Assume a Revote?? (0.00 / 0)

The mail-in formula for the discount primary in FL is illegal it turns out. Can’t happen.. So why assume a revote?
And MI can’t seem to find a forumula either, nor money…

---

by: cmpnwtr @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 15:53:21 PM CDT

 

They will find the money (0.00 / 0)

I feel pretty confident that they will find the money to pull this off. And even if they don’t, I feel confident that some sort of Michigan and Florida delegation will be seated. I don’t  know what sort, but some sort will.

Basically, I think this is the best way to keep track of delegates right now. I’ve sick of having six different totals at once. This simplifies things, even if it is mainly on a bet.  

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 15:55:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Brokered (0.00 / 0)

In order to win the nomination, Clinton needs to win at least 93 more delegates than Obama before the convention. If she does so, her delegates plus Edwards delegates will force a brokered convention, even if every single superdelegate makes an endorsement beforehand.

Can you give a little more detail on what you mean here? I mean, clearly she can’t end up with 93 more delegates than Obama has (at least, not with anything resembling 53.8% of the remaining delegates), so I assume that means that she needs to gain 93 more delegates than Obama gains between now and then (so at least 503 of the 912). That would put her at 2,023.5, assuming the SDs stay as they are. That would leave him with 2,048.5, so if 160 of the uncommitted SDs endorsed him that would put him over the top. What am I misunderstanding?

---

by: KCinDC @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:09:36 PM CDT

 

Agree with the question (0.00 / 0)

Why 93?

---

by: JC @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:12:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

because then Clinton + Edwards > Obama (0.00 / 0)

once you include E’s 26.  It’s a minimal target for Clinton.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:15:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

OK, but… (0.00 / 0)

How does that “force a brokered convention, even if every single superdelegate makes an endorsement beforehand”? If you’re counting the current SD endorsements, then why don’t the ones that happen between now and then count?

---

by: KCinDC @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:28:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I think I see (4.00 / 1)

He means she needs to gain 93 more total delegates, including SDs, than Obama does, so she needs 661 of the 1,229 available, which would put her at 2,181.5 to Obama’s 2,207.5. But that’s assuming all Edwards delegates remain Edwards delegates, and some of the Iowa ones are likely to be lost in the caucus process, aren’t they?

---

by: KCinDC @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:33:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

interesting (0.00 / 0)

At least we can see it all together here.  So if I say Obama-Clinton split MS, NC, OR, MT, and SD — rather than Obama actually winning them — that leaves only 681 pledged delegates, even with MI and FL included.  No wonder they are pushing for a revote.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:13:03 PM CDT

 

Hey Chris (0.00 / 0)

I’ve got a question for ya: there has been quite a bit of chatter of late about the possibility of a Gore “compromise” or “unity” nomination should it look like the nomination is headed toward a deadlock and/or Hillary and Obama beat each other up over the next 3+ months to the point that both are basically unelectable (see here, here, here, and here).  I’m of the belief that the only way this happens is if Obama wins the pledged delegate race and Hillary wins the popular vote (which I think is very possible).  

On a related note, DraftGore.com has reactivated (though it’s yet to be seen what they plan to do) and from my talks with people over at AlGore.org, they are seriously thinking of reactivating as well.  My group, Netroots for Gore, voted overwhelmingly in a non-binding poll in favor of reactivating should it look like a divided convention looms (an official decision likely wont come until after Pennsylvania).

I guess first and foremost, do you think this scenario is at all possible?  And if so, do you think it is a good/wise/beneficial (whatever you want to call it) course for Democrats and Gore activists to pursue?  Finally, what course do you suggest we take if we do wind up reactivating – recent talk amongst Gore people seem to suggest contacting superdelegates as one route to take.

As someone whose political opinion is usually dead-on and that of which I respect, I’m just curious to hear what you think.

Netroots for Gore

---

by: NYPopulist @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:51:02 PM CDT

 

Question? (0.00 / 0)

When faced with a choice between two winners by different metrics, both with supporters who may bolt the ticket if their choice doesn’t win, how do you justify handing the nomination to a third individual who nobody voted for?

It’s not the nineteenth century anymore.

Forgotten Countries – a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:47:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Even when I am stoned (4.00 / 1)

I am still well aware that idea is crazy and will never happen.  

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:52:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I should explain further (0.00 / 0)

Let me add that there is just no way you will ever have over 2,000 delegates, most of whom were vetted hard by the Obama and Clinton campaign, ever go for someone else besides their candidate. It just isn’t going to happen. I urge you: let the dream of Al Gore in 2008 go, for your own sake. It ain’t gonna happen.  

