"she'll still have to trash the likely nominee"

Are you posting from another timezone.

Obama was the likely nominee.

Ezra,

This post is beyond dumb.

Let's not make a habit of it.

what it signifies is a vetting of both candidates = good

Her speech is good, but what it signifies, for the party, is quite dangerous.

It's all fine and good that Hillary has found yet another "voice" two months into primary voting. But this race is past the point where she can legitimately win it, and her actions could very well do significant damage to the Democratic party at a time when it is poised to reshape politics in America beyond just the next election cycle.

And people who do what you do, Ezra, have the power to push back against it. Will you? Will others?

I keep saying you should stick to wonking. Frankly, I am really disappointed on you. Look at the data, at this point the blog needs to be pushing a unity ticket because these two candidates need each other, and I don't personally like either one of their candicacy, but I can be objective enough to admit what's happening.

Is Ezra's post suppose to be sarcastic?

That was a good speech?

What it signifies is the entrenching of both candidates, a protracted fight until August, a split party, and the inaguration of John McCain in January.

Someone fetch me some Tylenol.

Obama was the likely nominee.

Obama remains the likely nominee in the real world under real conditions.

Frankly I think this continuing primary situation is an unfolding disaster. If Obama doesn't win PA he should drop out and accept a VP slot, because Clinton sure as hell isn't going to give up until the goddamn convention. McCain needs to be stopped.

neither candidate can be the likely nominee because looking athe delegate count neither can reach the magic number. of course, i dont't expect nutcases like andrew to appreciate this, but maybe others can help me understand how either candidate can reach the numbers now unless one falls on the sword. there are arguments for both to say they should be the nominee that have been discussed elsewhere. i honestly dont know the solution to this. i just think the people makeing their pronouncements about this or that candidate is doing so from a rose colored glasses on candidate partisanship. i am on record as being a former edwards suppoters- i am trying to objective here. i dont see how either wins this out right.

I realized about 20 minutes into the last debate that I've basically reached saturation on all this. Right up until then, I was all about reading everything I possibly could about the race, hanging on every moment of ridiculous to-the-minute coverage. And now I'm just...done. This isn't fun anymore and I just want it to be over. I guess this isn't all that closely tied to this post. But generally, though, I'm over parsing every move and every line. And I wonder if maybe my fatigue is kind of demonstrative of how the excitement that had characterized the race has been sapped. If so, that's not good for anybody.

akaison, what are you talking about? One of them obviously must win sooner or later (and probably through superdelegates). The question is how will he/she do it without tearing about the democratic party and crushing our chances in November?

I'm sorry, but the fact that a candidate with fewer votes, fewer delegates, and less chance of victory in the general election "won't give up" is no reason for the candidate with more votes, more delegates, and more chance of victory in the general election to withdraw from the race.

Akaison, Obama can reach the number needed. He will probably have ~1300 delegates after Mississippi. Add the 725+ superdelegates and he reaches 2025.

Now, Clinton can probably also reach 1300 after Puerto Rico but Obama would be at 1500+ most likely. The question Ezra is alluding to is whether 725+ supers will vote for her on the floor of the convention. If they did, what would Obama's delegates do, etc.

That is why HRC can't win. She cannot get it back to 1500-1500. Last week, everyone knew she had to win by double digits in TX and OH to have a slim shot. Of course, everyone moves the goal posts for her so an essential tie in TX (and net delegate loss) is a rallying point.

Obama will have a 100+ lead for the rest of the primary. If the Democrats were as efficient as the Republicans all the Supers would pledge to the first to reach 1300 (or whatever 2025 minus the supers is).

Frankly I think this continuing primary situation is an unfolding disaster. If Obama doesn't win PA he should drop out and accept a VP slot, because Clinton sure as hell isn't going to give up until the goddamn convention.

Not to mention the fact she and her campaign has ripped off and made moot every positive and hopeful campaign theme forwarded by the superior strategist/thinker/campaigner in the race thus far... What is "Yes She Can" compared to "Yes We Can"? That says everything you need to know right there. I found her triangulation on Obama's message depressing. It's old politics versus new. Good luck to her.

This is how I fear the campaign is going to play out: Clinton continues to launch 10 negative attacks on Obama every day. Eventually Obama must respond in kind, or even if he doesn't his supporters are going to be really pissed off at Clinton's attacks. The race goes on for four more months until by sheer attrition one of the two manages to eke out victory, most likely through undemocratic superdelegates. Either way, by this point our general election nominee is damaged goods to a wide swath of the democratic base. Meanwhile John McCain has been busy campaigning with a unified republican party behind him and merrily sniping at our candidates from the sidelines. We lose in November.

For the good of the party we need a nominee as soon as possible. If the race continues for much longer after PA that is IMO unacceptable and disastrous.

Korha:

I am advocating a unity ticket. Because I dont' consider you a nutcase like some here (a la the last post which doesn't bother to mention the narrowness of the numbers he is using), let me respond from what I understand:

a) They are appealing to different demographics. This is important because McCain won't be easy to beat.

b) Neither can win out right. Up until today in fact the big thing was "Clinton shouldn't use the super delegates to win," but now the same peo are advocating it for Obama. I find both to be illegitimate.

c) The numbers in absolute terms are really tight. They also include groups who aren't Democrats in some states in which Obama won, and indeed, in some cases, like OH, Bowers over at Open Left, is saying although Clinton won the states by 200,000 votes, it's possible that the delegate count will be at parity. More over, the popular vote count between the two will almost certainly be at parity.

d) Even if Clinton loses she will lose with more delegates than any canddiate in the modern system, and Obama will win without having achieved his win without using supposedly (again until today) anti Democratic methods.

