Superdelegates, if they choose to, can end the process

Shortly after Super Tuesday, DNC Chairman Howard Dean sounded a relatively optimistic note, noting his belief that Dems will have a nominee “sometime in the middle of March or April.” If not, Dean said, he intended to “make some kind of an arrangement.”

Well, it’s the middle of March, and road ahead still looks awfully long. The superdelegates, who will ultimately make the difference in the process, are feeling more than a little antsy.

Lacking a clear route to the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee, the party’s uncommitted superdelegates say they are growing increasingly concerned about the risks of a prolonged fight between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and perplexed about how to resolve the conflict. […]

While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama’s campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters.

Mr. Obama has won more states, a greater share of the popular vote and more pledged delegates than Mrs. Clinton.

The NYT noted that the party leaders and insiders are “uncertain about who, if anyone, would step in to fill a leadership vacuum and help guide the contest to a conclusion that would not weaken the Democratic ticket in the general election.”

I can’t help but find this all a little odd. The superdelegates need not look for someone to fill the vacuum and guide the contest; they can fill the vacuum and guide the contest. If they believe a prolonged fight would be bad for the party, they could choose to effectively end the process — today.

It’s a fascinating NYT article, but it left me with the impression that superdelegates are missing the point of their role entirely.

The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker — the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi — step in to forge a deal.

The piece also noted that these superdelegates, influential party insiders, are hoping power-brokers will fix this so they’ll be “relieved of making an excruciating decision that could lose them friends and supporters at home.”

Sorry to break it to the superdelegates, but this is in their hands. They may not like the responsibility, and they may not want the responsibility, and they may not have signed up for this responsibility, but I’m afraid none of that matters right now. They can pick a candidate right now and he or she would be the nominee.

A lot of observers, including a lot of superdelegates, seem to have this notion of Dean and Gore, working the phones with the Clinton and Obama campaigns, trying to see if they can reach some kind of agreement. That, I suspect, is pointless — neither Obama nor Clinton are prepared to drop out or accept the #2 slot.

What party leaders could do, however, is work the phones to convince 200 uncommitted superdelegates to pick one candidate or the other and make a public announcement, en masse. That would go a long way in showing one candidate or the other the writing on the wall.

“Every day that this continues, people can surmise that this is going to the convention in Colorado and it could be decided by the superdelegates,” said Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the head of the Democratic Governors Association. “There is not a superdelegate that I have spoken to who wants that to happen.”

They’re in luck. These superdelegates — and, in all likelihood, only these superdelegates — can prevent this. One candidate is going to enter the convention with more delegates, more states, and probably more popular votes. If superdelegates find that compelling, fine, back Obama. If they find other factors more compelling, fine, back Clinton.

But for superdelegates to sit around, wringing their hands, wanting the process to end while hoping for someone else to ease their burden of choice, is foolish. Like it or not, this is up to them. What are they waiting for?

If the super delegates had decided last week we might be stuck with a candidate that cannot win the presidency. IMO, super delegates are going to go with the candidate that can beat McCain.

  • Great comment.

    Y’know, ‘cept any Democrat can win, and any Democrat can lose.

    I do wish if the super delegates think that they should side with the voters, that they’d declare what that means for their vote, instead of waiting to the end and just picking what everyone else already did.

    If they believe in going the way of the voter – put their vote in the way their state did. If they lean to a candidate, now’s the time to say so. ‘Cause it ain’t gonna get more Democratic than it is.

  • “I can’t help but find this all a little odd.” Ditto.

    The weak and ignorant Romans operated a Republic headed by two consuls, either of which could veto the actions of the other. That silly and ineffective arrangement only lasted 700 years (the Empire another 500 beyond that). With our much-touted superior system, we can’t seem to nominate a party leader, no matter how many months and millions we squander in the effort. I’d say it’s the nature of our weak and ineffective Party, but the same comparison works in our ability wage war for whatever reason. It must be in someone’s interest simply to keep the conflict going rather than end it.

    Supes, in words even you might understand, it’s time to shit or get off the pot..

