for Obama.  The guy has won eight straight, and is up by more delegates than Wisconsin even awards.

---

by: snaktime @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:27:09 PM UTC

It's about the narrative (0.00 / 0)

  The media is drooling to portray Hillary Clinton as the "comeback" candidate, and a win in Wisconsin will give them exactly that opening.

 Obama, frankly, has to run the table to prevent that narrative from developing. They're all must-wins.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 15:16:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The party can't handle internal chaos for too much longer (0.00 / 0)

If Obama wins WI. And if the super delegates move to an undeclared status, as is indicated by statements today from Reps. Lewis, Pelosi and Clyburn, then the options left for the Clintons shrink. Assuming that MI and FL do not count toward determining the nominee (altho they may be seated in August), then the current pledged delegate count will determine the winner.

Technically this thing could go for months. But the margin required for the Clintons to take over the lead is too great. The threat of the ensuing internal chaos of a protracted race, and the growing potential for a fractured party and its risk for November, means that a winner will be anointed sooner rather than later. Unless there is an upset in offing to the tune of a 60 -70 % win, I don't think we (the political junkies, pundits and insiders) have the inclination to carry on for too too much longer. The math won't support it.

We are witnessing a power swift in this country from the old dem party structure to a new and younger dem party infrastructure. At one point people will demand that the torch be passed.

---

by: aiko @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:32:33 PM UTC

hey now! (4.00 / 1)

---

by: shlenny @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:11:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Democratic party (0.00 / 0)

is usually in a state of chaos.  But it's a happy chaos, right now.  I don't think there's any real chance of a split in the party. No one wants to leave the side that's clearly going to win. I think popular support is swinging to Obama, and he will get the nomination.  Maybe second ballot, maybe later.

---

by: Querent @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:16:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree (0.00 / 0)

     Obama must win Wisconsin and either Ohio or Texas popular vote to completely knock Clinton out.  Hard to see how he wins Ohio since he has to make up 14-17 points in two weeks. The Clintons know Texas well and are leading there by at least 8, so it's an uphill battle all around.  If he wins Wisconsin, Obama might be able to pitch operatives in both Ohio and Texas and essentially say: "Look, I'm going to be the nominee and the next president.  You might want to think about getting on the train before it leaves the station.  If you do, I'll remember."  In addition, his recent union endorsements don't hurt,and the Clintons are going to have to spend valuable campaign time away from Ohio and Texas raising money.  So, he has a shot, but I'd say its long and Pennsylvania may be in our future.  

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners -- Albert Camus

---

by: historyrocks @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:35:47 PM UTC

Don't understand Ohio (0.00 / 0)

I still don't understand why Obama is so far behind in Ohio. Although I doubt he is a true believer on economic populism, he does seem to be running the correct anti-NAFTA campaign there, as perhaps a milquetoast version of Sherrod Brown. And certainly Clinton's shit stinks a lot worse than Obama's on trade and globalization, both because of Bill's leadership in the wrong direction and Hillary's own undeniable defense of all those awful trade agreements.

http://www.funnyordie.com/jame...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:43:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Polls in Texas (0.00 / 0)

and especially Ohio are meaningless right now. Most don't reflect the public's reaction to the Potamac wipeout, nor the few days it takes to digest what it means. Nor the results of this Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, which will need a few days as well, and then there will still be 2 weeks for Obama to campaign. Plus he has SEIU, Moveon, some good mayors, to hit the ground there. Best case for Clinton is a narrow win. Unless Obama goes ahead in the polls quickly, he has already won the expectations game, and he'll probably win Ohio since he wins just about everywhere he campaigns hard and long.

---

by: yankeefan16 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:47:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

FWIW, there was a diary at Kos on the Hawaii vote yesterday, the (0.00 / 0)

diary itself was thin on info, but the comments from Hawaiians weighing in was interesting.  I got the feeling that it was practically going to be a state holiday to go causus for Obama.  There is of course, support for Hillary, mainly around Senator Inouye, who has endorsed her. Senator Akaka, I don't believe has endorsed.

