Yes, We Are Headed To The Convention

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 15:21


There is a growing sentiment that the "delegate math" favors Obama, and that he will wrap-up the nomination in June. While this is a sentiment with which I generally agree, upon closer analysis of the delegate math I think that Clinton has a better chance than many realize. In fact, a close look at the delegate math indicates that there is a good chance we will either head to the convention without a presumptive nominee, or head to the convention with a barely presumptive nominee. By "barely presumptive," I mean a candidate who is just slightly over 2,208, with that total possibly disputed by the opposing campaign. Overall, I would say there is a greater than 50% we will face one of those two scenarios.

First, here is the current delegate count:

Democratic Nomination Campaign Delegate Projection
Delegate Type Obama Clinton Other Remaining
Pledged 1,408.5 1,252.5 26 879
Super 210 259 0 299
Projected Add-ons 40 24 0 17
Total 1,658.5 1,535.5 26 1,195

This delegate projection puts the Michigan and Florida pledged delegates and add-on in the "remaining" column, since they are still to be decided. The Michigan and Florida superdelegates who have endorsed a candidate are included in the superdelegate totals, while those who have not are placed in the "remaining" column. I think this is the most accurate way to count the delegates right now, since it is safe to assume that Michigan and Florida will be seated, while it is also reasonable to categorize the two states as currently undetermined.

Now, let's take a look at current polling for the remaining primary states, and the delegate projections that polling creates:

Democratic Nomination Primary Schedule
State Date O % C % P. Del Obama Del Clinton Del
Pennsylvania Apr 22 36.8% 51.8% 158 74 84
Guam May 03 -- -- 4 2 2
Indiana May 06 40.0% 25.0% 72 41 31
North Carolina May 06 47.7% 41.3% 115 61 54
West Virginia May 13 22.0% 43.0% 28 11 17
Kentucky May 20 -- -- 51 21 30
Oregon May 20 -- -- 52 27 25
Puerto Rico Jun 01 -- -- 55 24 31
Montana Jun 03 -- -- 16 9 7
South Dakota Jun 03 -- -- 15 8 7
Florida ??? 39.0% 55.0% 185 77 108
Michigan ??? 41.0% 41.0% 128 64 64
Total June 10 46.0% 44.5% 879 419 460

In the states without polls, I took some liberties in projecting the delegates based on the results of similar states. This projects to Clinton 460-419 Obama for the remaining states, along with a 10-7 split in favor of Clinton among the add-on delegates (I am projecting a tie in Michigan). Overall, this produces a total of Obama 2,084.5--2,005.5 Clinton, with 299 non-add on superdelegates and 26 Edwards delegates as the deciding factor. From that point, Obama would need 38.0% of the remaining delegates to win, while Clinton would need 62.0%.

Now, 62.0% of the remaining superdelegates and Edwards delegates sounds like a tall order. However, keep in mind that these are all pretty dedicated, self-identified Democrats, and that they also tend to be older than 30. Both of these are groups among whom Clinton holds an advantage among voters, which partially explains her edge in superdelegates to date. If she is able to slice off a few delegates in multi-tiered caucus states and / or outperform the delegate projections in remaining states, then she needs even less than 62.0% of the remaining delegates. For example, if she acquires twenty-four more delegates through such means, then she only needs 55.7% of the remaining delegates to win, which is almost identical to her current advantage among superdelegates. A string of wins starting in Pennsylvania could give her the momentum needed to outperform the delegate totals, and also provide her with an argument that superdelegates might buy. In other words, winning the nomination remains doable for Clinton.

Now, with all of this said, the math still clearly favors Obama. After all, he could also outperform these projections, build momentum of his own, and add to his delegate totals in multi-tiered caucus states. Further, since Super Tuesday, he has added 78 new superdelegates to his total, while Clinton has only added 20. Yet further, it will be difficult for Clinton to overtake Obama in the popular vote, where he currently leads by about 750,000 once caucus states are figured into the totals. That will be a difficult argument for any currently undecided superdelegate to ignore. However, an honest look at these numbers also indicates that it will be very difficult for Obama to reach 2,208 by June 10th, the day that the DNC mandates caucus and primary voting ends. While he will have a lead, there is a pretty good chance there will still be enough undecided superdelegates and Edwards delegates to prevent either candidate from reaching 2,208 by June 10th. Further, even if Obama does barely eek over 2,208 in June, it is unlikely that the Clinton campaign will concede defeat as long as they still believe they can flip enough superdelegates to win the nomination.

In other words, a close look at the delegate math indicates that there is a good chance we will either head to the convention without a presumptive nominee, or head to the convention with a barely presumptive nominee. At the very least, we are headed all the way through June. A question we might want to start asking is how many delegates Obama needs to have in order to get Clinton to concede before the convention in either June or July. Personally, I don't think that number is 2,208, since they will almost certainly believe they can flip a handful of superdelegates. The actual number might be something like 2,240 or even higher, which would make the delegate flipping task virtually impossible. Other than losing a state like Pennsylvania or Florida, such an enormous delegate total strikes me as just about the only way Clinton will concede before the convention. If you have noticed anything else in her campaign behavior up until this point that indicates otherwise, I think we are watching different nomination campaigns.  
Chris Bowers :: Yes, We Are Headed To The Convention

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yes, We Are Headed To The Convention | 95 comments
It is looking like a Fl/MI (4.00 / 1)
Compromise is in the works...according to Halperin.  Obama should accept this

"Michigan's 156 delegates would be split 50-50 between Clinton and Obama.

Florida's existing delegates would be seated at the Denver convention-but with half a vote each. That would give Clinton a net gain of about 19 elected delegates.

The two states' superdelegates would then be able to vote in Denver, likely netting Clinton a few more delegates.

The betting: Florida and Michigan delegates, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign would all - some reluctantly- accept this deal.

Then it would be over to you, Barack Obama."

Sounds fair to me. (0.00 / 0)
   But because Halperin said it, I don't believe it.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
seems like there are a lot of views out there (0.00 / 0)
I posted a link to this AP article in the Quick Hits.  It would be consistent with Halperin's scenario, yet only discusses re-votes.  I'd say both states are exploring a re-vote but having trouble reaching consensus.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Dean seems to rule this out (0.00 / 0)
He's said that there are only 2 solutions to MI and FL: 1) new elections that conform to DNC rules, or 2) letting the credentials committee sort it out. This proposal is obviously neither of those options. Now, FWIW, I think this is a fine idea, but does Dean have the discretion or the inclination to approve it?
[ Parent ]
I imagine that if both candidates (0.00 / 0)
and delegations agreed to this, the credentials committee would approve of it.
[ Parent ]
Of Course Obama (2.00 / 2)
would agree to a 50/50 split in Michigan because it would change nothing in delegate count. But Clinton wouldn't and shouldn't agree.