  • Crissa, last week a lot of super delegates thought Obama could win. This week, I imagine a lot of them are having second thoughts.

    They’d be stupid to rush their decision.

  • Crissa, last week a lot of super delegates thought Obama could win. This week, I imagine a lot of them are having second thoughts.

    Sure, you could imagine that. Or you could read the article — from today’s paper, based on interviews conducted this week — and see what they’re actually thinking.

    As you can see, the undecided superdelegates are still invoking the “popular vote” rationale for making their decision. They’re well aware that Obama has a sizeable lead there, and so it’s a thinly guised argument for siding with him.

    If they were having second thoughts, as you imagine, then they’d be talking about “experience” or some other Clinton-approved metric for electability. They aren’t.

  • lol – they can’t do anything now without angering 1/2 of the party. may as well wait it out.

  • “As you can see, the undecided superdelegates are still invoking the “popular vote” rationale for making their decision. They’re well aware that Obama has a sizeable lead there, and so it’s a thinly guised argument for siding with him”

    Agree…but Pennslyvania will test their resolve. So will KY, WV, PR, and Indy.

  • Must read for people who think who think it’s that simple.

    http://agonist.org/numerian/20080314/peering_into_the_mind_of_a_hillary_supporter

    The Clinton approach is one of building electoral and governance machines in enough key states to ensure electoral vote dominance in national elections for president. This is why the Democratic Party has concentrated its resources in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, California and other large urban states, leaving rural Republican redoubts like Nebraska or Wyoming alone. This is why Hillary Clinton is constantly referring to her ability to carry the large states necessary for a Democratic victory. These are the states with built-in machinery capable of supporting her candidacy. These are the states where elected officials early on endorsed Hillary Clinton.

  • I could be expressing some wishful thinking about Hon. Sen. Obama being the odds-on favorite to win the metrics discussed here (more pleged dels, et cetera), but it seems to me that the fear most of the remaining supers have is not that of deciding who will most likely be the choice of the voters, but how much of a stink the Clinton campaign is likely to put up, and how long they intend to drag this out, and how much collateral damage will be caused by giving her a foil to rave against the perceived inequity of it all. It is Hon. Sen. Clinton who needs to be contacted by these supers, not the other way around.

  • For the life of me, I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. When you put two titans into a ring and tell them to duke it out, then the thing you’ve expressly asked for is the thing you should expressly get. what’s so hard about that?

    In the past few days alone, I’ve seen where Clinton’s “kitchen sink” strategy backfired on a fundamental level. Instead of cowering the Obama support, they’ve instead had the entire blasted house thrown back at them—and that house apparently landed square on its intended target, since there’s now a “strike” by pro-Clinton supporters who got their jollies dishing it out, but couldn’t take the heat of having it dished right back at them.

    I’ve found article after article, ad nauseum, of Clinton backers demanding their donations back from the Party—because the Party wouldn’t certify a vote in Florida that was kiboshed—by the GOP-controlled Legislature (a decision that, by the way, the FDP had every right to counter—but did not).

    I’m reading right now that Clinton wants to stop the certification process of the Texas caucuses, with hints of pending legal action if TDP doesn’t cave to her campaign’s demands. It comes across as yet another blatant episode of “certify it for me, or I’ll sue!”

    An election is an extremely unusual beast; something that should be allowed to mature to its right-and-proper conclusion. Asking the supers to step in and end this thing now—one way or the other—is no different than the Chinese Army rolling into Tibet and shooting monks, or Putin rigging the Russian elections in favor of his token successor, or the murderous, strong-armed tactics of Ahmadinejad and his collective of hardline clerics in Tehran.

    I say, “let the election run its course.” The supers can do their final end-game “whatever thingie” after June 3rd. To seek an ending to this thing now is to disenfranchise all those who have yet to vote. It also disenfranchises both campaigns (yes—I’m about to say something favorable to Hillary and her gang)—because when you really crunch the numbers, there are still enough delegates left, from the primaries not yet held, to turn this thing into a Clinton-majority kind of thing. Not enough to win, mind you, but enough to hold a lead in committed delegates going into the convention. At that point, I would support the supers putting her over the top, because it would be in accordance with the will of the people.