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:57:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Talking to Clinton supporters (0.00 / 0)

I think her support is collapsing…as people tire of the race, and she is behind.  This is showing in the tracking polls, and well only fervent after Miss.  A lot of folks don’t like the McCain comments, and this VP B.S… And, my friends at least, are pretty tired of defending her.  I mean, what Clinton supporters are having to say these days is pretty ridiculous in support of her campaign.

Big States?
Obama not CIC but VP?
Caucus States don’t matter?
Superdelegates should decide on momentum not votes?

These are hard things to defend, and people are getting tired of it.

---

by: cardboard @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 16:51:11 PM CDT

 

Obama's looking really bad in Pennsylvania (0.00 / 0)

If he gets crushed there, will anyone start to question his ability to beat McCain?

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:13:43 PM CDT

 

Silly people who are wrong might do that (0.00 / 0)

Forgetting for a moment the fallacy that the candidate who does best in a primary in a given state will necessarily do better in the general election in that state, ask yourself this question:

If John Kerry can win Pennsylvania in 2004, is there any reason at all to think Barack Obama can’t win it in 2008?

(And, yeah, I think you can ask this about any state John Kerry won in 2004.)

---

by: Chachy @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:22:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Sure (0.00 / 0)

Lots of people will.  Of course, lots of people already do, particularly in the Hillary camp.

Of course, Hillary’s big losses don’t count that way.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:22:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Talk to me six weeks from now (4.00 / 1)

Obama is not going to lose Pennsylvania by 19.  Polls four weeks out of Texas and Ohio had him down 10 and 20, respectively, and he won Texas (delegate wise, virtual tie in the primary), and lost Ohio by 9 or 10? He’ll cut this in half within 2 or 3 weeks.  Talk to me then about the state of the campaign, much less his ability to beat McCain.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:26:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

End it now? (0.00 / 0)

I’m trying to figure out if it would be possible for superdelegates to just end it now, if they choose.  The thought is most of those remaining would rather see this come to a swift end than a further prolonged fight.  Seems like the answer is still basically no.

If the remaining 299 supers all jumped in and supported Obama he would have 1,938 delegates, still 270 short, so he would also need 135 of Clinton’s to also switch; I don’t see that happening.

I assume that the 2,208 number includes FL and MI.  If we ignore those the magic number becomes 2,052, still over 100 delegates short.  However, by May 6 Obama should have at least 140 more delegates, meaning the remaining supers could finish it as long as FL and MI are not seated.  But I don’t see that as an loss Clinton would accept, so nothing would really end.

Unless Clinton’s superdelegates abandon ship in mass, I don’t see how this resolves without going all the way.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:18:31 PM CDT

 

Florida re-vote-illegal (0.00 / 0)

From Halperin on Florida Law:
http://thepage.time.com/florid…
county may also be voted on by mail ballot election.

(2)  The following elections may not be conducted by mail ballot:

(a)  An election at which any candidate is nominated, elected, retained, or recalled; or

In addition any arranged re-vote has a time factor and needs to go through an approval process under the Fed. Voting Rights Act.  

---

by: cmpnwtr @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 17:48:48 PM CDT

 

Don't forget that getting additional delegates requires a higher (0.00 / 0)

percentage per district than 53.8%. 53.8 to 46.2% may yield even delegate splits, if not +1 at most. Clinton will have to way over-perform to start getting enough delegate pickups to move the numbers – probably winning by more like 60 to 66% and up.

Help support “CRASHING THE STATES”–a Netroots Film!

---

by: Reality Bites Back @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:50:53 AM CDT

 

Delegate splits (0.00 / 0)

It depends on how many delegates the district (or other set of delegates, such as the at-large ones) has. If the number is odd, then she can get more than 53.8% of the delegates with only 50.001% of the vote. That is, if she gets a majority, no matter how small, then her delegate percentage would be:

  2 of 3 delegates: 66.67%
  3 of 5 delegates: 60.00%
  4 of 7 delegates: 57.14%
  5 of 9 delegates: 55.56%
  6 of 11 delegates: 54.55%

The delegate math can swing either way. For small numbers of delegates, the split can only approximate the vote percentage, but it can be either too low or too high.

---

by: KCinDC @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Good point. What's the ratio of even to odd districts? (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Help support “CRASHING THE STATES”–a Netroots Film!

---

by: Reality Bites Back @ Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 13:35:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]