I think it’s better for the Democratic nominee to be able to say that he - or she, if my math is wrong - defeated a major opponent, rather than winning by mulligan or default. She is absolutely entitled to keep going. Mind you, I want to see her lose, but I would respect her more for continuing to fight.

The fact that the primary is no longer much source of entertainment to some people is irrelevant.

Settling in June =/= drop out now.

The ’settle in June’ meme should help quell demands for HRC to quit now or anytime before the voting has concluded.

Yet, it eases the party’s fears that the nomination will still be undecided heading into the convention.

People just need to deal with it.

Credential committee meets in August

Appeal to convention delegates (floor fight) - August

Unpledged delegates vote (w/o rule change) - August

…………not a problem for me. Them there ’Dem Elites’, Pelosi….great Speaker that she is; Brazile….who da fuck; Schumer….yah, Chuckie! fat fool; Reid…shut up ’SellOut’, they can go ahead and short circuit the primaries.

Makes my decision easy.

No money….

No support…

Fer Barry the Illegitimate.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

If they honestly wanted it settled sooner, the DLC/DNC would be calling on ALL super delegates to publicly commit to their candidate now.

I know how politic and half-brained they are wanting to have supported the winner, but this would be one way to end this sooner. Or at least it would be clear to everyone that no one is dropping out until the convention.

Either all the supers commit and Obama has it locked up, or all the supers commit and it is clear neither Obama or Clinton can win.

Assume that the unpledged delegates “committed” to a candidate by the end of June - so what?

The official vote is in August, and they are free to change their minds until then.

The FL/MI issue will not be settled until August.

The people pushing this are all Obama supporters, and they’re trying to force Hillary out.

If she refuses to quit - it’s August.

You know, I honestly believe that if we give the voters a chance to vote and to be counted in all 50 states (whether by revote or otherwise) and that the nominee is the winner of the most votes, this entire thing will work out just fine regardless of whether my candidate wins or not. Most people, by whom I mean not the pundits or the blogs or the internet commenters, but most of the actual voting public, will see the nominee as legitimate and will accept him or her. Who that will be under this standard, I have no idea.

And neither does anyone else.

Which, of course, is why the Democratic “elites” must step in. At every stage in this campaign, they’ve made it worse. I predict this will be no different. In their race to resolve the outcome, and control who the nominee is without looking like they are controlling who the nominee is, they will risk the democratic party’s chances in November all in the name of preserving them. Because, contrary to what the media, Blogger Boyz, and Obama surrogates keep saying, the problem isn’t the length of the process, it’s the attempts to derail the process that are the real danger to the party.

If I have time, I think I’m going to draft a post on all the ways the party “elites” have failed the party - not either candidate - but the party itself. Could be a very long post.

Yes, the super delegates can change their mind. In many states the freakin’ PLEDGED delegates can change their vote (if not bound by law). But, having all the supers on record might go a long way towards knowing what’s up.

If 70% of the supers come out and say they are voting for Obama, then Hillary can have good reason to drop out. If 70% of the supers say they support Hillary, then Obama and the media and shut their big pie holes and everyone would know it will come down to the final votes and maybe even a second round.

For who ever you support, it is a bad idea to let McCain keep running unopposed. It would be one thing if Hill and Barack were going all wonder-twin-powers on McCain’s ass, but that isn’t the case. Maybe everyone should say, we will vote for whoever does the best job showing McCain to be an unstable, forgetful, desperate man who endorses torture and war.

No, it won’t. That is: assuming she can afford the bus fare to Denver.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030…

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030…

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Having gotten record number of democrats to vote, driven by these two candidates, I can think of nothing more disastrous than a backroom deal that nominates two entirely different people, one of whom was soundly beaten by these very two people.

I admire Al Gore (even if I think he deserves some blame for the results of his 2000 campaign) and I am grateful to John Edwards for his policy contributions to this campaign. I even think they’d be outstanding leaders.

But this is a democracy and even if democrats are currently divided over who the nominee should be, each of these candidates has gotten millions of votes. I cannot - and will not - support the nomination of someone who didn’t win it the old fashioned way, by getting the most votes. I’ve said that should be the deciding factor between these two candidates and I believe that should be the deciding factor for the democratic nominee among all potential candidates.

I can think of nothing more damaging to the party or the principles of democracy generally than anointing a nominee who nobody voted for. I don’t care how much I may personally like him. \

And, yes, it’s even worse to select a white man who nobody voted for over a black man and white woman who got millions of votes.

Thank you for your concern.

……….it would be different, say I, if either candidate had conducted a race based on issues, principles…you know thing the Founders considered important. Sorry, so sorry that did not happen.

But…

It’s not my fault.

Frankly they are both profound disappointments who have given every indication that they will govern much like McSame.

And…

I really do think those millions of Dem voters would rather have a Democratic president than McSame.

Which is who you are going to get with either of these very poor choices.

And you will have your ID political purity to blame for that.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

…………….in all the excellent commentary, rootless springs to mind, you folks seem to have forgotten my excellent proposal. Not being one to hold a grudge….