---

by: eyesonthestreet @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:37:07 PM UTC

Seriously, how is ARG still in business? (4.00 / 1)

how can a polling company be so bad at what they do?  i can pull numbers out of my ass with greater accuracy

---

by: bennytoothpick @ Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 23:40:26 PM UTC

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

I get the impression that Zogby pulls numbers out of his ass to try and get close to the results and/or the other polls (and note that he's (wisely) fallen off the face of the Earth since California). Whereas ARG just pull numbers out of their ass randomly.

---

by: illissius @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 00:02:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ignore ARG every time, (0.00 / 0)

it's the only realistic thing to do. If they're right, they're lucky. At this point, that is clear.

---

by: yankeefan16 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:48:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The trend line from Pollster.com (0.00 / 0)

This is the Texas cumulative, multi-poll trend line from Pollster.com. Its been pretty accurate, it combines a lot of the major reporting polls. One of the good things they do is compute what is happening without swinging wildly from poll release to poll release.

This looks like another Obama state in the making. It looks like to me like more Obamacrats have to commit to calling and donating, commit to driving over to help stuff and lick, to help dial and file, help walk door to door. Commit, get up right now and call the campaign, use Voip and call the office in Austin, call Elle (or Jack), who went last week to see if you can help in their office.

SEIU national who endorsed Obama today has to put some real money into here, targeted smartly at the wedge. For smart wedges, if you dont have other data, you could do worse than to look at dreaminonempty's research. Great stuff

But did you know that without the votes of Latina women, Obama would have lost New Mexico by 12 points?

Link
Because as, James Carvel says, "make no mistake, she's behind and if she looses either of these (Ohio, Texas) and she's done."

Big win in Texas, after Wisconson, and then we start the drive to Washington. Road trip!

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 00:02:53 AM UTC

WOW! (0.00 / 0)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:43:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

as long as the in-fighting continues to escalate then we'll be fine (0.00 / 0)

Clinton hacking at Obama's awesome rallying power, Obama hacking at Clinton as Washington insider hack. Good times, good times.

But seriously, if Obama is up by 100 after TX and OH there really is no point to Hillary staying in other than to make this painful for everyone. Maybe she landslides in Penn (long shot), Obama will landslide NC and continue to clean up in small states. Hillary needs at least 15pts up in TX and OH, very very unlikely.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 01:43:14 AM UTC

Ludicrous (4.00 / 1)

you are saying that Obama must overcome deficits in polls for elections that haven't taken place yet????

That's preposterous.

That's like awarding delegates per exit polls in Michigan...another ludicrous and undemocratic idea.

This is a contest for pledged delegates by pre agreed upon rules. It's a legal process and it's democratic.

Pieces like this one, that give credit to Senator Clinton for votes she has not won and theoretical delegates she has not been awarded have the effect of disenfranchising and short circuiting the actual, legal, agreed upon process for determining the nominee.

Obama has not simply won eight states in a row by large margins.

Obama has actually won more delegates in NYC than many initially thought. Count the votes.

Obama's margins are improving in CA when we count the votes.

And even by your metric his trend lines improve in states as primaries approach.  Look at Texas.

Chris, I really, really disagree with this imaginary, theoretical, poll-driven way of accounting for what is a legal process essential to our democracy: counting votes and caucus results by pre agreed to measures that award delegates to a convention.

Clinton has been behind in pledged delegates EVERY DAY of this process. We both agree about that. Please don't award her states where Obama has yet to campaign. His on the ground presence is crucial to his campaign. I know this firsthand.

---

by: kid oakland @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:20:37 AM UTC

Obama on the ground: (0.00 / 0)

Where has Clinton won, or come close, where Obama has had at least a week to campaign? Someone on TV said it today, he's got a gift few have ever had: When he campaigns, he moves real numbers. Two weeks in Ohio? She's toast.  