I am not saying Obama or Clinton shouldn't win. I am saying its way more complicated than partisans are admitting. And a solution needs to be fashioned that reflects that complexity rather than let immaturity and divisiveness win out. It's easy to say Clinton should drop out, but I am not seeing compelling reason why.

Now she may do it for the good fo the party as some describe it here, but to me the good of the party (if I have to live with centrism) would be the bringing together of the two very different coalitions.

What it signifies, I fear, is the unending occupation of Iraq, a new war with Iran, the end of Roe v Wade, and a bankrupted country. President McCain and his VP Sam Brownback will look back fondly to Ohio - the heart of it all.

neither candidate can be the likely nominee because looking athe delegate count neither can reach the magic number.

The primary rules and current pledged delegate totals make it almost a sure thing--Clinton would essentially need to win by double digits the rest of the way...unlikely--that Obama will retain the pledged delegate lead.

I thought is was her best speech yet as well. I wish she would have employed me as a political strategists I would have told her to back-burner Bill and bring out Chelsea, notice his absence? I really think this helped her subtly.

The same numbers that prevent Clinton from winning out right withou the suprdelegate votes are the same that prvent Obama. You are same people who a week ago argued agains the Super delegates as an aboslute travesty against democracy. Now, if Obama doesn't win the delegate vote out right, and indeed, some have argued even if he doesn't win the popular vote, you would still advocate his winning due to the superdelegate. I follow the logic well. You are are willing to win at all cost even while saying Clinton is. That's fine. But, don't expect everyone to miss what happens to the voters you are ignoring in the process. Basically my logic is about them, not your messiah. 50 percent for clinton, 50 percent for obama suggests to me a unity ticket. 50 plus 1 is great for a GE, not for a primary. We need all of these people to in in the GE. And unlike some of you, I m not vote for McCain. I don't have that kind of hubris.

Unapologetic Andrew: "OK...I'll concede that there is reason (party solidarity; defeating McCain) for a candidate to drop out. However, why should it be Obama? Hillary's persistence? Bullshit."

I didn't say it was fair, or likely. But here's my reasoning: I've supported Obama for President since the middle of 2006, but the reality is he has a long political career ahead of him. He can be the Governor of Illinois, he can be VP, he could run for the Presidency again anytime over the next twenty years, etc. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has only one realistic chance to be President--this one--and I'm certain the VP slot means nothing to her. Based on her behavior over the past few weeks, she is clearly willing to do whatever it takes to seize the nomination, including run Republican-style attack ads against her opponent. And she is simply not going to go away.

Now this disaster scenario can be averted by Obama winning Pennsylvania. But if he does not and the primary continues to drag on, I think yes he should concede. He also needs to be Clinton's VP because Clinton probably won't be able to win against McCain without him on board. Do I think it's likely that he'll concede? Definitely not. But it would be the right thing for the democratic party.

What you're saying is that if Clinton continues to campaign until the convention, she poses a threat to the Democratic Party?

There's a word for that. I think it's blackmail (heh, that's punny). Also: extortion.

Seriously, you're saying Obama should be complicit in allowing Clinton to extort the Democratic Party. There's nothing wrong with this picture?

You are same people who a week ago argued agains the Super delegates as an aboslute travesty against democracy.

Korha, your entire premise assumes that people will get on board behind Hillary. They won't. She won't attract a single independent against John McCain, and the young people Obama attracted to the primaries will fall away. (Not even necessarily because they dislike Hillary, but because it takes a rare and special candidate to bring them out in the first place...and that candidate simply isn't Hillary.)

Hillary can't win the general against John McCain. She just can't. Look at what happens to her numbers, all over the country, when people start to see her up close. Down, down, down.

Think that won't happen against John McCain?

The conceptual problem with a unity ticket--which I agree we probably need if the race goes on much longer--is that Obama/Clinton is simply not credible. First, Clinton won't want to take it. Second, Obama won't want to offer it to her because it destroys the narrative of his entire campaign. Third, I doubt her hard-core partisans will be satisfied with the VP slot--it'll still look like the woman has been pushed aside for the young upstart man.

Clinton/Obama is thus the only plausible unity ticket. But, Obama is the frontunner right now, so why would he accept the Vice Presidency? There is no compelling personal interest.

I hope PA resolves things one way or another, and before that state votes talk of either candidate withdrawing is still premature. If however things are still inconclusive after that contest I think Dean, Gore, et al. need to broker some sort of deal or our chances of winning in November will be dealt a critical and possibly fatal blow.

I can tell you that if Obama attempts to rigg the process by undermining the autonomy of the Superdelegates to choose the strongest nominee for the party, which is exactly what he is doing by attempting to delegitimize any outcome other than the pledged delgate winner being rubber stamped by the superdelegates, then I will without a doubt defect and vote for Nader. The process needs to be allowed to take its course, the people vote, and when it is all done the superdelegates make the decision they feel is best for the party. While the pro Obama press (including Ezra) may be trying to rigg the process in Obama's favor, Democrats clearly don't feel that way. If we are basically going to throw the concept of superdelegates out the window then there needs to be alot of questoning as to how that should be done. Should any superdelegate who votes against the winner of their state's primary have their legtimacy called into question? If superdelegates influence has to be undercut because it is undemocratic, should not pledged delegates be forced to line up with popular vote counts in all states. If the legtimacy of this process is founded on it reflecting the will of the people than Obama and his crew need to stop trying to end it before all the people hve been heard, and stop trying to perpetuate this notion that any candidate is obliged to throw in the towel before the other has shown they enjoy the support of the majority of the people.