    BUT—if the end of the primaries in June shows Obama with a clear majority in committed delegates, and an overall lead in the popular vote (both of which are the trend as of this point), then the supers DO bear the responsibility to step in, tell Hillary to pound salt, and declare Obama the winner.

  • Agree…but Pennslyvania will test their resolve. So will KY, WV, PR, and Indy.

    Sure.

    But with six weeks to campaign, Obama will narrow the gap in Pennsylvania to, say, 55-45, and he’ll likely win in North Carolina by the same margin, all but offsetting the advantage she’d gain in PA in terms of popular vote and delegates.

    Her edge in Kentucky will be offset by his edge in Oregon the same day — exact same number of delegates, and more voters there.

    Indiana is actually trending to Obama, last time I checked, and that offsets her edge in both PR and W.Va.

    Then he should take Montana and South Dakota easily, and if there’s a revote, he should edge her slightly in Michigan and she’d take Florida by, say, 55-45.

    In the end, it doesn’t look like the count –in either delegates or popular vote — is going to budge much one way or the other.

  • Just Me,

    You said: last week a lot of super delegates thought Obama could win. This week, I imagine a lot of them are having second thoughts.

    Is that because Obama’s lead is even bigger than it was a week ago or because there is even less time for Clinton to make up ground? Maybe because the people in Iowa that bailed from Edwards went largely to Obama? Or could it be because she won two contests she was supposed to win by much smaller margins than had been expected when they both started campaigning their (one of them being a state where she is actually going to take away fewer delegates than Obama)?

    Please explain how exactly the superdelegates were supposed to have decided that Obama looked dominant a week ago are now supposed to be second guessing themselves, because I am honestly confused.

  • The Clinton approach is one of building electoral and governance machines in enough key states to ensure electoral vote dominance in national elections for president. This is why the Democratic Party has concentrated its resources in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, California and other large urban states, leaving rural Republican redoubts like Nebraska or Wyoming alone.

    And this is why “the Clinton approach” is bad for the party. She doesn’t believe in coattails at all, nor do any of the idiots like Mark Penn who shape her ridiculous campaign strategy. We have to elect Senators and Congresspersons too if we want to change the negative direction this country is heading before it’s too late, and concentrating on the “large states” doesn’t help most of our other candidates at all. You would think a sitting Senator would realize this.

  • Danp@8, that was a great read. I think that Numerian’s analysis of the GOP’s culture is a bit over simplified, but close enough for the purposes of the article. The article’s conclusions are spot on and I suspect that most voters don’t realize that there is an intra-party struggle for the levers of power.

    I’ve always assumed that if Clinton wins the Presidency, that Howard Dean and the fifty-state strategy are goners. That’s one more reason to support Obama in my book.

  • 12. socratic_me said: Please explain how exactly the superdelegates were supposed to have decided that Obama looked dominant a week ago are now supposed to be second guessing themselves, because I am honestly confused.

    Obama is a racist now, and he has no chance in the general election because everyone knows the US electorate never flirts with racists. Didn’t you read all of the brilliant insight from Clinton loyalists and Republican concern trolls in the pastor thread yesterday? /sarcasm

  • A protracted primary wouldn’t be an issue if both candidates campaigned on their strengths and why each is better than McCain.

  • You’re expecting politicians to make a decision that might make a voter pissed off. Sorry, it’s like the Frenchman said 100+ years ago:

    “There go my followers, and I must run after them, for I am their leader.”

  • Unfortunately, most of the superdelegates are politicians; consequently, they are averse to making a decision on their own. Many of them have spent the last 15 years learning how to triangulate…and now they’re triangulated into a corner.

    How many times in the last seven years have the people who fill the ranks of superdelegates been accused of being “spineless” (and for good reason)? I don’t expect to see any rapid, bone tissue growth now.

  • socratic_me, I didn’t say he looked dominant. I said they might have thought he could beat McCain.

  • There’s a simple reason that the supers don’t want to step in and end it: they’re scared.