People forget that Obama was on the ballot and then elected to remove his name on his own free will. In other words he didn't want to run in Michigan given his action. So if he didn't want to run there why should he get half the votes? It makes no sense.

The other more important matter here is you can't take the vote out of the hands of the voters, which a 50/50 split would do. That is a non-starter.

If no re-vote is held then Clinton should get the votes and delegates of the people who already chose to vote for her and if there is any split that should be done it should only be the uncommitted votes that should be split. Why should Clinton and her voters be penalized when she did nothing wrong and neither did the voters?

This spit the entire vote 50/50 nonsense is blatant unfairness on the part of the Obama camp and is a total disregard for the voters of Michigan. Some new politics!

[ Parent ]
And Hillary Agreed Michigan Didn't Count (0.00 / 0)
And signed a pledge to that effect for the "early 4," only to change her mind once it suited her interests.

Hillary should take the 50/50 and be happy about it, lest it go to a re-vote and she gets less.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely False (0.00 / 0)
No candidate signed a pledge for the delegates of the votes of the voters not to count.

What they pledged was to not campaign on those states and that is all they pledged to.

Texas monthly Interview:

Q: There's been a lot of talk about what your campaign would do should it get to the convention. Would you commit today to honoring the agreement made earlier not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations?

Clinton: Let's talk about the agreement. The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates. I think that's an important distinction. I did not campaign--

Q: The press seems to have missed the distinction if that's the case. The talk is that you agreed not to seat the delegation.

Clinton: That's not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it's important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC's decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/bl...

So you have your story wrong. No candidate ever pledged to not seat the delegates. Obama did voluntarily remove his name from the ballot and decided to not run in Michigan. And a record number of voters turned out because they wanted their vote to count.

[ Parent ]
No, (4.00 / 5)
They pledged not to PARTICIPATE.  Which Clinton most certainly did by leaving her name on the ballot.
[ Parent ]
Question (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone know where to find the details of this said pledge? Was it an informal thing, or was it put in writing, or what?  
[ Parent ]
It was informal (0.00 / 0)
and not in writing. Yuu can read Clinton's unchallenged staement above.
[ Parent ]
No they didn't (0.00 / 0)
They only pledged to not campaign. And none of them did.

Quit spreading falsehoods. You have nothing to back up your spin so it looks ridiculous to say what you are.

You read what Clinton said above and no one credible has challenged it with any contrary facts so what she said is the way it is.

[ Parent ]
Bleh. (0.00 / 0)
Who cares about some legal, nitpicking interpretation of what the parties may or may not have agreed to?

A bottom-line sense of fairness will prevail. That means either:

(1) re-votes; or

(2) an artificial allocation of delegates that gets to a result that is perceived to be reasonably close to what a re-votes would produce.

Most people agree that Clinton would win Florida by a small-to-medium margin and that Michigan would be likely be close.

In this context, the proposed compromise Halperin discusses seems possible. Another compromise would be to split the MI delegates and seat the FL delegates with full voting power based on the past vote. That would be a little more favorable to Clinton, but would still satisfy (2) above.

Your legalistic parsing of language will not prevail over what's broadly perceived to be fair. This means that Clinton still has essentially zero chance of winning the nomination. Sorry.  

[ Parent ]
Well if you seat Florida (0.00 / 0)
the you have to seat Michigan because the standards for doing so are the same.

Voters came out in Florida to vote for who was on the ballot therefore they should be seated. Michigan voters came out to vote for who was on the ballot and therefore should be seated. The fact that Obama was on the ballot before he took his name off the ballot is his own mistake and no one but him should pay for his mistake.

[ Parent ]
No. Let me say it simply. (0.00 / 0)
Of course we should want both MI and FL to be seated. Re-votes are, of course, the best option.  

Having re-votes will be seen by most as by far the fairest choice. If re-votes are impossible, it follows logically that a deal seeking to avoid said re-votes will tend to resolve along the lines where predicted re-votes would split.  

Note that the following is indisputable: many people - perhaps a majority, perhaps not - believe that there are serious problems with the integrity of the previous FL and MI votes, especially MI. The "simply seat both delegations based on the previous results" argument will not work. It is not broadly perceived to be fair.  

[ Parent ]
Again (0.00 / 0)
The vote should not be taken out of the hands of the voters but that is what you propose to do. That is wrong.

As for a split along the lines where predicted re-votes would split. Nonsense. What are you going to do hand the distribution state delegates to the polling companies who haven't been right too often if at all? Absurd.

Indisputable??? Typical vague post. All bluster and no link or facts to back up your rhetoric. But not surprising. Why not try to add another unverifiable kink to not have those two states counted? lol

[ Parent ]
Even so, Obama leads in EVERY category except if you're only counting states Hillary has won which you will see soon as the new metric proposed Penn & Company (0.00 / 0)
Even if you seat them as-is Obama still leads in popular vote, delegate count and states won. And that doesn't even include the popular vote numbers from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. Clinton ain't gonna pull ahead in any of these numbers. If the Supers try to overturn that, which they aren't stupid enough to do because it's against their own interest, well, then you'll see demonstrations outside the convention in Denver. Clinton knows this is zero sum and is simply trying to poison the well.  
[ Parent ]
Hmm (0.00 / 0)
You contend that "the vote should not be taken out of the hands of the voters". A re-vote would put things in the hands of the voters. I can only conclude that you are being intentionally dim, so I'll take my leave of this discussion.  

Regardless, the FL and MI votes are seen as fundamentally flawed by enough people to guarantee that your ignorant argument won't be effective.

Cheers.  

[ Parent ]
Close, but not quite (0.00 / 0)
Here is the text of the press release sent out by Sen. Clinton's campaign on September 1, 2007:

Sep 1, 2007 4:02 PM
Clinton Campaign Statement

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

Nothing about not "campaigning" in the states. Clinton's campaign clearly states that "we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar." The DNC calendar stripped Michigan and Florida of their votes. That is the calendar the Clinton campaign agreed to.

Though, they've switched tacks and directions so many times, I understand if they don't remember what they promised to the 48 other states, 4 territories, and Democrats Abroad that agreed to abide by the rules of the party they claim membership in.

Thank goodness google provides a quick and easy way to remind the Clinton campaign of what they said!