SDinIA: "Hillary can't win the general against John McCain. She just can't. Look at what happens to her numbers, all over the country, when people start to see her up close. Down, down, down."

Clinton can certainly win the nomination *as things currently stand*. If however the primary degenerates into split battle camps, she will most likely not win. By the same token Obama probably can't win if Clinton keeps on attacking him every day for the next four months, either.

Unapologetic Andrew: "What you're saying is that if Clinton continues to campaign until the convention, she poses a threat to the Democratic Party?"

What can I say? Hillary Clinton is simply not going to give up and if she takes the democratic party down with her in her quixotic quest for the Presidency, well, I think she's just willing to take that risk.

Seems to be a fair amount of community between this board and Mr Yglesias'. Same kind of arguments, too.

Wins in Texas and Ohio for Obama would have ended this. Hasn't happened - onwards. A lot can happen between now and August.

When Hillary's "best speech" sounded much like a stilted dialog from the grammar school Thanksgiving play, she is trouble... or, at least, she would be, were it not for the fact that McCain seems downright somnolent in comparison.

The last post sums up the problem- what is legitimate here? Clinton by all accounts as of tonight may wth the FL and MI votes (not delegates, but votes) have the popular votes, and he may have the greater, but not necessary number of delegates. So, what is the right answer here? I have no fucking clue. The problem like I said is made worse when one looks at the demographics-- because they are appealing to different parts of the Democratic base. I agree- the statemens with these two very strong candidates need to get together to come up with a solution- it doesn't look like it will be done by going back and forth between "she's got the popular vote" or "he's got the delegate count that's higher." Both seem to miss the point to me- they both are legitimate if these numbers continue to hold up. Trying to blame one as being illegitimate will be the thing that tears the party apart, not thier claims. Both sides need to stop placating those forces make these claims. And yes, I heard it from both camps. If the blogs aren't going to be neutral, or do something that requires you know - a backbone- the leas they can do is to start a campaign of being the peace brokers.

i can hardly remember back to when i thought that al gore would have a perfect coronation in this election and the democratic party would be seamlessly supporting him.
.......it seems so long ago.

the autonomy of the Superdelegates to choose the strongest nominee for the party

I therefore propose that superdelegates who are elected officials ought to support the candidate their constituency nominated. For party officials who are not elected, they should consider the strongest nominee. I define that to be whichever candidate is the one who, following party rules, acquired the most pledged delegates. This is especially so because in the general election they will not be competing for the popular vote, but rather for victory in the electoral college.

We can discuss eliminating superdelegates after the convention, when it will not constitute an ex post facto rule change, or so long as it is only for post-'08 elections. We can also discuss abandoning the electoral college after the inauguration in 1/09.

and stop trying to perpetuate this notion that any candidate is obliged to throw in the towel before the other has shown they enjoy the support of the majority of the people.

Lmao, The only way for Hillary to win is to nuke the party. Super Delegates can do whatever they want, but if they go against the will of the party theres no chance the Dems win in the fall.

If Clinton and her supporters want to murder this party, Obama's supporters will be happy to oblige them.

Super delegates can do whatever they wont unless it's not to vote for Obama. Then, it's undemocratic.

Seriously, why bother arguing this? They can spin this however they want, a Democratic party without black voters and voters under 35 is a permanent minor party.

That's the reality they face. Good luck convincing the Super Delegates to go that route.

Akaison, it's called Democracy. We can choose not to vote for the Democratic party if we don't want to. That's how it works.

They can do whatever they want. So can we. I'm fairly certain their going to take that into account when they make their choice.

these clinton legitimacy arguments are not compelling.

eyes on the prize means beating mccain in november. for a set of reasons layed out by others above I think obama's got the best chance.

but to get to mccain, either clinton or obama has to hit the delegate threshold. and given delegate totals to date, it is highly unlikely under any circumstances that clinton can close the delegate gap.

so the argument for her continuing to campaign is that it's worth risking the damage to the party and the eventual nominee's chance (clinton OR obama) of beating mccain for the extremely remote possibility of sweeping all remaining primaries to the convention and seating MI & FL delegates.

color me unconvinced by clinton's cost/benefit analysis.

this isn't a campaign any longer; it's a war of attrition.

bill clinton left the democratic party weaker than he found it. it's hard to see hillary doing any differently.

The last post sums up the problem- what is legitimate here? Clinton by all accounts as of tonight may wth the FL and MI votes (not delegates, but votes) have the popular votes, and he may have the greater, but not necessary number of delegates.

Uh, after tonight, even counting Florida, Obama has a popular vote lead. (Throw in Michigan, and Clinton pulls ahead by all of 7/10 of a percent - but Obama wasn't even on the ballot, so that strikes me as shady, how about you?)

Obama has double-digit pledged delegate lead, and with only 611 pledgeable delegates left in play. Assuming he averages even 40% or so in the rest of the contests, that's insurmountable. (Of course, more likely he'll continue to earn at least 50%, And maintain the popular vote lead.)