---

by: yankeefan16 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:54:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, chill out. (0.00 / 0)

Nobody is disenfranchising anyone.  You're getting all hysterical about nothing.  Just calm down.

---

by: Querent @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:25:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That online schtick gets old (0.00 / 0)

"hysterical" "calm down"

"The popular blogs, where far less thought goes into both posts and comments than here, are almost unbearable to read now. The level of juvenile acting out that is going on there is repulsive."

I'm sure it must get really uncomfortable in your supercilious ego tower these days.

I feel for you.

In we were debating here in Oakland and you called me hysterical and told me to calm down or claimed that blogs were "almost unbearable to read", I'd laugh my ass off.

---

by: kid oakland @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 15:25:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama delegate lead (0.00 / 0)

I think that the readers would be interested to know that the Obama and Clinton estimates for pledged delegates (from NYTimes) mirror those of Chris Bowers - Clinton camp: Obama 1141-Clinton 1004=137, Obama camp: Obama 1139-Clinton 1003=136, Chris Bowers: Obama 1137-Clinton 1002=135. Interesting the Clinton camp has Obama leading by one more than the Obama camp. In any case, the differences are probably less than the error in the estimates. And, of course, you won't find any of these numbers in the media estimates. Actually, the NYTimes is the worst. I think that Ohio can give Clinton, at most, a 30 delegate margin and that Wisconsin, Hawaii, Overseas, and  Texas will be nearly a wash. So I expect Obama to be over 100 pledged delegates after March 4.

---

by: aussie chris @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 02:55:44 AM UTC

VT - WTF?!? (0.00 / 0)

What, we can't even get a freekin POLL done up here??? Just because trhe snowbanks are runnin about 16 feet high is no reason for them sorry-assed flatlander pollsters to avoid us. Get up here, make some of them dang annoying dinner-time calls and get some VER-mont polling numbers up on the board, fercryinoutloud!

---

by: GreenVTster @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:39:29 AM UTC

Thoughts on this scenario (4.00 / 1)

IMO, this is very plausible and IMO pretty generous to Clinton, and illustrates just how large a climb she has ahead of her, and how unlikely it is for her to get to pledged delegate parity.

Feb 19th

Wisconsin
Popular vote: 53 O - 46 C
Delegate allocation: 40-34
net: + 6 O

Hawaii
Delegate allocation (caucus, no pop vote): 11 O - 9C
net: + 2 O

March 4th

Ohio
Popular vote: 57 C - 43 O
Delegate allocation: 80 C - 61 O
net: + 19 C

Rhode Island
Popular vote: 59 C - 41 O
Delegate allocation: 14 C - 7 O
net: + 7 C

Vermont
Popular vote: 55 O - 44 C
Delegate allocation: 9 O - 6 C
net: + 3 O

Texas
Popular vote: 53 C - 47 O
Delegate allocation (not including caucus)*: 69 C - 57 O
net: +  12 C

Why I think this is generous to Clinton.  She only loses 2 points between now and March 4th in Ohio, even though Obama has a chance to stump there aggressively.  She maintains her 6 points advantage in Texas even though trends are in the opposite direction (her losing ground, him gaining).  I gave Obama a bit bigger margin in WI than his average says right now, but the most recent polls all show him up 5-7 points and he's contesting the state more emphatically, even if the Clinton camp is making a last ditch effort to go negative-but-partially-substantive on air.  Since that margin is right in line with his projections, I used his campaign's delegate allocation for that state as well, which I think is OK as described below.  

I also gave Clinton a slightly more favorable result in Rhode Island than the Obama campaign predicted in their spreadsheet (that thus far has been overly-conservative in predicting Obama's margins).  I'm giving Obama the same results they predicted in Hawaii and Vermont, though, even ifh they've consistently under-estimated his support in his strong states.