Here's the link to the NYTimes story: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

[ Parent ]
Here is the meat of the actual pledge (0.00 / 0)
THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina,

(pdf)
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/ms...

Again: "as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC."

So, even the official pledge letter, and especially the last sentence is saying this pledge pertains to campaigning and campaigning only and that is what Clinton has been saying all along.

And just to clarify there were four names on both the Florida ballot and the Michigan ballot. For those who decided to take their names off it was of their own choosing. If they wanted to reject the voters of each state who turned out in record numbers then that was their individual choice.

[ Parent ]
Except Clinton herself said that Michigan couldn't count as is. This is the Soviet Union here folks. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
but you don't address all the meat... (4.00 / 1)
You mention that "campaigning" was specifically included in the pledge. You're right, I'll grant you that point. I hadn't seen the actual language.

However, you cannot provide the entire text and then only point to the part that supports your premise. It says "I...pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state..."

I'm fairly certain that having your name on the ballot, thereby providing people the opportunity to vote for you, qualifies as participation.

[ Parent ]
it seems to me (0.00 / 0)
that the Michigan part is easy.  Michigan submits a slate that is split 50-50, both campaigns say their supporters should vote for it in the credentials committee, and it would be effectively done.  The Florida question is quite different, as you note -- who would approve a half vote?  Does anyone even have the authority to?  

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Credentials committee meets in... (0.00 / 0)
...what, July or August? That's a long time to keep this thing in a state of uncertainty. Along the same lines,  reading Chris's account of the delegate situation, it's very much in HRC's interest that a) things stay as uncertain as possible for as long as possible, and b) try to get as favorable a delegation as possible. That many Dems view that as very problematic really isn't, and arguably shouldn't be, their concern. And I say that as a Obama supporter.  
[ Parent ]
Hillary won't allow a 50/50 split, bc it means she looses. (4.00 / 1)
What she wants is a question mark hanging over this thing, going all the way to the convention so she can get dirtier and dirtier. This is just poisoning the well here folks. Nothing more. Nothing less.
[ Parent ]
A 50/50 split is pointless (0.00 / 0)
It makes the votes of Michiganders (??) just as meaningless as if the delegates weren't seated at all. If the delegates cannot in principle affect the result in any way, their 'participation' is purely superficial. The only way for their votes to count is to actually make them count. Splitting them up without any regard for how people actually voted is disenfranchisement just as much as not counting them at all.
[ Parent ]
That's what breaking the rules means... (4.00 / 1)
That's the whole point of the rules... you break them, you're taken out of the process.

The 50/50 split essentially says "Well, your state has been removed from affecting the race, but you can still participate in the convention."  That is entirely consistent with what the purpose of the DNC rules are.

[ Parent ]
? (0.00 / 0)
If you think that Michigan should pay by having its primary invalidated, that's a different argument. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. But this is just another way of inflicting that penalty. Letting the actual people serving as delegates 'participate' in the convention - what does that even mean? The party will let them into the convention hall? That does nothing to enfranchise Michigan voters.

Which again, if you think that's the price they have to pay, fine. But let's not act like this 50-50 thing is some kind of compromise. It's a distinction w/o a difference.  

[ Parent ]
Michigan voters should be throwing their leadership out of office then (0.00 / 0)
This is not Obama's fault (or Clinton's, originally... except that she's trying to change the rules now).  If I lived in MI or FL, I'd rightfully be furious... but not at the candidates.  They didn't cause this mess, their party leaders did, and in the next election I'd be looking for any way to throw them out (ie, primaries).

I'd be all for a re-vote, but it seems unlikely given the problems that come with it.  I would say, ideally, that a full primary should be done (again) in both states... after that, my preference would be a caucus (although also questionable in FL since they haven't done one to my knowledge)... and after that, my preference would be the 50/50 split.  The vote-by-mail sounded good to me at first, but I've been convinced otherwise since then (especially in FL, given it's history of problems).

And, with all of this, I think a penalty still needs to be enforced, even with a re-vote.  I'm not sure how severe the penalty should be, but stripping the Super Delegates (who are partially responsible for the mess) seems like a good start.  Without a penalty, the DNC essentially says "Well, you violated the rules, but now you're even more important to the process, so we'll just ignore that..."  That sets a bad precedent for the future.

Whatever happens, I think the next time something like this happens, the DNC REALLY needs to hold their ground and say "No, really... If you violate the rules you will not get seated... there will be no re-vote, and that's that.  If any candidate has a problem with this, you should speak NOW."

[ Parent ]
They are giving regard for how people actually voted (0.00 / 0)
It seems to me 50-50 is about right given the outcome of the first 'contest.' Had HRC won by 40 points a 50-50 split would be a much tougher sell.

Michigan delegates will then get to go and participate in the convention without prejudice, like everybody else.

And Florida (under the above proposal) is going to yield delegates for HRC due to her strong 'win' there.

At this stage compromise is necessary and in order for this thing to be fair it should mirror as closely as possible what would have happened under a truly fair election. It seems to me Michigan would be close one way or the other and Clinton would win Florida by a decent margin.

This deal is good. If I were Obama, I'd probably take it because it gets this talking point out of the way, and it reduces the risks of a Florida blowout, and it moves us closer to the end; if I were Hillary I'd probably take it because it gives her a real win in a Big Important State, it finally lets her take a bite out of his pledged delegate lead; and it reduces the risk that she could find herself outvoted at the convention when it's all or nothing.

[ Parent ]
Probably good for Obama... (4.00 / 1)
Except I'd probably try and get the Super Delegates down to at least half a vote as well... They caused this mess and should deal with the consequences as well.

Also, my other problem is that Clinton will still use the ridiculous popular vote argument in the end anyway, even with the half delegates and 50/50 split arrangement.  

I saw a good point raised elsewhere today too... if the Caucus states had done Primaries, Obama's popular vote margin would likely be even greater, although he'd probably have slightly less delegates.  So delegates are what this race is for, and delegates are what we need to look at.  Unless Clinton was somehow KILLING Obama in the popular vote margin (which she isn't, and won't), there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever for the Super Dels to overturn the pledged delegate results.

[ Parent ]
Supers in FL didn't cause this mess. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Not entirely, but partially, yes... (0.00 / 0)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... e/no-seats-for-you_b_91109.html

Pertinent info:

"The bill that would officially move the primary to January passed the State Senate with a vote of 37-2. A week later, the State House passed with bill unanimously, 118-0. In no uncertain terms, this was a bipartisan effort. Then in June, the Florida Democratic Central Committee voted unanimously to support the early primary. The elected officials and party members that make up the Florida superdelegate pool no doubt played integral roles in violating national party rules."