Now, in the end, the superdelegates can choose as they please. But maybe calling Obama the 'likely nominee' doesn't really seem beyond the pale?

Having a pledged delegate lead based on a caucus system that doesn't actually reflect the votes of the people (as we are seeing in Texas tonight) is not a mandate for the will of the people. As long as Obama and his supporters attempt to change the rules by attempting to render the Superdelgates obsolete by trying to delegitimize their autonomy to decide how they desire, then I am prepared to oblige them in tearing the party apart. We will not be extorted, and if you want to vote for the Republicans go ahead and do so. It is obvious that many Obama supporters are a bunch of vacuous celebrity junkies who don't care if we are in Iraq for 100 years, don't care if we get universal health care, don't care if right wing idealougues get to stack the Supreme Court.

I hope the superdelegates will think long and hard about a great many things before deciding who to vote for. The pledged delegate lead should be one of those things, but not the only one. To define the strongest nominee as the pledged delegate leader and suggest that is who the super delegates have to support is to basically say the superdelgates are not in fact superdelgates, but should just turn themselves into regular delegates. If you want that fine, but what that means exactly needs to be worked out, and I am not sure that is what is best for the party.

Sorry- should be "Throw in Michigan and Clinton pulls ahead by all of 7/100 of a percent..."

with FL and MI- I believe the count is pop favors clinton by about 300,000. One of the problem with using the delegate count can be found in OH- where she won or is winning the state by a sizeable number several hundred thousand above Obama- yet delegate wise it makes it seem like she didnt. Ironically I am not a Clinton supporter or Obama supporter. I just finde the selectivity of analysis when it comes to protecting voters here nauseating. You people could careless who you screw over even as you claim CLinton doesn't care.

...the auditions are over...

...center stage...

...enter Hillary...

A Star is Born...

...a breath of fresh air...

...and damn...she makes 60 look good...whoa!

Anonymous-

A couple million caucus-goers might disagree with you about their votes not counting. Just saying.

And I'm not telling the superdelegates how to vote, but I'm also not convinced all of them are going to ignore precisely the vast swathes of the electorate the Clinton camp would require them to.

akaison-

The latest totals at realclearpolitics.com have Clinton ahead by about 36K with MI and FL. They're counting caucus states that have released vote counts though, so it's possible it's 300K or so if you exclude those.

my point is that one is hard pressed to accept the Obama supporters views of who should be the nominee based on the super delegates with this in mind Jack. I don't claim to know the precise number- just that its higher than Obama's total popular vote, and when you take into account that the delegate count is equally razor thin, it's basically tie. Something that neither side wants to admit. Yeah, someone has got to win, but its clear there needs to be a deal made by the adults, because that sure aint going to happen through the supporters

Who can know the inscrutable mind of a superdelegate, but-

In addition to considering things like the popular vote, the delegate count, and so on, they might consider more qualitative things. Like Obama's ability to campaign for a couple weeks in TX and drop Clinton's double digit lead down to just few points. Or fundraising ability. Voluminous contributions from small donors, rather than rich special interests might count for something extra. Unless they find that 'cultish'. They might even look at polling numbers against McCain. Or estimate the ability of a candidate to turn out voters for downticket races in their states. Even the candidate's respect for the process and the party.

But who can know.

akaison-

36,000 votes out of 25,000,000 cannot meaningfully be said to put Clinton on top. And of course that's when we're counting FL- a very early primary where neither side campaigned at all, and 330,000 votes for Clinton in MI. (None for Obama, because he wasn't on the ballot.)

Leave those two out, and Obama's leading by 600,000 votes, which is narrow, but signifcant.

Likewise, 125 delegates or so isn't anything to sneeze at.

I agree there needs to be a deal by adults. I'll be curious to see what the latest superdelegate polls show in a week or two.

Why is everyone assuming the super delegates are a monolith? If Obama goes in to the convention with a 150 pledged delegate lead, he doesn't need to get every single super delegate. He doesn't even have to get half of the super delegates. He would need to get 41% of the super delegates in order to secure the nomination. That is just 324 super delegates. Per MSNBC Obama currently has 211 super delegates supporting him. If he holds his pledged delegate lead, keeps his super delegates he needs to convince 113 of the remaining unpledged super delegates to support him.

On the flip side, if Clinton doesn't close the pledged delegate gap to less the 150, and holds all of her current super delegates, which MSNBC estimates put at 254, then she will need to convince 220 of the undecided supers to support her to win the nomination.

The numbers look worse for Clinton if Obama does in fact have 50 more super delegates waiting to be announced over the next few weeks as has been reported.

My point is that a 150 elected delegate lead is a big deal. If Obama goes in to the convention with a big delegate lead, he will win the nomination. It's just to big of a lead for Clinton to over come with super delegates.

Clinton/Obama is thus the only plausible unity ticket. But, Obama is the frontunner right now, so why would he accept the Vice Presidency? There is no compelling personal interest.

I wish people would let this idea go-- there is no valid reason for Obama, or really any pol with an ounce of gumption, to accept a VP offer from Clinton. Bill would be the de facto veep, and would, as I've noted before, even take all the good funerals. The only people who seem to prosper as Clinton associates are slick spinmeisters who are capable of loyalty; other politicians, various appointees, and associates seem to end up discredited, broke from legal fees, or even jailed. HRC needs to pick a wallpaperish white guy with easily jettisoned or nonexistent future ambitions if she ends up with the nomination.