    Declaring a winner would show leadership and allow them to be judged on the results of that leadership. In other words, elected Democrats risk having their judgement called into question if their candidate falls in November. If they can’t even decide on the best candidate for their party, how will they run the country? If voters make the decision for them, they can wash their hands of a bad candidate.

    This is why the Democrats had a harder time recovering from Mondale’s defeat than from Gore’s or Kerry’s. “The people” chose Gore and Kerry, while elected Democrats were responsible for Mondale. The mud from Mondale stuck for years and the mud from an Obama or Clinton defeat, if they are picked by the supers, will as well.

    So far, most of the committed supers are in either safe seats, like John Kerry and Edward Kennedy (“You want this seat? Come and get it!”) or in areas that broke heavily for either Clinton or Obama. Those supers could endorse the candidate their voters supported and wash their hands of it. Many elected reps are still trying to gauge voter preference in their regions.

    The question is “Who will help me win?” Many supers don’t know yet.

  • from today’s paper, based on interviews conducted this week

    Incorrect.

    Incorrect? How so? The article was in today’s paper. The reporters say their interviews were conducted over this past week.

    A New York Times survey of superdelegates last week found that Mr. Obama had been winning over more of them recently than Mrs. Clinton had, though Mrs. Clinton retained an overall lead among those who have made a choice. Over the past month, according to the survey, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, picked up 54 superdelegates; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, picked up 31.

    “If we get to the end and Senator Obama has won more states, has more delegates and more popular vote,” said Representative Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who is undecided, “I would need some sort of rationale for why at that point any superdelegate would go the other way, seeing that the people have spoken.”

    Mr. Altmire said he was repeating an argument that he made to Mrs. Clinton during a session at her house in Washington on Thursday night with uncommitted superdelegates.

    The interviews were conducted at a time of rising displays of animosity between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, with Mrs. Clinton repeatedly arguing that Mr. Obama did not have the foreign policy credentials to stand up to Senator John McCain of Arizona, the likely Republican nominee.

    The reporters say the interviews were held “last week” which, in newspaper parlance, means the week preceding the publication of this artilce — i.e. from 3/7 to 3/15.

    The specific details of the Altmire interview indicates that his conversation with the reporters came after a session he had on Thursday night, so they spoke with him either yesterday or the day before.

    There’s a fine line between wishful thinking and delusion.

  • 21. Just Me said: I didn’t say he looked dominant. I said they might have thought he could beat McCain.

    And based on voting in Iowa and Mississippi, “they” still think Obama can beat McCain. You don’t provide any supporting argument for these “second thoughts” people are supposedly having.

  • It’s over. Obama won.

    The supers can come out in favor of the candidate with the most pledged delegates now or they can wait until August, but either way, they’re going to do it. Why they continue to let Hillary continue to tear our party and our nominee is beyond me, but it appears that they’re slowly beginning to come to their senses. If all goes well, the media circus will be over soon.

  • If there is a better description of the cowardice and inability to lead that marks the leadership of the Democratic Party, I haven’t seen it lately. This is why Congress has terrible poll numbers alongside President Bush. These folks just do not know when to make a decision. Tony (8) mocked, “they can’t do anything now without angering 1/2 of the party…may as well wait it out.” Half the Dems won’t like the decision of the superdelegates in a month or three months, either.

    If McCain wins this, it will be because the Republican leadership knows how to fall in line when the decision of the voters is apparent. There is no love for John McCain in the Republican ranks; he is more mistrusted by Republicans than Obama or Clinton will be after this bitter race is concluded. But the GOP will press forward despite their tepid support for their candidate.

    Senator Clinton has every right to stay in the race until mathematically eliminated or she wins. That does not mean that the superdelegates have to sit on their hands until that day comes. There are a lot of calls for Clinton to exit the race. There should be more calls for superdelegates to exercise leadership and get off the fence.

  • Shalimar, if Hillary’s or McCain’s mentor and minister preached God Damn America their presidential aspirations would be finished. If the super delegates aren’t having second thoughts about Obama then they are idiots.