[ Parent ]
The Threshold (0.00 / 0)
I suspect getting over the threshold (according to Slate it is 2024 without FLA/MI or 2,180 with), will have the biggest impact on the media.

Right now Clinton needs to be able to fight the impression that she would be 'taking away' something that Obama has won. That Superdelegates are a part of the process (and thus courting them is within the rules) has kept her quasi-legitimate. But if Obama crosses a line and the press decides to 'call' the election for him, it will probably stick, no matter what Clinton does.

The media won't call it (0.00 / 0)
The like the ratings....
[ Parent ]
And here is to wishing we had an editing function... n/t (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Not sure... (0.00 / 0)
It's that rational.

I get the feeling that some press 'decisions' are more... organic. Once an idea gets talked about enough, particularly if high ranking 'officials' (a la Edwards, Gore, Carter, Dean) make the case that it's over, there will be constant questioning of whether they are right. There is a good chance that the constant questioning itself - the very feeding frenzy about whether or not it is over - will result in it being over.

[ Parent ]
200 pledge delegates and 0 superdelegates (0.00 / 0)
I think Obama's hope is that dual wins in North Carolina and Indiana will be enough to end the race. If PA is as close as you say it's going to be, then Obama can more than wipe out Clinton's gains and make the case he can win Rust Belt states. Failing that, I think they're just going to trade blows with Clinton making up some ground, but not enough.

It's pretty clear at this point. Obama is running to be President of the United States. Clinton is running to be President of the Ohio River Valley. There's no reason for supers to fight the voters on this one.

BTW, I did a bit of digging, and it looks like of the 240 or so uncommitted supers, 100 are from states that favor Clinton while 140 are from states that lean Obama. Now, some of those are probably Clinton loyalists -- white ethnic party regulars from Connecticut, say. On the other hand, some of the uncommitted Clinton-state supers are African-American. So it probably washes out, and they favor Obama overall.

You're projecting a 115 pledged delegate lead (0.00 / 0)
I understand that superdelegates are free to vote either way, but based on your projections, Obama will lead the pledged delegate count by 115. Will the superdelegates really flip that advantage?

You have to realize that if they do, I for one will start a campaign of getting Democratic friends and relatives to register as independent. I would be ashamed to associate myself with a party that would dare do something like this, even if I do vote for its candidates. The results will be disastrous, I can promise you that.

agreed (0.00 / 0)
I was hoping someone would pick up on what you just said...The main problem with the original poster's projections is that it assumes super delegates would thwart the will of the people. I highly, highly, highly doubt they'll do that. Basically, if Obama can keep the pledged delegate lead and popular vote lead, he's in. If he only does one of those, then I think the super delegates will feel free to do whatever they want to do.
[ Parent ]
How many Supers will be down-ticketr? They're Obama delegates already. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I would answer... (0.00 / 0)
if only I understood what you said!
[ Parent ]
Translation: What candidates will be on the ballot with Obama in November? (0.00 / 0)
Obama has a better chance of getting "down-ticket" Democrats who are on the ballot with him elected.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008...

[ Parent ]
Good question (0.00 / 0)
There are around 20 Senators, 78 Representatives and 10 Governors who are uncommitted. Without trying to figure them out one by one, the odds would say that 1/3 of Senators would be up for reelection as well as half the Governors and all the congresspeople.

The thing is, incumbents have very good reelection odds and it's even higher among Senators and Governors.

[ Parent ]
Thanks! Where would I look to find out who is up for re-election? n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
A few ways to look them up (0.00 / 0)
I would first use this link to get the list of uncommitted Senators and Governors. Again, all members of the House will be up for reelection in 2008.

Generally speaking, Class II Senators are up for reelection in 2008 but there are always exceptions too (special elections). Look here for Senate races in 2008 and filter the names from the above list.

And here is a list of gubernatorial races in 2008 to cross-check with the list.

I'm assuming you'll be nice enough to provide the result of your work somewhere!

Do keep in mind that those with safe races may not care much about the down-ticket effect.

[ Parent ]
Supers Will Have to Take the Long View (4.00 / 1)
Regardless of their personal preferences, the superdelegates will have to start weighing which candidate's supporters are more likely to abandon the party: (a) in this election, and (b) in future elections.  

Of course, part of this will be based upon whose supporters are more likely to believe that their candidate was treated unfairly; no doubt both groups will feel this to a certain extent.  

Here are the likely reasons for Obama's supporters to feel that their candidate was robbed:

1.  He has the most pledged delegates;

2.  He has the most popular votes; and

3.  The current MI & FL delegations are counted and put Hillary in the pledged delegate lead.

Here are the potential scenarios in which Hillary's supporters will believe she was robbed:

1.  She has the most popular votes, but not the most pledged delegates; and

2.  No FL or MI delegations are seated, and they would have put her over the top.

The majority of either candidates followers will have trouble believing that their candidate was robbed absent the above scenarios.  This is why it is important to solve the FL & MI issue.  If that issue is resolved, it will be very difficult for Clinton supporters to feel that they were robbed.  Even if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama wins the pledged delegates by more than a nominal number (20?), he will have the stronger fairness argument.  

The fairness argument is critical.  If either side feels wronged, we are likely to lose this election.  In other words, if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama the pledged delegates, we will probably lose in November regardless of which candidate gets the nomination.  

However, the super delegates also have to think about the future of the party.  How many women would bolt the party because they felt that Hillary was treated unfairly?  How many African-Americans and young voters would turn-off from the process because they felt Obama was treated unfairly?  

I think the latter group would be much larger in the long-term.  I also don't think that many voters over 60 or union voters would become Republicans or suddenly disengage beyond this cycle.  

Polls say most voters don't see the primaries the way you do (0.00 / 0)
I know this hard for people on blogs to understand, but they simply aren't going to reject the Democrats because Clinton is on the ticket. Even in MS, where everyone was talking about the race disparity, from what I hear of the exit polling, it wasn't based on "I hate Clinton." That's the schtick of hardline online Obama supporters. Or "I hate Obama". Again that's the online campaign supporters.
[ Parent ]
If Obama wins states, popular and delegates & he isn't the nominee... (0.00 / 0)
I may not be speaking for "most voters," but if Obama wins states, popular vote and delegates and he isn't the nominee, I for one will leave the Democratic party and look forward to Obama/Bloomberg on the ballot.
[ Parent ]
i like how you change the premise of this diary (0.00 / 0)
to your own math. I think BTD over at talkleft is right- for supporters- many of you have your own special branch of mathmatics. of course, if Obama gets all three there isn't an argument, and most would pressure clinton to get out, but that's not the point we are at, there no indication that there is any certainty that obama will get all three, etc. more importantly, now that i am done with your side tracking of my point- the reality is that you go right ahead and leave. i am personally not going to waste time with posters such as yourself anymore. all hyperbole.
[ Parent ]
Already has 2/3 (0.00 / 0)
And the last one is probably a good 99% chance that he'll have it... even though it's a race for delegates and not the popular vote anyway.
[ Parent ]
Which quite possibly neither will acheive (0.00 / 0)
without the superdelegate, and even possibly with the superdelegates may fail to achieve. Hence, the diary.