Besides, Obama is not going to help paste together a fake 'unity ticket,' because his organizational model is clearly ground-up, not top-down.

Jason K-

I get him needing about 431 total, saying he picks up another 300 pledged out of the remaining 611.

(...So Clinton would need about 549, under the same assumptions.)

yet delegate wise it makes it seem like she didnt.

Superdelegates have no rules governing how they vote. Most of them are elected officials. Some of them are simply party officials. Therefore, the principle by which they vote is debatable, even negotiable.

I have proposed two principles by which superdelegates ought to vote. If they're elected: follow their constituency. If they were appointed: follow the pledged delegate leader. Superdelegates are not bound to vote that way, but it would be right, proper and fair for them to do so, upholding the results of the elections already held. If Hillary, by some miracle, took the pledged delegate lead, I would still say the same.

So the democratic party can't even manage to pick a nominee and they want to run the country.....

Don't conflate voters with their representatives, Don. I don't even think the GOP would be willing to let the average Republican voter run the country.

I take that back. I keep trying to forget we had two terms of Bush.

Yeah, Ezra, that damned democracy is so dangerous.

Let's look at what happened. Voters went out and voted. The contest is a virtual tie, with a lot of primaries (including my state's) yet to happen. Why is it somehow better for all of us who haven't yet gotten a chance to vote to just be disenfranchised? When the race is pretty much tied?

And why is Obama getting more delegates in at least two states where Clinton got more votes okay? Hey, them's the rules. I can live with that. Why is that rule okay, and the superdelegate rule not okay?

You're sounding a bit desperate. How about letting democracy take its course, instead of forcing out a candidate who has gotten about half the votes and half the delegates so far? I can just about assure you that when the convention comes around, whoever has the most delegates will win... so what's your hurry? Are you afraid that Obama will lose unless Clinton is shoved out prematurely?

Come on. Trust your candidate, and trust the voters, and trust the democratic process. And please quit acting like Clinton staying in the race is somehow cheating. Come on, we voters really do want to vote, and do you really want to tell half of the Democratic primary voters that how they voted should be ignored?

apa doc, "trust your candidate, and trust the voters, and trust the democratic process" is probably the best line to come out of this discussion so far.

I guess Obama supporters were really hoping to wrap it up here, and the prospect of weeks more of this campaign is starting to hurt. The disappointment for a second time (NH was the first) is pretty acute.

But you're correct of course. Obama will need to work hard and so will all his supporters. As, no doubt, will Hillary's.

Yes!

Many thanks to Rush Limbaugh for keeping Hillary in this fight. Rush has gauranteed this will go on until the convention by bringing voters in consevative parts of Texas out for Hillary.

Its a beautiful day. And Hillary running on National Security, what a hoot.

How could she possibly pick Obama as VP when she claims he's not fit for the office....

"Clinton would essentially need to win by double digits the rest of the way"

even if she gets the FL delegates as she rightly should?

soullite you must have missed Brownstein's analysis in the National Journal from the other day. "The African-American percentage of the vote, somewhat surprisingly, has spiked in just a few states (primarily Delaware and South Carolina); in most places, the increases have been small, and in five states, black voters' share has actually declined as other groups have surged."
According to Brownstein, "The most dramatic changes are among young people, the affluent, and, to a lesser extent, women." So you are right about under 35s but wrong on blacks (who's percentage of the population is projected to remain stagnant while that of Hispanics and Asians continues to grow).

If Obama wins the nomination, African-Americans may have provided the difference necessary to usher in a new Democratic coalition more dependent on "wine-track" voters who are agnostic at best on progressive economics.

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2008/0229nj1.htm

"Akaison, it's called Democracy. We can choose not to vote for the Democratic party if we don't want to. That's how it works."

LMAO at SoulLite now paraphrasing Petey; what a diff a day makes!

Hey Obamaphiles you use to love Republicans when they were voting for your guy to spite Clinton. What happened? You sound just like the Clintonites when Republicans were helping Obama win those February states. Maybe you can console yourselves with the fact he still won a majority of Republicans.

The only way Clinton can win is by cheating. You can never vote for a cheater. You can never allow the party elite to choose the nominee. IF they do that once, and get away with it, we will never have a Democratically elected nominee again.

At this point, most of us don't just hate Clinton. We hate the lot of you as well. This is over, and you people don't even have the decency to concede. You'd rather threaten to destroy the party to install your candidate as the nominee over the democratically elected one.

You people are no better than Republicans. Actually, you're worse. Republicans are supposed to act like this. You're all just petty scumbags.

But make no mistake. This is over. You morons can delude yourself about super delegates all you want. It's not going to happen.

"The problem is, at the end of the day, she'll still have to trash the likely nominee, overturn the will of the pledged delegates, and force through a change in the DNC rules to win."

And what about the will of the people? The superdelegates would be got advised to vote for the winner of the popular vote. Because otherwise, if this is different from the winner of the pledged delegate count, this will be a strong reminder of the 2000 election. After the massive outcry about Bush "winning" only the elecoral college, I don't think the Dem Party can with a straight face nominate someone as candidate who hasn't got the most votes. So, the often criticized superdelegates may actually become the decisive force for the nomination going to reflect the will of the people. What's not to like about this?

And remember, Clinton won lots of votes this round, more than Obama. Chris Bowers @ OpenLeft says she reduced the difference by 250000 votes. So, the race is still very much open, Clinton regained momentum, and Obama's nomination is far from inevitable.