  • IF that is true, then we live in a country with very fucked up priorities. Which come to think of it, we do. The United States is declining in power and prestige, and nothing Rev. Wright has ever said either hastened or slowed down that decline one iota. If his words are enough to kill a Presidential campaign then all the American people are looking for is scapegoats instead of solutions.

  • And for what it’s worth, I don’t believe Hillary or McCain would be finished either. Is that the standard you think we should hold POLITICIANS to? Something the man’s minister said when he wasn’t even there makes him unqualified to be President? Really??? Is there a single politician in the country who would be squeaky clean enough to even run for President if that is the bar? Jesus, they do enough slimeball things on their own without holding them responsible for other people’s words too.

  • As a taxpayer in the City & County of Denver, I really don’t want to be picking up the tab for the property damage that will be one consequence of Billary McBush (proudly serving her Corporate Masters!) stealing the nomination.

  • TR? Last week is last week. This week is this week.

    And when they say they spoke with Altimire after this Thursday — is that last week too?

    “Last week” in newspaper language means “over the past consecutive seven days.” Trust me on this.

  • Just me, look at how “last week” is used in these articles:

    Friday, March 14, breaking news:
    “A U.S. soldier who took his ex-girlfriend hostage in a south German town was fatally shot in a confrontation with police, a police spokesman said Friday.”

    Today, March 16:
    “The U.S. army has named Jeremiah W. Carmack as the soldier stationed in southern Germany who was shot dead by police last week.

    The “last week” there refers to an event which happened on Friday, two days ago.

  • The superdelegate process should be abandoned after this election. It is a process whose whole purpose presumed that the final act in choosing a president should be the exercise of elitism. People in the 21st Century do not want that and will not accept it. They should end this downward spiral of the Democratic Party now! The fact that they have not done so is proof that they don’t have more insight than the average voter and they should not hold this kind of power.
    We are spending so much time talking about Obama’s preacher and how his preacher’s statements somehow impugn his integrity. The press and the Clinton campaign continue to imply that Tony Rezco’s alleged crimes are Obama’s. Why then don’t we assign Bill Clinton’s transgressions to Hillary Clinton? That assignment would make more sense. Why not tell the American people that Bill Clinton PARDONED SUSAN McDOUGAL (the woman who would not testify against the Clintons in the Whitewater nightmare)? Why not tell America about the Paul vs. Clinton Campaign Finance Fraud trial which directly relates to Hillary Clinton’s alleged circumvention of campaign finance laws in her bid for the Senate in 2000? Why not tell Americans that the start of the Paul vs. Clinton trial was postponed by a judge appointed by Bill Clinton? These things are a better indicator of what we can expect from Hillary Clinton as President than are the curse words and anger uttered by Obama’s preacher.

  • Just Me @ 30; If that is the case, why hasn’t McBush dropped out? Amidst the furore about Obama’s pastor (and there was me thinking he was a Muslim. How quickly we forget our talking points) there has been hardly a mention of Hagee & Parsley’s endorsements of McBush. These guys have both made statements that are far more extreme than anything anyone on Obama’s team has said.

    Must be that liberal media bias again, I guess.

    http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=mccains_fundamentalist_endorse

  • ICE CREAM FOR BREAKFAST: Since it’s obvious that we all like presents, why not move Christmas to May 25th?

  • wishful thinking is no substitute for facts -Nell

    Well, I’m glad you’ve finally come around. Nell finally gets it.

    She realized it is wishful thinking to imagine a scenario in which Clinton could win because the facts clearly show Obama is and always will be winning.

    People, if Clinton were a Republican, and not just acting like one, would you seriously be clinging to these absurd ideas that she was still in the race?

    It. Is. Over.

    Move. On.

  • SUPER-DELEGATES: They appear to be just as easily manipulated as the voters….At this stage wouldn’t it be wiser for the DNC’s energies to be directed towards re-votes in Florida & Michigan? Oh wait, sorry I forgot; The Obama campaign [who just fumbled the ball] wants the game (still in the 3rd quarter) to be called over.