Which if achieved with the superdelegates, it's not sure why one should follow the delegate count lead given how delegates are determined rather than the popular vote. There is no argument procedurally for simply following the candidate with the highest delegate count as far as I know- if so, I am happy to be corrected.

This is an issue, you definitely want to avoid if there is such a split between delegate count and popular vote.  

As I said, the "math of the supporters" is the best line I've heard today. If there is a split between popular vote and delegate count, I can say that both sides will be right, and both sides wrong because I know you will both ignore the fact you are only half right, and half wrong.

By theway, If it were such a slam dunk, I doubt Bowers would have felt the need to wrie this diary. I think many of you are confusing your desired outcome with probabilities of outcome.

Moreover, I doubt many of you would be arguing Clinton should drop out if you had the delegates. If you had an outright win, logic dictates you wouldn't need her to drop out. Please don't bother with the now tired slogan you want her to drop out for the party. Obama's sheenigans with the revote suggests party isn't the only concern. And for the record, I don't think Clinton's sheenigans are any better. I just want an honest playing field by pointing out the bad behavior of both candidates.

That's the problem here-- your argument may not add up if there is a split so you are forced to argue your half of the argument.  Hence, why one of Obama's major supporters wrote an article recently saying it should go to which ever one has the majority of delegates rather than the requisite delegates to win out right according to the process. I have to admit until recently you almost had me with these arguments until I thought about it- why shold the delegate count be given more weight than the popular vote? Why is any one indicator more representative of the will of the people?

I I find your post after 2000 especially ironic. This coming out of people claiming to be progressives? But,  I guess progressive is a situational concept based on the candidate.

I don't think there is any easy solution to this. I think eventually there is a split a decision must reflect this split rather than pretend there is no split. I don't think any solution that ignores the split is either fair or democratic (little "d").  

[ Parent ]
Quite simply, because that's the process as it is now... (0.00 / 0)
It's a race for delegates, pure and simple.  We can certainly make an argument that it should be a race for votes, but it's not for the time being... hence, the inclusion of caucuses.

The problem with using the popular vote is because we just don't have a good idea of what the popular "vote" really is.  Even if we include estimates from caucuses, caucuses are a poor inclusion into the "popular vote" totals.  If those caucuses were actually primaries, it's likely Obama's lead would be even greater, even if his delegate count ended up lower.

I understand it will be used as an argument in the end, assuming it's close, but ultimately, using the popular vote basically significantly reduces the importance of caucuses, which is obviously what Clinton wants, but the process, as it's setup now, doesn't recognize that.

[ Parent ]
Quite simply what you write isn't (0.00 / 0)
the process. And I promised myself not to deal with people who can't be forthright anymore because its a waste of my time. Show me where in the rules it says what you say, and I will be happy to retract my points. Otherwise, stop wasting time on blogs try to spin for your candidate.
[ Parent ]
wtf... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not being forthright?

So, this isn't a race for delegates?  I guess everyone's got it wrong then, huh?  This whole nonsense of picking delegates in every state... total nonsense, right? Why are we even bothering to look at that, right?

I'm not spinning for my candidate... Delegates are what matter.  Super Delegates, if they want, can take into account the "popular vote", but there's no "official" tally of it.  There is, however, an official "delegate" count.  Now, granted, nothing is 100% "official" until the actual convention, where the delegates there actually vote for a candidate, but we have a reasonably certain idea of what candidate has won what delegates before the convention.

[ Parent ]
It's a race for a certain number of delegates (0.00 / 0)
Not just the highest number, but a threshold number of 2025 or so delegates that must be reached to win the nomination outright. If Obama doesn't win those pledged delegate numbers, he doesn't win outright.  Indeed, even with super delegates , he may not win. There are no rules that say a super delegate, from what I understand, must vote for the candidate with the highest delegate count. There are no rules saying that he or she must vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote either. At the point where those two numbers split- if Obama has a higher number of delegates but not the magic threshold, and CLinton has the popular vote, your argument about "this is the process" because bullshi.  You know this. You keep leaving out the full facts. Thus the spin and dishonesty. We both know what part of the facts you are leaving out to suit your bias. Again, you aren't on CNN. You can certainly spin, but you are also most certainly wasting your time. As am I with this conversation.
[ Parent ]
I am not leaving shit out... (0.00 / 0)
I fully agree with you... I never said Super Delegates don't count or whatever it is you think I said.  Super Delegates can do what they want.  Hell, theoretically the pledged delegates can do whatever they want too.

At the end of the process, assuming we're not within the 26 delegates that Edwards won, SOMEONE will have more than 50% of the delegates: that's a guarantee.  Whether the end of that process occurs in April, May, June, or August, we don't know.. but it will happen.  And that's my only point... the way you win is by winning delegates.

Super Delegates don't have to take ANYTHING into account if they don't want... they can flip a coin if they like.  My only "argument", I suppose, to them, is that if they choose to use the "popular vote" to decide which way they vote, they're using a "flawed" number, because of the different ways that delegates are determined in each state (ie, Primary, Caucus, or combination).  

It's really quite simple... The states select delegates based on their own process, and the delegates select our nominee.  The states can do whatever they want... They could theoretically have NO vote at all and they could be selected in some other fashion (as they used to be).  If the Supers want to "uphold" the vote, I'm arguing that they use the pledged delegate vote to do so.  Do they have to?  No... again, they can do whatever they want.  I never argued differently.  But because the delegates are what ultimately matter in the election, to me, overruling the overall pledged delegate leader seems like it would look pretty bad.