Gray, there is no popular vote. the oly people claiming there is are the ones trying to rig it for Clinton.

They have no vote totals from from Nebraska, Hawaii, Kansas, or D.C.. There were no exit polls from these states either. Without any popular vote totals, none, at all, from several of Obama's biggest states, you have a 'popular vote' rigged in Clinton's favor. What kind of popular vote is it, when several states aren't even included?

This is why I hate clinton Supporters, personally.

They claim this is all about Democracy, but refuse to acknowledge that they aren't counting all the votes. They pretend that one person being ahead 100+ delegates is a tie. They ignore that the march 8th and march 11th primaries are going to go big for Obama. They ignore that we only have all of 10 states and 2 territories left to vote.

akaison,

I get your argument and its not a bad one. I have thought that, even with a win on pledged delegates, there are some compelling reasons for Obama to just throw this primary to Clinton. Both for the good of the party and for his own political fortunes. I don't agree that that is what he should do but its not an absolutely crazy argument.

But also, I agree with others who have pointed out that there is really no advantage at all to Obama to accept a VP slot. Whatever happens, he is a major rising political star that has a real chance of building a powerful set of his own coalitions for progressive change. That will not happen if he decides to accept the most useless job in Washington and it will most definitely not happen if he does so in a Clinton administration.

Frankly I think this continuing primary situation is an unfolding disaster. If Obama doesn't win PA he should drop out and accept a VP slot, because Clinton sure as hell isn't going to give up until the goddamn convention. McCain needs to be stopped.

Where's Solomon when you need him?

I agree about McCain, but people predicting that the ongoing primary will doom the party in the general are forgetting (a) the short attention span of the electorate and media, and (b) just how much McCain can say and do to motivate disappointed Clinton/Obama supporters to line up behind Obama/Clinton.

When was the last time somebody *actually* lost a general election (for an open seat) after winning a close primary? Did the other candidate's former supporters *really* cross party lines or stay home, or is that all a bunch of bullshit and the general election was decided on other grounds? This is supposed to be a wonk blog, let's see some numbers! :)

Chris, It has happened every time the Democrats have had a close Presidential primary in the last half a century. It is, in fact, one of the biggest factors regarding our electoral weakness during that time period.

I take it that's not the answer you expected to hear?

Well, except for 92. Perot was the primary factor that prevented it from mattering in that election. Perot pulled too many Republican voters for Clinton's anemic (and it was) performance to matter, and it really wasn't that close.

Soullite is upset because her chances of being Obama's First Lady took a hit last night. He loves you but just not in that way.

If the VP is a useless job someone needs to have told Gore and Chenney that. Look, I am not the average American voter so these sorts of arguments you are making won't work on me. I don't forget history just because the passions of an election year are up. And, I realy don't care who wins the nomination because my passion is beating the shit out of the Republicans, protecting process that's real process rather than bogus shit people make up for their candidate(which as you see happens a lot with both partisan camps- you simply are all making a lot of shit up) and make sure voters are protected in the process. Some of you Soullite to name one clearly don't have those three things as your priorities. It's about the primaries, and only the primaries. Not what happens after. To me that's a fake victory. For too many of you Obama=McCain or Clinton=McCain, and that's the most fucked up part of how you are messed up right now as partisans. To me, McCain=GOP=screwed the country the last 8 years. No one here should forget that. Get your priorities straight.

Lmao, I am a dude.

Really, I'm not even pissed about last night. I'm pissed at the attitude of Clinton and her scumbag supporters. WTF is wrong with them that they taunt people by threatening to steal elections, and then they act shocked when people respond with vitriol to such a disgusting display. If you act like this, people are going to hate you in a visceral level. Good luck overcomming that in the fall.

Akaison: Democrats put democracy above partisanship, or they aren't really Democrats. I love democracy, I love my country, and I love both of those things a lot more than love my party.

I'm not the one who's lost the plot here.

there seems to be a bizarre idea that I've told Petey he's wrong to refuse to vote Obama. That's simply not true.

I've called him a liar for his comments on the popular vote. I've called him a fool for falling for Clinton's DLC bulshit. I've argued against his logic. But I have always maintained that it's his right as a citizen to vote for whoever he wants to. I've even done the same for random nader voters.

I believe in Democracy. But Clinton has been running around playing the good and loyal Democrat, and so have all of her followers. It's hard for them to do that when they are alternately threaten to steal the election, or vote John McCain if they fail. They are hypocrites. I am not.

She was hated on a visceral level before this even started, at this point it just has to be water off a duck's back to her.

I may be experiencing primary fatigue but I am starting to see this whole process plus convention death match as ultimately good for the party. The policies and pretensions of the Democratic party have long been based on throwing key constituencies under the bus in a quiet and planned fashion. This time it is out in the open. Which wing of the party has to 'play nice' to make people happy? The candidates have no real choice but to play this out to the end. Regardless of delegates, superdelegates, counted states or uncounted states, the party is past time for really looking at itself and getting its act together.

I don't think either Obama or Clinton can step aside with any confidence that it won't destroy the party past mending. I just hope Gov. Dean has a REALLY good keynote speaker lined up.

First my bona fides.

I'm an Edwards supporter who switched to Clinton because I'm policy issues rather than personalities and so-called character issues oriented. This is not to make judgments about the personalities or characters of Clinton and Obama. I just find that whole approach so, well, immature.