  • The Obama campaign [who just fumbled the ball]… -blogingRfun

    How did they ‘fumble?’ By winning Texas or by picking up even more delgates in Iowa? I don’t understand why people think Obama would shy away from a FL and MI redo. He certainly would gain more than 0 delegates in MI and I there is also good reason to assume he’d do better in FL with a bit-o-campaigning.

    Where’s the fumble?

  • The Obama campaign [who just fumbled the ball] wants the game (still in the 3rd quarter) to be called over.

    Apparently blogingRfun has difficulty with simple addition and subtraction. It is over. Clinton cannot overcome the math. Obama’s lead in both pledged delegate and popular vote is insurmountable, even when you include Michigan and Florida.

    It’s disappointing that the media keeps up the charade that the race is still on (further evidenced by the AP’s decision to use Hillary’s chosen phrase “automatic delegates” instead of the actual DNC term), simply to keep people like blogingRfun glued to the television set.

    The media knows it’s over too, but Hillary and a split convention are good for ratings. So, they add fuel to the fire to the demise of simpletons like blogingRfun and to the demise of the Democratic party and, in my opinion, to the demise of the values we stand for.

  • If the superdelegates ended the race now, that would be the most colossal political blunder ever known. It has been ages since the primaries – and primary voters – have matter this much, across so many states and for so long. And we propose that the superdelegates just “end” this?

    Um, no.

  • And we propose that the superdelegates just “end” this? -orion

    I don’t advocate killing dogs either, but if I saw one laying in the street and dying, I’d shoot it.

    They should put Hillary’s dying campaign out of its our misery.

  • The AP story also had in its lede for the Iowa story that Obama holds a “fragile” lead in delegates. As has been demonstrated over and over again, this fragile lead is all but insurmountable. Clinton would need to win by huge margins in all the remaining states, including Obama strongholds. And that analysis was before Obama picked up the extra Iowa delegates. If there are scandalous pictures of Obama with a high priced call girl, there may still be a race. Absent a huge scandal like the Spitzer mess, it’s all over but the crying.

  • “…they may not have signed up for this responsibility.”

    Yes they did. They just thought they’d have an easy ride and a party in Denver.

  • You are of course right, Just Me. If McCain was ever associated with a minister with boatloads widely unacceptable views, stated publicly over many many years, he would obviously be drummed out of the race. This would be doubly so if he actively sought out that minister’s endorsement. Oh wait….

    Jeeze. What rock have you been living under for the last month?

  • i think the democratic process is much more resilient than some posters here infer… the give and take .. the ebbing to and fro ..is all part and parcel of the process .. let it continue to a conclusion ..

    imo .. these last few weeks ..and the extremes one r the other of the candidates are willing to stoop to .. or reach for .. are very revealing of their underlying character ..and as such are very instructive to the electorate ..

    in the end .. this isn’t about “the party” .. it’s about the nation ..

  • What the proponents of “let it go all the way to the convention” are ignoring is that such a solution would leave McCain free and unopposed to consolidate his message, while the Democrats roll in the mud and tear at each other’s clothing. Maybe that won’t make any difference, since McCain’s message – like Bush’s – is not at all inclusive ; he’s appealing only to the conservative base, and could give less of a shit what the rest of you think. He’s counting on winning without Democratic support. And it’s there that letting the Democratic contest drag on and on plays into his hands.

    A minority on both sides of the Democratic slugfest have indicated they will vote for McCain if “their” candidate doesn’t get the nomination. I’m not going to waste any time analyzing how abysmally stupid that would be; I’d merely like to point out that it would be a decision made in the heat of the moment, and probably regretted later – especially if Grampy McCain won, and spent the first day of his presidency crowing on all the media outlets about his “broad-based support” from Democrats.

    Making a decision now would allow the hotheads to cool off and take an objective look at what they might expect in the way of advancement of the Democratic agenda under McCain. I submit it would be diddly, and I would further submit that a McCain presidency looks a whole lot more possible the longer this nightmare drags on.

  • If we want to be hypocrites and say Haggee’s endorsement matters and Wright’s doesn’t I guess that’s just fine.