[ Parent ]
At least this time you admit the limtiations of your argument (0.00 / 0)
well sort of. You  claim there is somehow an upholding of the process by going with higher delegate count without much more than its the will of the states. You can certainly believe that, but there is no more basis in that than by population being the will of the voters etc. I see a lot of people online saying these things in absolute terms. not just you. The danger of such absolutes is what happens if they choose population over delegate counts? Its find to say you personally won' get angry or that you undrstand your own bias even as you seem to gloss them over. But what of those who argue that this is then 'stealing' an election as I have seen. The point is to bring this all back down to earth. What happens when you are all endorsing and supporting the extreme position when others try to get people to pull back to realize that it was never this concrete in the first place? What value is there in talking in such extreme terms ? And by the way, it will look pretty bad either way or difficult to discern which is the right approach. As I suspect most people will base it on the candidate they support (whcih again is about 50/50 for each candidate).
[ Parent ]
Why is it that (0.00 / 0)
everyone is wasting your time?  I have read most of the comments above and I have found there to be good arguements both ways.  You seem to feel free to dismiss others when it is convenient for you, instead of countering their arguement.  Your free to have your opinions, but it doesn't seem that others are free to have theirs.  Argue facts, opinions and gut feelings if you want to, but you only hurt you cause when you dismiss others for not seeing you point of view.  
[ Parent ]
Here's a solution to your concern over my posts. Have them answer this question (0.00 / 0)
for me, and I will be happy to stop saying people are wasting my time:

Are there rules that require super delegates to vote according to who has the delegate lead?

If so, please show them to me.  If I am wrong, I have no problem with being wrong about this.

I do have a problem with progressives trying to eliminate inconvenient ambiguties by pretending there is no doubt. I have a problem with progressives misrepresenting (the polite way to say it) what we do know o the rules.

If you want to know why this bothers  me, it's because I expect better of people who claim they want to produce change. If you want to be post partisan, start here with other Democrats.  Be fair in your analysis and even handed at least to the extent you admit whre you aren't on firm ground.

I don't say everyone is wasting my time. There is a poster below who admits there argument is just their opinion.

I say those who pretend the this is cut and dry are wasting time because few outside of the most virulent supporters will buy what they are arguing. Can you imagine telling the American people the following "although she won the popular vote, and there is not rule that higher delegate counts is enough, we say it is because, well, she would be stealing the election to win without the higher delegate count."  You risk pissing off a lot of Democrats for no good reason.

You are entitled to argue your opinion. Indeed, I gave that person a 4 below for admitting or owning up to what they were saying as being their own bias, but not denying the other sides legitmate arguments.

You aren't entitled to your own facts. That used to be something that was well understood when it was about Bush, but now that it's about a Democratic primary, and Clinton, it's not.

Many of you talk about the Clintonites hurting the party, but quite frankly its both sides that are doing this. ANd if yo uwonder why I care- it's because I don't want McCain to win due to the inability to discern what is fair and what's not. My only hope is that the polls are right- that this is mostly an oonline issue.

[ Parent ]
as a matter of fact (0.00 / 0)
on thinking about it. I think you should leave right now. Why wait? Get an early head start before the crowds show up.
[ Parent ]
Sounds like Mr. Grumpy woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning! (0.00 / 0)
Go back to bed Grumps, and don't forget to pull the covers over your head. The world is too scary a place for people who can't think for themselves.
[ Parent ]
The way to address whiny children (0.00 / 0)
who say they will leave with all their toys just because they don't get what they want is to call them off they crap, and move on. Thus the proper response to I will leave the party is go ahead and do so. No one wants to waste time with people who are so caught up in personality.
[ Parent ]
What makes you say I am caught up in personality? (0.00 / 0)
hmmmm?
[ Parent ]
Due the fact you are talking about not voting for the Democratic candidate (0.00 / 0)
 I see both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters threatening to vote McCain, etc. It seems this isn't then based on the bigger issue of which party do we want to have the Presidency, but whom. That's a personality issue at base because no Democrat as as bad right now as the GOP being in the WH. You name the policy, and you will hard pressed to show me that Clinton is worse in general than McCain. Any vote for a vanity ticket of Obama/Bloomberg is the same as McCain to me.

I will put it to you this way- I've voted Republican in the past at the local level. That won't happen ever again. I realize there are greater consequences than the one candidate. To me, here, in this election, whatever flaws I think Obama and Clinton have (neither were my first choice, but I will support either), and whatever things I disagree with, they are policy wise better than the GOP. Do I want them to represent more democratic values? Absolutely. Will I be angry at a process that gave Clinton the vote if she loses the delegate, popular and state vote? Sure. Will I let that blind me if they on the personal level aren't as I want them to be? No. Because I know the policies and positions that would replace them should McCain and the GOP gain the WH for 4 to 8 years.

[ Parent ]
What are the chances of many supers..... (0.00 / 0)
committing sooner, rather than later, so as to put Obama closer?  Especially if the perception is that the Democratic party is imploding?

John McCain won't insure children
Okay, let's accept what you say as valid (0.00 / 0)
Do we really want a situation in which one of these candidates is declared the winner with so narrow a margin of victory as to almost split the outcome down the middle 50/50? Let's say Clinton ends up with the popular vote by a hair, and Obama wins the delegate count by a hair- then what? What's the solution? I've been saying this for a while- I don't see how you avoid a unity ticket.
Under such narrow guidelines (0.00 / 0)
you may be right. But I think it's likely to be less murky. I expect something like this could happen: Obama wins the delegate count by between 50 and 120; it is unclear who wins the popular votes -- Clinton's got her numbers showing her a few points up, Obama's got his showing him a few points up, CNN's got theirs showing Clinton with a very narrow lead, MSNBC's got theirs showing Obama with a very narrow lead, and everybody's ignoring the basement blogger in Podunk who's actually got it right, one way or the other.

Would the unity ticket be inevitable in this situation or would they fight it out to the ugly, bloody end? I'm guessing the latter...

[ Parent ]
I am guessing if no one puts pressure on them (0.00 / 0)
and continue to simply choose sides rather than realize the big picture, then yes, you are right. But, that's sort of my point. Blogs, which used to be about leadership, are now no more than either cheerleaders or are sideline by stating the banal. I would like for them to say something other than anti-democratic ideals like telling one of the candidates to give up for no good reason or waste time analyzing data as if we are in some kind of petri dish.  
[ Parent ]
we will likely have a presumptive nominee. (4.00 / 1)
At some point before the convention, one of the campaigns will declare that they have enough pledged delegates and commitments from enough of the superdelegates to claim that they will be the nominee.  At that point, it will be important for the party leaders in Washington (Pelosi & Reid) to ackowledge that the claim is factual and that the other candidate has no hope of securing the nomination. Hopefully, the losing candidate will have enough dignity and be enough of an adult to admit that they will likely not reach the nomination.

This is, of course, how adults in the political realm should behave.