This is despite the fact that I freely acknowledge that this is the way that many people will actually cast their votes, i.e., based on the personalities or perceived characters of the candidates.

Unless, of course, they are single issue people – e.g., abortion, gay marriage, those kinds of things which I do not disparage as such. With the single most important of the "single" issues being the economy=pocketbook issue.

I just don't happen to be a single issue sort of guy, and I would never contest the right of anyone else to take that position. Though I might have something to suggest about his or her political maturity.

By the way, reasonable people can disagree on a policy issue by policy issue basis as to whether Clinton or Obama has the edge on a particular issue. And I am happy to have those discussions.

Having said all that, I wonder what people here think about Ezra's suggestion – picked up apparently from some vibes coming from the Clinton camp which I had not previously detected – that Michigan and Florida should be done as simple do overs. No fancy changing the state rules here or there. Just let 'em do a straight rerun and see what the outcome is.

My, my. What an OK Corral moment this would be!

As Ezra puts it in a later post:

"Watch, in particular, for the Clinton campaign to start calling for Florida and Michigan redos, which they're increasingly confident they could win, and which is an actually fair solution to that whole mess."

OK, Obama supporters, go spin and tell us why this would not be "fair."

And see if in your spinning you can finish a tad or two above the level of rational argument achieved in this comment by Soullite at that above post, and I quote:

"Unless Clinton agrees to abide by the democratically elected delegate votes, no re-votes should be given. Fairness is nice and all, but these scumbags aren't fair. They aren't decent. They don't deserve to get any better than they've given.

"If they are willing to give up this bullshit about SD's and try to win this fairly, that's one thing. If they want to shriek and moaun about 'democracy' when it's convenient, and then laugh in our faces as they use lame technicalities to steal the election, they can go fuck themselves."

Or feel free to outdo Soullite in fifth grade debate style if that is your wont.

If the VP is a useless job someone needs to have told Gore

She did. Her name was Hillary Clinton, and her castration of Gore during the eight years of her husband's administration was one of the major factors in Gore's failure to be depicted as a stronger candidate against a coked-out fratboy in the 2000 election. If Gore was given a tenth of the authority Cheney was from HIS president then Bush would be serving his seventh year as the chairman of the MLB right now.

This is exactly the reason the "Obama will be VP" statement is hands-down the most laughable suggestion of the entire 2008 election, Zogby's poll results included. That anyone would honestly think the Clintons would let anyone, especially Omaba, have the spotlight in their administration is only slightly less laughable than pretending Obama doesn't know that already.

Don't believe the media hype. After all is said and done Clinton may have gained 1 or 2 delegates. Obama will have wiped those gains out by the weekend. Clinton is popular in her own right, and has the money to fight on. There are going to be states where she is strong and states that Obama is strong. Obama just needs to keep doing what he is doing - win his states big, keep it close in her states. He will have a lead in pledged delegates, and if he gets 50 more superdelegates he will have a lead in the superdelegates. The superdelegates have to be impressed by Obama's organization and appeal to young voters - if they care about the future of the party that would seem to be important.
Even with Michigan and Florida redos, it will be extremely hard for Clinton to claim more pledged delegates. It will be even harder for her get the nomination if she doesn't have that.
Would it be better if Obama wrapped it up last night? Sure. But let the process play out, and he'll still win. And if that doesn't make you feel better, give a few more bucks to his campaign.

I think in our little online societies we've built that we tend to over analyze somethings, for example, people getting a bit too sick of the process and the closeness of the counts. But in this case, I tend to agree with akaison here simply because its what I'm hearing from people who aren't as passionate and involved in the internet as all of us. People are going to sour on the Democratic party message if it gets nastier than this. We can only hope for a continued campaign that stops with the nonsense jabs and arguments that don't make sense, the yelling back and forth, which not only weakens our message but makes the possibility of a unity ticket less likely.

But what I want to know most from this thread though are what you insane people are doing up at 12-3am in the morning arguing on Ezra's blog! Get some sleep!

Adrock, I've told you before: Never in the entire history of Democratic primaries has the winner of a close primary gone on to victory. The closest you can get is Bill in 92, and it wasn't actually close, it only went as far as it did because Tsongas decided to unsuspend his campaign when Brown lost.

You really have to come up with a better reason why this is going to be different then 'oh, who cares what the internet loons has to say'. This trend has existed well before the internet, it's just easier to see now.

Actually, you told me in that other thread, to which I've already responded to you with arguments about McCain being somewhat insane and turnout and excitement for the Democrats at an all time high. But instead, you'd rather yell at people (and call them stupid, no less) who kind of agree with you. Its a strange tactic, if your goal is for Obama supporters like me to create a movement that tells Clinton to drop out. That is your goal, right?

it is hard to imagine where things will go from here.

many of the obama supporters i know, are resolute in not casting a vote for hillary if she becomes the nominee.
....perhaps some clinton supporters, as mentioned here, feel the same way toward obama.

...one of the other sadnesses will be the disillusionment of so many young voters and their returning back into the woodwork if the contentiousness and acrimony worsens.
it was a great tactical error for hillary clinton to have mocked the supporters of barack obama in her celestial choirs speech.

i kept imagining caroline kennedy and catherine sibelius listening to her that day. that speech will be costly to the democratic party.
also, if attacks continue to be made on obama, i would like to understand how the clintons have been able to withhold their tax returns. they must have an army of tax advisors working on them, or something.

with all of the protest voting, against mccain, clinton and obama, maybe nader will be our next president.

al gore, this is all your fault! :-)

many of the obama supporters i know, are resolute in not casting a...

Jacqueline, there should be no comma between "i know" and "are." It just makes your statement harder to read.

one of the other sadnesses will be the disillusionment of so many young voters

I have to disagree with this one. If Obama loses, young voters will receive a necessary and formative growing experience that so many of us had when we were young voters and went out to support an "inspiring" candidate who goes down in flames. If Obama wins the nomination, those voters will end up missing out on that opportunity and perhaps end up the worse for it, because they'll have gotten into politics without learning how to suffer!

tyro....

your comment reminded me of something.
i had a best friend for many years, who recently passed away...she was an amazingly streetsmart goyll from the bronx...i would always see the world as i wished it to be, and she always saw it clearly, just as it was.
and whenever i would tell her about good learnings that came from sad experiences, she would always say,
"yeah, yeah, yeah...you can learn alot from being in a terrible motorcycle accident, but who the hell needed it in the first place."
....it reminded me of your comment.

sometimes, i would complain to her about how things could easily have had different outcomes....such as in politics...
and she would say...
"yeah, yeah, yeah...and if your mother had balls, she would be your father."

somehow, her way of seeing the world put everything into humorous, philosophical perspective.
i wish she was still around, especially on days like today.

(and sorry about the little floating comma. i am not good with grammar so i use my dots to represent breath intakes and reflective pauses.)

I have to disagree with this one. If Obama loses, young voters will receive a necessary and formative growing experience that so many of us had when we were young voters and went out to support an "inspiring" candidate who goes down in flames.

I'm usually on board with you, Tyro, but I have to disagree with your disagreement (assuming that it's not just snark). The disillusioned youth are far less likely to become wiser Democrats than unaligned under-30s and later, independent/swing suburban parents. IME, they're attached to Obama precisely because they're rejecting the Clintonian model of politics, and by the time they regain interest the GOP will have significantly retooled its message. Losing them-- a generation at least the size of the boomers'-- is a big risk, and I'm quite sure that the GOP won't be so foolish as to ignore their needs and motivations in the future.

FTR, I'm a gen-Xer and not in love with the kids by any means, but my generation was always going to be less influential anyway, so I think it's important to start thinking more than one cycle ahead for a change.

Why is that rule okay, and the superdelegate rule not okay?

Pledged delegates are bound in principle to the candidate whose votes selected them. Superdelegates have no such guiding principle unless you look to how they're chosen. Perhaps they are theoretically bound to their constituency, if they were elected, and to the Party if they're just appointed officiais. But there's no sort of official direction from the Party telling them that's the case, hence it injects anarchic principles antithetical to the rule of law into the process.

Given that the natural state for superdelegate votes is anarchic, it legitimizes criticizing any superdelegate vote.

even if she gets the FL delegates as she rightly should?

OK, Obama supporters, go spin and tell us why this would not be "fair."
- Billyblog

I'm an Obama supporter, and I've been asking for a redo since Super Tuesday. We don't have a problem with individual states, unlike some campaigns. Our problem is rules were decided upon that said those primaries would not count, and everyone agreed to those rules, and then suddenly someone changed their mind because counting them would favor them.

Since February 5 there have only been two realistic scenarios regarding Michigan and Florida. Either one of the candidates would build up enough of a lead that the other would drop out and then the Michigan and Florida delegates could be seat as is. The other possible scenario was some sort of redo.

The only people I have seen that haven't been arguing rationally on this has been Clinton supporters demanding the delegations be seated as is.

If the VP is a useless job someone needs to have told Gore and Cheney that.

Al Gore is seriously one of your examples for the Vice Presidency having some value? Seriously, there were probably 50 democratic politicians with more "profile" in the Clinton years than Al Gore.

But actually Gore is a better example of what I am talking about. Since dissociating himself from the particular political circle of the Clinton's, he has done far more good and been worth much more and is arguably a much more viable candidate for... well just about any position her wishes to occupy, political or otherwise. I don't mean to lay that all on the Clintons but the truth is that being a fifth wheel in their administration did not do him a whole lot of favors politically. It certainly didn't give him much freedom to build the kind of political coalition and create the kind of transformation that he has after his exciting career waiting to break a tie in the Senate.

Cheney is, of course, a special case that is less about the inherent powers of the VP as much as it is about the willingness of this particular president to let him do whatever the hell he wants. Frankly, its been pretty clear that Cheney is the one driving a lot of policy in that White House. You cannot possibly believe that those conditions will be repeated in a Clinton White House.

Look, I am not the average American voter so these sorts of arguments you are making won't work on me.

You're addressing me? I was the one who wrote that your argument may have some merit other than the part about the VP. I don't even think that part was stupid. I just don't see how it helps Obama politically in any way, shape or form to become some forgotten, worthless functionary in a sure to be embattled Clinton administration. He has much brighter political prospects than a Vice Presidency, whatever else happens from here on in.

I'm usually on board with you, Tyro, but I have to disagree with your disagreement (assuming that it's not just snark).

It was some snark, but not just snark. One reason I'd like Obama to win is, as you point out, because it would solidify a Democratic hold on a new generation of voters... I almost feel a little jealous that their big foray into activism (Obama) may well end up becoming a historic moment while mine (Howard Dean) was most notable for imploding, and the best I can do is claim a moral victory.