    Problem is that lots of stupid asses endorse candidates. But I haven’t heard any others preaching God Damn America. And Wright isn’t just endorsing Obama, Obama has claimed him as his mentor. A lot of non-Dems have been for Obama. How many will still be for him now? Time will tell but the super delegates must think about this. Acting in haste is just plain stupid.

  • SHOOT HILLARY CLINTON LIKE A DOG IN THE STREET?

    +=+=+=+=+=>[{(#46: Prison library’s allows blogging?)}]

  • HURRY-UP…ESCALATE…WE’RE ALMOST THERE?

    One side shouts LIBERAL…The other side shout RACIST
    One side uses PROFANITY…The other side responds IN KIND
    One side say’s LOCK N’ LOAD…The other side SLINGS MACHETTES
    One side SPY’S…The other side INFILTRATES
    One side CUT’S SUPPLIES…The other side CUT’S THROATS
    One side BUILDS WALLS…The other side DIGS TUNNELS
    One side DROPS BOMB…The other side LAY’S TRAP
    One side commits GENOCIDE…The other side SUICIDE ATTACKS
    One side declares WAR…The other side say’s BRING-IT-BI’ATCH
    One side uses WMD’s…The other side uses TNT
    One side SURVIVES…The other side is NO LONGER A FACTOR

  • #44 wrote: Apparently blogingRfun has difficulty with simple addition and subtraction. It is over. Clinton cannot overcome the math.

    Dawn [pretty name]; See if this helps…

    HRC’s campaign has in many ways been a pathetic flop. Too few believed in her candidacy. In fact many, like Senators Kerry and Kennedy seemed anxious to defect a/s/a/p. What was left were money grabbers and d-listers like Ferraro. I guess she knows her chances now are close to nil. But since the campaign continues to raise millions, by staying in the race she can pay herself back the $5 million loan, and pay-off any other debts before bowing out in Denver, possibly with a surplus…Besides, by keeping the race going it gives Obama someone to spar with before going up against McCain in the fall. And also gives news reporters issues to work with.

  • #43 wrote: Where’s the fumble?

    Answer: I recognize that the score is something like Obama 44, Clinton 17; The fumble was with the issue this weekend of the Obama’s controversial church pastor…It’s not likely a deal-breaker, but it seems to have brought high-flying Barack back down to Earth in some peoples opinion.

  • Here’s a “what if” scenario for you all the ponder. We all have been assuming (reasonably, IMO) that Pensylvania will go roughly 55/45 in favor of Clinton. What if Obama beats this expectation and it goes closer to 50/50? Would THAT be enough to convince the Clinton supporters that it was over? I mean, even 55/45 in favor of Clinton really doesn’t give her much. If Obama were to effectively eliminate that slim victory (give ar take a percent or two) how would that change your (Clinton supporters’) opinion of her chances?

    Would it be appropriate for the supers to end this thing at that point if she decided to carry on?

  • All the states have their primaries and/or caucuses. They all have a convention. Everyone including the superdelegates vote. A candidate is elected. Nothing is broke and nothing needs any power brokers. The process is running fine.

  • 37.
    On March 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm, Linda of Atlanta said:

    The superdelegate process should be abandoned after this election. It is a process whose whole purpose presumed that the final act in choosing a president should be the exercise of elitism. People in the 21st Century do not want that and will not accept it.

    I agree. Let this process proceed as designed and then change it before ’12. Get rid of all the smoke-filled room type of machinations and let the people’s votes count.

  • This was written a few days ago — Obama has net approximately 5 more delegates in Iowa since this was posted on DailyKos

    “Let’s count the ways that Obama is winning:

    1.) Pledged Delegates: (Using AP’s numbers, with Obama’s count in parenthesis)

    Obama: 1,390 (1,411)
    Clinton: 1,248 (1,250)

    2.) Popular vote: I updated this post with results from Mississippi. I took out the Texas caucuses just to give this the best pro-Clinton spin possible, though I still think the caucuses are a separate contest and need to be accounted for. (Obama ended up winning Mississippi by over 100,000 votes.)

    Obama: 13,614,204
    Clinton: 12,801,153

    3.) Primaries Won: There are 37 total primary contests. All Obama has to do is win three more and he notches the lead in these contests. He can do that easily with just three out of Montana, South Dakota, Oregon, Indiana, and North Carolina.