*Lastly, Texas, I'm giving Clinton popular vote margin she currently holds on average, and the most delegates possible based on the breakdown here, as in, whenever he says this could go 3-1 Clinton or could go 2-2, I'm giving her 3.  And whenever it could go 6-1 Obama or 5-2 Obama, I'm going 5-2 (or whatever).  The net result of that was adding 3 delegates to Clinton from his math.  I'm not apportioning any delegates from the caucus b/c my understanding is that those won't be immediately known, but even if they are I imagine they'll be more favorable to Obama anyway, and I don't think that's controversial.  

The total pledged delegates after all that shakes out?  

From the 3 states Obama wins, he gains 11 delegates on Clinton.  She, however, picks up 38 on him in her 3 states.  That shakes out to a net gain for Clinton of 27 delegates.  Seeing as how her current deficit stands at around 135 pledged delegates, that means she'd only get that down to a ~105-110 deficit March 5th, with 67 caucus-allocated delegates from Texas to be apportioned.

After March 5th, there are only 561 delegates left to be won.  In those 12 contests, then, Clinton would have to win 59.8% of all available delegates to reach delegate parity.  Keep in mind, 198 delegates will be won in Wyoming (a caucus in a mountain-west state that's situated right in the middle of Obama's dominant region, where he is as-yet undefeated), Mississippi (has the largest proportion of black-to-white voters in the US), South Dakota (same as Wyoming, though a primary), North Carolina (which also has a significant black voting population, IIRC), and Oregon (which is supposed to vote similarly to Washington, where Obama won every single jurisdiction).

Now, winning 60% of total delegates is hard enough; Clinton has only down that 4 times, in NY (which was her home state but was contested), Arkansas (another home state that was not contested), Massachusetts, and Oklahoma (which was not, I believe, contested).  Which means Clinton would basically have to replicate her very singularly best performances in 12 straight contests, 5 of which are completely unfavorable to her.

If only look at the 363 states that are favorable to her (I'm including Montana here in spite of Obama's regional strength b/c I'm under the impression it's somewhat culturally distinct from it's surrounding states, though maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me), that means she'd have to make up that 105 or so deficit by winning 65.2% of the delegates.  She has only won over 64% of delegates once...in uncontested Arkansas.

And in order for that performance to be an overall delegate tie, she would have to reach parity with Obama on the 67 delegates won in the Texas caucus and the 198 delegates available in states very favorably to him.

In short, it's the hail mary of all hail mary's.  

So...someone go through and tell me why (a)I'm under-estimating Hillary's margins here-or-there, or (b)why we should expect her to start being competitive in the prairie, mountain west, and pacific NW regions, or (c) how the above scenario represents a credible path to the nomination for her.

In short, can someone explain to me why 2 comfortable wins, in Texas and Ohio, is supposedly an outcome that will extend the battle for pledged deleates?  It seems to me that it's already over, and Obama has won.  And if that's the case, isn't this just basically only a matter of time before this becomes obvious to everyone else?  Right now it just seems like lack of clarity on Texas and the Clintons kicking up dust re: Michigan/FL, black vote, small states, caucuses, popular vote, super delegates, etc has people confused over the fact that the math is almost inescapable.  Clinton is not catching him in pledged delegate totals.  

---

by: mopper8 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 03:54:38 AM UTC

I'll just add that (4.00 / 1)

If she were to concede, when would she?  Obviously not before March 4th, but if on March 5th she just had 3 very nice wins, but it still down 100+ pledged delegates, how can her campaign credibly go forward?  I think we've already seen somewhat of a preview (Penn said something like "we'll be with in 25 or so delegates including supers"), but how long will party leaders and the supers indulge this?  It seems almost infantile IMO. Should Obama win Wyoming and Mississippi big (as is likely) and push his lead back up to ~120 pledged delegates and 40+ overall, does she concede then?  Or is Pennsylvania then the new firewall?  How long do we have to put up with her Sisyphean campaign?  All the way to the convention, so she can try to win it in the backrooms by twisting super delegate arms?

That, IMO, seems to be her only path to the nomination, I think I've illustrated that point well above, so the question is: why indulge it?  