Here it is again:

Unity….Unity….Unity 08!

Neither current candidate looks like a winner in the GE…they both suck on the issues….

What’s not to like about my suggestion. Oh…yeah…I forgot neither is a woman and neither is black.

Look how great that’s worked out, eh?

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

But then again, Hillary doesn’t owe me money.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Unity….Unity….Unity 08!

Your bank account is noted. Thanks for your input.

Clinton, the candidate supported by the weakest in the economy, doesn’t have a lot of money, unlike Obama’s buddies in Chicago.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Not to be cruel, but……

Clicking on the link from A. Citizen five comments up, entitled “Ahem…” that calls for

Unity….Unity….Unity 08!

you get a page with the following:

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.

whaleshaman provides a corrected link, to a post pitching Gore/Edwards (I wish) as the better choice over the shredded remains we will have to chose from. Still, looking for something that isn’t here…..

……….which is part of the point of my slightly snarkfle comment and link, thanks for the fix, to post. Unity is nowhere to be found folks.

Thanks to….

Who?

Sister Beezlebub?

Barry?

We have a deeply divided party. Kind of what happens when you pursue yer ID politics ala Bowers, Kos and Marshall but then they really don’t have a firm grasp on the history of this sort of thing. They being too busy pontificating from their mighty megaphones. To absorbed in their ’Big Man’ roles to read a little history. To check the polling which doesn’t happen to agree with their prefigured scenarios.

We, The People, are left with the distasteful choice of loser Barry against McCain or centrist Clinton, yeah I do think she can beat McSame girl knows how to throw a punch, or more of McSame.

I say, for various reasons that I’m sure many would agree with, that the Democratic Party needs to take the White House.

Take it big time; coattails and all folks.

That being the foundation of my thesis the results follow. Gore would murder McSame no question. Edwards brings continuity to the ticket from the primary and would be ready to take over should Al want to step down after one term.

This would be a good, Democratic ticket mirroring the populace’s left-of-center stance on most issues.

To the tedious folks who want to stick with ID politics I submit that you, you, are the racists or sexists to advocate someone be elected because of their race or gender despite their obvious inability to win…

…….the primary or the GE.

So, you got it! Unity is a fiction. Neither possible nor desirable.

I’m more for advancing the progressive agenda the country needs than catering to the overweening egos and backroom dealers who’ve brought to us:

Sister Beezlebub and Senator SnakeOil in all their faux populist glory.

And I know there are many folks who agree with me. My poll was 20 to 1 in favor of this at my site.

A. Citizen

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

But I’m up in arms over people’s voice being heard in FL/MI, I would be outraged if the nom went to someone who wasn’t even on the ballot.

Once again, if Gore had offered up the opportunity to vote for him, many, myself included, would have voted for him, but he didn’t, so we didn’t, so long, goodbye.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

The elite Democrats in congress who rolled over for Bush on every vote are now united for Obama in June. Again, they see the writing on the wall that scares them so much (the country will turn on us). Chicken for Obama!

A word about the delegate count. The current numbers for Obama stem, mainly, from the his rigged caucus system. If there were no caucuses, Obama would’ve been behind Dodd.

I got my tax return today and you shamed me into donating it to Hillary.

I’m not maxed out yet so keep talking.

… that clinches it for me. Where do I sign up?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Myth: The pledged delegate count is close
Fact: Obama leads pledged delegates by 6.0% with only 17.4% remaining

In any other campaign, if a candidate led by 6% with 83% reporting, all major news outlets would project that candidate as the winner.

Myth: Clinton can use Michigan and Florida to catch up
Fact: The Obama campaign will dictate what happens in Michigan and Florida

After June 10th, the credentials committee takes jurisdiction over the matter. The fact is that Barack Obama will control the credentials committee, since its members are elected by pledged delegates.

Myth: Clinton can use a combination of pledged and superdelegates to catch Obama
Fact: There are only 841 delegates left, and Obama leads by 141

Obama only needs 42.7% of the remaining pledged, add-on, and undecided superdelegates in order to reach 2,024, at which point he can dictate favorable delegations from Michigan and Florida and secure the nomination.

Preventing Obama from securing 42.7% of the remaining delegates, and/or convincing Obama delegates to flip to Clinton, are both fantasies.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia…

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Myth: Citing Open Left is credible and not remotely batshit.
Fact: No.

$20 to HRC’s campaign today.

I wasn’t sure if they were on the Roll Of Traitors like Kos - so thanks for clearing that up. Is a list being maintained where I could check for the frequent updates?

In the meantime, I’ll simply point out that 2 plus 2 has a way of equaling 4 regardless of what trendy insult you might throw at it.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Myth: The pledged delegate count is close
Fact: Obama leads pledged delegates by 6.0% with only 17.4% remaining

In any other campaign, if a candidate led by 6% with 83% reporting, all major news outlets would project that candidate as the winner.

Only mentally ill media (and FoxNews) calls an election with 20% of the precincts remaining and a 4% margin. First of all it depends on how large the precincts are that are still reporting and what the demographics are (Clinton stongholds, etc.) (currently is at 47.7% Clinton / 51.7% Obama)

Obama leads by 128 delegates with 881 delegates + 18 Edwards delegates left.