    Obama: 16
    Clinton: 12

    4.) Caucuses Won

    Obama: 14
    Clinton: 3

    5.) Overall contests Won: It’s a 2-1 Obama advantage (includes territories and Democrats Abroad).

    Obama: 30
    Clinton: 15

    6.) Red and Blue States Won (including DC, not including territories or Democrats Abroad):

    Obama: 16 Red, 11 Blue
    Clinton: 8 Red, 6 Blue

    8.) Money Raised (through February)

    Obama: $168 million
    Clinton: $140 million

    So that leaves the Clinton campaign with what, exactly? Big states! Big states! Big states! I addressed that one yesterday.

    Team Clinton has nothing except schemes of coup by super delegate, which they apparently think they can do by insulting entire Democratic constituencies and most of our nation’s states.

    But really, what else do they have? Their campaign is losing by every metric possible.”

    Correction. The Clinton campaign has already lost by every metric possible. Obama having picked up delegates in Texas and Iowa, since this was printed just three days ago, it’s virtually impossible for Hillary to make up the difference in pledged delegates, popular vote or number of states won. She’s our Mike Huckabee.

    For those who complain that Obama supporters are asking the supers to end it prematurely, Obama has already won. The rest of the elections, of course, should continue, but the Hillary soap opera that dominates in the media is what must end. She’s damaging the party and our nominee to win a contest that she cannot win.

    When Huckabee was trashing the Republican party after their nominee gained an insurmountable lead, it didn’t matter because the media wasn’t paying attention. In Hillary’s case, the media keeps the flame burning because she’s good for ratings. Unfortunately, she’s bad for the party (further evidenced by the fact that her donors are threatening not to donate to the party if she doesn’t get her way with Michigan and Florida).

    I don’t know how many ways to say it…she’s finished. It’s over. The fat lady has sung. Turn out the lights. Stick a fork in her (campaign).

    Obama is our nominee.

  • #59: I’m realizing now that the problem with having voters alone choose the nominee is that the Democrat Party would want a veto over any candidate they deemed too radical, self-destructive, dangerous, etc…And the Super-Delegates have indicated that not only will Obama’s strong bid not be overruled, but they’re anxious to commit their votes, endorse, and like many have expressed here (above) end the drama.

  • Why are we wasting our time discussing this when McCain is still running loose among real people?

  • oh horsefeathers .. mc cain gets to consolidate a message while the dem potentials wrangle in the mud .. hell .. what’s the use in having a process and establishing rules for that process just to short circuit it based on the politics of expediency .. it’s a very simple proposition .. someone has to end it .. should the front-runner fold up .. or should the second choice see the light and break camp and steal away .. throwing their support to the front runner .. ?? you call it .. and call it fairly ..who should give in here ??

    and poopfh on brother john gets to consolidate a message .. his message is simple .. it’s the same message bush is giving .. and only something like 29 percent of the population buys it .. is comfortable with it .. wears it out to dinner .. shows it off to friends .. do you really think that after eight years of debacle after debacle .. starting with the enron mess .. continuing through iraq ..ongoing ..and sliding swiftly down the slope with the collapse of bear-strearns ..and gawd-only-knows what chasm or abyss the economy can well be in by november .. that we ..as a nation are going to reward the republicans for these results of their stellar sailing of the ship of state onto the rocks and shoals of economic and martial disaster by giving them the white house .. or any house ..

    i’ve got more fundamental faith in karma than that my friend .. it’s not going to happen ..

  • blogingRfun (@ 53),

    You aren’t very good at reading are you? To begin with, there is a difference between a candidate and their campaign. Secondly, you should look up the word ‘analogy.’

    Maybe you should change your alias to readingRfun and try it for a change.

  • The Credentials Committee willl pass a rule eliminating the super delegates when it meets in early July. This will occur after a month long Obama media and PR campaign to get the country on the side of respecting the voters and, of course, there is no reputable counter argument so the Credentials Committee decision will be widely and wildly applauded.

  • Comments are closed.