But considering the current situation, you are correct in assuming that there is at least one campaign that will likely never admit defeat until the last balloon has fallen at the convention.  This is really a question of leadership- not necessarily of the candidates themselves, but of the leadership of the party in Washington.

This whole situation is ridiculous; Republicans would never let their party appear to be so silly as we Democrats let our party appear.

What bonehead ever came up with having 800 superdelegates anyway?  It is completely insane.

your post is cute (0.00 / 0)
You are right about one thing- Republicans would never allow democratic impulses to control what happens in their party.  
[ Parent ]
Of course (0.00 / 0)
this is what many of us (myself included) have been saying for weeks/months now. But with each passing contest we move closer to a contested convention...
[ Parent ]
comparison to the Obama spreadsheet (0.00 / 0)
The spreadsheet predicts 283 Obama delegates in the remaining contests, while the above is at 278.  (This, of course, excludes FL and MI.)  So pretty similar.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Chicken Little? (4.00 / 1)
No offense, but this post sounds a lot like your earlier Chicken Little posts from a few months back. I don't think anything has changed since then.

The Super Delegates aren't going to damage the party and their own careers for Hillary Clinton's sake.

If Obama leads in the pledged delegates, he will be the nominee. It is virtually impossible that Clinton will catch Obama in the pledged delegates or in the popular vote. It's impossible for her to catch him in the number of states won.

Your argument seems to be that we're going to go to the convention because Clinton won't quit, no matter how far she is behind. Even if Obama reaches the 50%+1 mark, Clinton will still stay in the race.

In that case, Clinton will be a candidate in name only. Technically, the race in 2004 went all the way to the convention, too. But did anyone pay attention to Kucinich when he stayed in until the convention? After the primaries are done, and if Clinton still refuses to see what's right in front of her, Obama would do well to ignore her and focus purely on McCain. No matter how loud she screams, he will be the nominee if he's leading after the primaries.

I'm less sanguine these days (0.00 / 0)
I have largely been in agreement with this line of thinking for quite some time but I'm rethinking it of late. You're right that he'll be leading in virtually (if not all) every indicator but should could easily within reach to continue to push the super delegates. Granted they probably won't jump over but it could be close enough as to be plausible, which would make this decidedly different than anything that has ever involved Kucinich.

He needs something significant to happen between now and PA to get the super delegates rolling into his column.

[ Parent ]
The chances are more than likely to favor the odds in Clinton's favor (0.00 / 0)
There is nothing other than trying to manipulate the narrative that can help either candidate, and even with narrative manipulation- how does either change the dynamic of a too close to call lose or win. If one is neutral about this, the fact is, if Obama has more delegates, but not enough to win, and Clinton has popular votes but not enough delegates to beat Obama, we are left as we are now. A lot of this seems to be wishful thinking on Obama supporters part regarding how this will play out. BTD had a great post again about the math. For example, in PA where in several kept expecting a low turn out in order to find that Obama wouldn't lose significant ground on the popular vote even while maintaining his delegate count lead. It is of course everyone perogative to make up what ever model for turn out as they want, but when you got to argue that in this year that Obama has to hope for a reduced turn out, then that opens up the fact of how this is more precarious than the Obama supporters would like to admit. This is without even discussing MI or Fl.
[ Parent ]
It is not clear to me (4.00 / 1)
why you are suggesting that Clinton has a lead in the popular vote.  Right now, if you give Clinton Florida, she is behind by about 365K votes in the popular vote.  I doubt anyone thinks it is fair to give her all the Michigan votes and give Obama zero votes in Michigan, but for the sake of argument lets assume that there is a revote in Michigan and she wins 55-45 even though the polls show them tied at the present time.  Based on the first illegal primary in Michigan that would net her another 65K votes, putting her behind by 300K votes.  Assuming that the remaining states have an Ohio size turnout, if she wins Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia by 12% and Obama only wins North Carolina, Indiana, and Oregon by 4%, Obama still holds a very slim popular vote lead.  And that doesn't even count some caucus states where Obama did very well but vote totals are unavailable. I think I am being overly generous in only giving Obama 4% victories in North Carolina, Indiana, and Oregon, since he is ahead at the present time by 7-8% in North Carolina; he has a 66 to 31 favorable to unfavorable rating in Oregon compared to Clinton's 48 to 50
rating and he leads McCain by 9 in Oregon while Clinton trails McCain by 3; and he leads in Indiana by more than 4 in what meager polling has been done there.  I actually expect Obama to best Clinton by 5 to 10 points in the combined states of North Carolina, Indiana, and Oregon and I don't expect him to lose by 12 in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia.  So where exactly are your popular votes coming from?  Are you just going to give all of Michigan's to Clinton and call it a day?  Or are you suggesting that no caucus states votes should count?  The politburu would be proud of you if that's what you have in mind.

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

[ Parent ]
That's why I think (4.00 / 1)
Obama needs something rather large to happen if he wants significant super delegate movement between now and PA.  That doesn't seem very biased or outlandish to me. Sure, I'd like it to happen but I'm not predicting it.
[ Parent ]
Ahem... Mr. Edwards.... are you listneing? n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
unlike other posters I will give you credit for being honest (0.00 / 0)
in your bias and calling it that rather than pretending you are speaking factually. I question sometimes whether people here know the difference between their opinion and what's been proven.  
[ Parent ]
The numbers are good, but... (0.00 / 0)
the conclusion is not.  You make the assumption that NO superdelegates endorse between now and then.  Superdelegates have consistantly trickled in over time.  By the time June 10 rolls around, the percentages that the media will be using will be different then these, and likely less flattering for Clinton.

If superdelegates trickle in over the next couple of months at even close to the rate they have been, then Obama's number of needed supers to clinch at 2208 will start to become much smaller than 32%.  An Edwards endorement might even then be enough to clinch it outright.

I wish my border collie could run for President.

Education on Convention Rules (4.00 / 1)
Chris,

I am absolutely loathe to suggest to a blogger than they should write about such and such a topic. It's your blog and you should write about what you want.

If I may make a suggestion though...perhaps it is time to start educating blog readers on the ins and outs of convention process and start looking at the key points where the Clinton campaign might try to disrupt the nomination once the convention actually starts. For example, I have no idea what the rules are or what goes on inside the rules committee, the credentials committee, or what the voting process is for the various state delegations. I bet a lot of other people who read progressive blogs don't know these things either. Maybe you yourself don't know.

I would like to suggest that it may be time to start educating readers about convention rules and process so that when the convention comes, we have the knowledge and the tools we need to ensure that rules of the convention are followed by all concerned parties.