PA, IN & NC make up 341 of those.

If Clinton gets 57.1% of the remaining delegates (505 Clinton/376 Obama) she is in the lead and it will come down to Edwards delegates.

There is no reason to believe super delegates won’t favor Clinton. The question is by what margins. There is no question Clinton will carry PA. She is behind in NC and IN, but then again, IN voting machines are about as trustworthy and Ohio’s.

Thank you for replying with numbers rather than adjectives. It shows you put some work into that.

And I should have made clear that the “precincts reporting” analogy can’t be applied to Hillary’s prospects - since it assumes all the votes have already been cast, which is not the case here. It’s only relevant to whether the pledged delegate standings are close now.

But how do you get the 4% margin you claim? The original author - writing on March 26 - put the pledged delegate count as 1415.5 to to 1253.5, with 18 for Edwards and 566 left to be determined. But that site is “batshit”, I’m told - so let’s look at CNN…

As of right now, they have the pledged delegate count as 1414 to 1243. That’s 53.2% to 46.7% - a 6.5% lead.

And as for “There is no reason to believe super delegates won’t favor Clinton”, that’s got to be an April Fool’s gag.

Even though Hillary is claiming not to be paying attention to how many superdelegates have come out for her in the past month or two, plenty of other people are. I don’t have a link handy, but my understanding is that recent SD declarations are something like 68 to 6 in favor of Obama.

I’m eager to hear a single reason to believe that SDs will favor Clinton - in light of the fact that she’ll finish behind in pledged delegates (by her own admission), popular vote (yeah, even if you include MI and FL), states won, fundraising, yada yada.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

If you’re sure that Sen Obama will win 2025 delegates at the convention, then why all the shouting?

If that happens, the rest of us, on the other hand, will be worried about President McCain and hoping Sen Obama can pull off his 48 state strategy.

And hoping he can counter whatever McCain’s team knows about his past.

And hoping if he does win, that he won’t appoint goopers to be secretaries of state and defense.

And hoping if he does win, that he’ll face down the goopers to end the occupation.

And hoping if he does win, that he doesn’t privatise social security.

Whew, that’s a lot of hoping. I’m tired already.

“There is no reason to believe super delegates won’t favor Clinton”

How about because super delegates have always favored Clinton. Currently it is 214 to 246 or even 216 to 249. The majority of super delegates (and overwhelming majority of uncommitted supers) being DNC members. From day one, Clinton had a large lead of the supers, and while this lead has dropped significantly over time, I have no doubt by the end of this she will still maintain a majority of superdelegates. Never underestimate the ability of the DNC to grasp defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Your 6% lead is based on just pledged delegates, which is one way to look at voting trends, but it is flawed because of how many caucuses are included in that and the remaining votes are primaries. The 4% estimate is based on total committed delegates, currently about 1647 to 1497 out of 4046, or maybe 1628.5 to 1500.5 [1]

I find it pretty sleazy to be mixing percentages. On the one hand you talk about how close the race is and who is ahead, but the 6% is based on only pledged not totals. That’s like saying Clinton won in TX and not counting the caucus.

Governors:
BHO: 12
HRC: 10
N/A: 9

Senators:
BHO: 17
HRC: 13
N/A: 18

Reps:
BHO: 71
HRC: 73
N/A: 77

DNCs:
BHO: 109
HRC: 149
N/A: 149

Distinguished Party Leaders:
BHO: 3
HRC: 10
N/A: 6

Since February 10th:
BHO: +85
HRC: +22

who haven’t declared have reasons for waiting—selfish and non. Most Senators and Reps are in that category.

I think Obama not closing the deal—given his lead for a long time— or winning big states is part of it for some.

She used to be ahead in fundraising too. Times change.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/…

And as dramatic a decline as those graphs show, they don’t even reflect that Hillary’s early SD lead came from unelected officials in the leadership. Those still up for grabs are mostly elected representatives who would be playing political Russian Roulette by going against the winner of the pledged delegate total, popular vote, etc.

But you’re right, there’s a number of different arguments getting mixed up here.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

Then stop the yelling about it, stop the argumentum ad hominem, the argumentum ad verecundiam and all the other trollish behavior.

You’re sure Sen Obama’s gonna win, then he has nothing to fear from just finishing the elections out and letting as many people as possible participate, right?

It goes from the outlandish April Fools to “Times Change”. Those uncommitted SD appear to be equal parts elected and DNC members. But don’t let facts get in the way of making your point.

Don’t tell Tubbs-Jones about the Russian thing. It’s not like she represents one of the strongest Obama districts or anything…

You are so full of repeating whatever you heard on the boiz blogs without any critital thinking.

Who’s yelling?

And look in your mirror - and the friendly faces around you - before you try slinging “ad hominem” or “troll” at me.

“If one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.” - Bill Clinton

And look in your mirror - and the friendly faces around you - before you try slinging “ad hominem” or “troll” at me.

I’ll take that as a “no” then.