---

by: mopper8 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:08:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

patience grasshopper (0.00 / 0)

we will be delivered in time.

---

by: aiko @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:04:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

concede? (0.00 / 0)

Something tells me that she won't concede.  That said, if I had to bet on a date it'd be the 23rd of April.  I think it was over with VA, but that's just me wanting to have been the knockout punch.  One caveat, it's Obama's to screw up now.  IF he's careful, at this point, his supporters can't relax, but it might do him some good to be patient.  I'm all for contesting Ohio and Texas but he just needs to keep his strategy exactly the same, there's no need for him to get caught up in any back and forth or whatever else might throw him off, at this point, let the media narrative play out that, well clinton won ohio and texas, won them big, but the delegates just aren't enough, in fact everyone may have overestimated what kind of gains were possible for hillary there.

---

by: blueva @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:35:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree, actually (0.00 / 0)

That it was over after she got blown out in VA and ME.  Hopefully the media will see that once they see they start evaluating beyond March 4th

I also don't think she'll actively concede, but at some point, someone (Gore, Pelosi, Reid) should step in and tell her what's what, you know?  So far, the drawn-out campaign has been great IMO because it's forced/allowed Obama (in particular) to go out and start defining himself in ~35 states positively, without facing any real GOP attacks.  That's great; he has a huge headstart in a theoretical GE run.

However, at some point in time, I think you reach a point where those gains start turning into drawbacks.  If we have to go through 6 weeks of jockeying over Pennsylvania while John McCain is going around the country stumping and taking pot shots at both candidates...that's not good.  Not good at all.

---

by: mopper8 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:56:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sisyphean? That's a little over the top. (4.00 / 1)

She can go to the convention, if she wants to.  The delegates who are pledged to her have to vote for her on the first ballot whether she says she's in, or out.

Nice analysis, by the way. I think your very (no offense intended) conservative estimates paint a pretty good picture. It's not that it's over, exactly, it's just that it's clear how it's going to end.  But when you're as close as Clinton is, and you've waited and planned for 7 years or more, there's no reason to throw in the towel.  

As far as putting up with it, I know what you mean.  The popular blogs, where far less thought goes into both posts and comments than here, are almost unbearable to read now. The level of juvenile acting out that is going on there is repulsive. I think there is cyber stalking going on on several of the threads.

Clinton had a choice in 2002 or 2003 between running against Bush in 2004, bitterly denouncing his anti-democratic narcissism, becoming the darling of the left, and maybe catching the wave too soon, or waiting for 2008, playing safe, and playing defense.  No guts, no glory.

What the poster above me is counseling for Obama is much the same, except he's going to win.  In football, they have the prevent defense, which is designed to carefully and conservatively shepherd a lead into a victory.  It usually results in the team stopping the tactics that are winning for them and going passive. Obama has run a brilliant campaign.  I don't think he's going to fumble now.

---

by: Querent @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:55:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

hehe (4.00 / 1)

I'm a sucker for the rhetorical flourish, I guess :D

It's not that it's over, exactly, it's just that it's clear how it's going to end.

This is a great way of putting it.  Thanks.  I may use that line.

Yeah, Obama's campaign has been near flawless and really shown a much more thoughtful approach to campaigning and strategy overall.  It's like he's got a crew of game theorists over there and Clinton's got a team of Stratego-enthusiasts.  They've just been out-classed.  Ignoring small rural states and rural areas in populous states, in a proportional representation system like the Dem primaries, was, frankly, stupid.  Going triage after Feb 5th was doubly stupid.

---

by: mopper8 @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:01:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton won't withdraw (0.00 / 0)

Clinton can still win if they have a rerun in Michigan and Florida either with a mail-in or a primary paid for by the DNC. Then she would still be slightly behind in pledged delegates, but her lead in superdelegates would give her the overall lead. This assumes the remaining superdelegates don't go for Obama - a doubtful proposition.  

---

by: aussie chris @ Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:50:54 AM UTC