Likewise, if you know of any bloggers who are writing on this topic, I would appreciate any links you might be able to offer. Thanks!

Convention rules (0.00 / 0)
Chris has written on them here, and we've written on them at 2008 Democratic Convention Watch. We wrote a post about how the Michigan and Florida delegations could be seated over a month ago. That post didn't envision any revote, but it gives a good overview of the process. Read it here.

DemConWatch
[ Parent ]
Edwards delegates (0.00 / 0)
How sure are we that all of those 26 Edwards delegates will still be around? Isn't there a fair chance that some of them will convert to Obama or Clinton delegates at the Iowa convention Saturday? I guess we'll see soon enough how well they stick together.
Only 14 are from Iowa. (0.00 / 0)
He also has 4 from New Hampshire, and 8 from South Carolina, which are all going to the convention as elected.

DemConWatch
[ Parent ]
the nomination (0.00 / 0)
Chris,

I've seen quite a few analyses of the numbers, but they all point to the same reality:  It is very difficult to envision a scenario whereby Clinton takes the nomination without tearing the Party apart.  Obama is likely to go into the convention leading by most metrics, therefore if the nomination goes to HRC there will be the perception that it was stolen from him.  Hillary's candidacy will be perceived as illegimate, and the damage to the Democratic Party's relationship with the African-American constituency and the millions of newly registered youth will be irreparable.  

I hope that Dean and the DNC and the superdelegates are sufficiently appreciative of just what a powderkeg they are sitting on.  I fear they don't get it yet, because if they did they would be more pro-active in bringing about some closure sooner than later.

Convention scenario (0.00 / 0)
If Obama is winning in pledged delegates and the popular vote, and yet Clinton becomes the nominee, the Democratic Party has lost this voter.  I don't envision this happening, because my hunch is that Democratic voters will not accept a result in which the winner, in delegate and the popular votes, loses.
Ceding the Popular Vote Argument (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure why Obama supporters are making arguments that legitimize the popular vote, yet.  What if Hillary Clinton ends up winning the popular vote?  Are we prepared to accept the fact that Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, Maine and Colorado, among others, will be disenfranchised if that becomes the metric super delegates use to determine the "winner"?  Should we hold re-votes in those states?  I know Obama does better in caucuses, but is there any evidence that he wouldn't have won these contests by substantial margins anyway?      
[ Parent ]
Answer to your question (0.00 / 0)
Because they want to win. This isn't about the underlying values that they are fighting for. It's about the fact they have choosen a partisan team in the primary, and will do anything to make sure that team wins. In some ways, it makes me feel better about the GE because now I suspect a lot of this post partisan rhectoric is just rhectoric rather than how he will actually run the campaign. In another way, it concerns me because if he wins, I question whether his supporters have the objectivity to hold him accountable. It's one thing to argue a position, and expect the other guy to fall for it, and quite another to believe it yourself.
[ Parent ]
chances of brokered convention: 0% (0.00 / 0)
I don't think Chris' scenario is really likely. One of two things are going to happen:

1) After another week or two of Clinton surrogates with plausible deniability lobbing grenades at Obama, the superdelegates will have had enough and will come out for Obama in large numbers putting a sudden stop to the contest and forcing Clinton out.

2) The same thing will happen but the superdelegates will at least give her until after the last remaining large states (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and North Carolina maybe).

I see no chance of the superdelegates sitting on their hands and allowing a brokered convention or the overturning of the winner of delegates, states, and popular vote. These party officials want to win in November as badly as all of us. They will want to end the primaries and get started on battling McCain before August. One way or another we will have a presumptive nominee by the end of June.

Analysis Also Assumes Zero Clinton Supers Flip (0.00 / 0)
I think the assumption that zero of Clinton's superdelegates flip is not realistic. We've already had Clinton superdelegates switch over to Obama, including a famous one: Representative John Lewis.

I tend to think we'll see a lot of supers -- both current Clinton-aligned supers as well as undeclared supers -- move when Obama clinches the pledged delegate majority. That should happen on May 20, 2008, when Kentucky reports. Oregon (later that evening) would add icing on the cake.

Here is a question (0.00 / 0)
If we are basically at the same point - or even slightly better delegate numbers, after Indiana and North Carolina - what if this moves 60 to 80% of remaining superdelegates to declare for Obama?

Based on the numbers above, through May 06 Obama would get:

Obama: 1658.5
Penn:      74
Guam:       2
IN:        41
NC:        61

For a total of: 1836.5

Now, there is over 300 superdelegates, left to pledge.  If Obama gets 70% of those, this would be an additional 210. For a total of 2046.5.

Huh - as you say, even if the superdelegates move en masse for Obama after May 6th, not enough to close the gap to 2200. That's still 150 delegates away.

Superdelegates pledge to Clinton, or Edwards delegates, would have to declare for Obama.

One path would be to have 75% of remaining superdelegates declare for Obama after May 6th.  Then, to get to that additional 150, the rest of the contests are held.  That would give him 100 more.  (We're in June now).  

That still leaves him 50 behind the 2200.

Michigan would put him over.  


Add 2 delegates from Illinois to Obama (0.00 / 0)
If you haven't seen this already. Apparently Obama picked up 2 delegates on the south side of Chicago because a recount showed Clinton didn't meet the 15% threshold needed to get any delegates in that particular Congressional district.

http://wbez.org/Content.aspx?a...

Demockracy.com

It's quite simple. (0.00 / 0)
If whomever is leading in the pledged delegates isn't chosen....problems will happen. And, I'm putting it mildly. Very mildly. There are some who continue to be delusional about the severity of the possibility of the fracturing of the Democratic Party. Who actually think that folks are just gonna  shuffle along after thievery has occured. Keep on with the delusions.....must be nice.
this is absurd (0.00 / 0)
i don't understand why they don't just reconduct the elections.  It's within the rules, it will give each candidate the ability to make their case, and it will allow the voters of the states to be heard.  if it takes DNC shelling out the money, then do it, because this is causing far more drama than it's worth. The ONLY negotiation should be the form of the revote (caucus, mail-in primary, primary) and for who pays what.  

There's absolutely ZERO fair basis for allocating the delegates in any fashion right now and if Clinton's campaign or anyone else wants them allocated, they should support a revote and nothing else.  Moreover, no shenanigans about how late primaries should get extra delegates, which I read somewhere else--if anything, the state parties of both of these states are lucky that the nominations haven't been wrapped up already so that their game of chicken with the DNC has inadvertantly provided them leverage contrary to all recent primary processes.

Yes, We Are Headed To The Convention | 95 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox